[popper]

Originally Posted by CWH

Just a thought. Can anyone explain the difference between BT, who has already tested over 100,000 customers and going to do further tests, and VM who reputedly haven't done any tests at all, (apart from - in their words - a small lab test).
It would appear to me, that these two different approaches can't be reconciled, particularly when VM tell that all 'Due Diligence' will be completed prior to roll-out.

Colin

the most obvious one is that the BT executives and personel involved in the Unlawful RIPA interception in 2006/7 are under direct threat of a criminal conviction at some point in the future.

were as the other two firms are as yet until evidence emerges are not, currently.

"remember RIPA conviction for UK executives case law already exists.

the lost RIPA appeal of Stanford's
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
"
Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

3 February 2006

Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

....
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a defence to an individual who intercept a communication in the course of its transmission from a private telecommunication system, if they can establish:

a) that they are entitled to control the operation of the system; or

b) they have the express or implied consent of such a person to make the interception.

Stanford relied on the position that he had gained access to the emails through a company employee. The employee apparently was given access to usernames and passwords on the email server.

Therefore, Stanford argued, he was entitled to access the emails as “a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the system”.

Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that
“right to control”
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation. [that mean YOU users as the owner of the data]

Stanford appealed the judge’s decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin’s view. It pointed out that the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford’s sentence of 6 months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld.

Daniel Doherty"