[popper]

Originally Posted by Hank

I followed the email route to the Attorny General's Office. This is, I'm afraid, what was said...

I said:

// MY EMAIL //
In 2006 and 2007 BT now openly admits that it secretly intercepted thousands of their customer's communications. They repeatedly state that no personal information was retained or used but I do not understand why this precludes them from investigation and possibly prosecution because as I understand it, the interceptions they carried out are in direct contravention of the law, according to 'RIPA'

The Information Commissioner directed complaints to the Home Office. The Home Office has stated that they have no investigatory powers and cannot require an investigation by the police. I have seen no indications that BT customers who know they were affected have achieved any action from their local police services.

I therefore write to you to ask whom is responsible for ensuring that the actions of individuals and the BT plc company are properly investigated because it would appear that this is being ignored. If they broke the law, this cannot be allowed to remain unchecked.

What steps have been taken already? What process is being followed?

Thank you.
// END OF MY EMAIL //

They replied:

// EMAIL FROM NAMED INDIVIDUAL xxxxx.xxxxx@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk //

Thank you for your email to the Attorney Generals Office, your email has been passed to me for reply.

The Attorney General is principal legal advisor to government and as such is unable to offer legal aid or assistance to individuals, this office does not perform a investigatory function and in regards to your request we are unable to assist.

If you feel a crime has been committed then you should contact your local police authority for them to investigate. If you have not already tried them you could also contact the Office of Telecommunications Ombudsman, their web site address is www.otelo.org.uk

Yours Sincerely

Correspondence Unit
// END QUOTE //

So, who are we saying should actually be doing something about investigating and bringing BT to account for this???

Hank

thats obviously just a stock answer by an aid , its clear they dont understand the points raised as can be sumised by the reference to OTELO.

infact its in the same vain as simons at the home office and the ICO office first replys when this all started..

obfuscateing the senders email in this case means we cant follow up and explain it and all the points raised in detail to them.

perhaps next time you write any letters in reply, you make sure you include the fact you will be publishing it in full on the cable forum unless asked not to, to make it clear we require direct meaningful answers to the question's put.