Quote:
Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe
Point 8 says that it is not certain either way under RIPA whether website owners’ consent to interception of open web traffic can be taken as implied. The key phrase here is “it may be arguedâ€Â. Another interesting point is that law distinguishes the inbound message from the outbound message (RIPA 3(1)(b) as opposed to 3(1)(a)). And other laws may also make the use of the intercepted data illegal. Again, any thoughts on this from Alexander would be useful. And again, if Phorm goes ahead I expect this will be argued in Court sooner or later.
|
"5. Licence for website access
Amazon.co.uk grants you a limited licence to access and make personal use of this website, but not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of Amazon.co.uk. This licence does not include any resale or commercial use of this website or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of this website or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools.
This website or any portion of this website may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without our express written consent."
I don't think that “it may be argued†that amazon give any consent for interception.
Taken across the whole WWW this would seem to be a major stumbling block for phorm.