[The Other Steve]

We should take some encouragement from the article at least, since the very lawyers that have possibly been involved with advising BT on this issue have now publicly given their opinion that laws are being broken.

That might turn out not to be such a smart move on their part if it turns out that the CPS take a different view, or if someone can come up with a convincing legal argument showing that harm has in fact taken place, like, oh, I don't know, say a mass violation of Human Rights laws ? I note they take the Phorm line on the whole "implied consent" thing to, which is legally ridiculous as far as I can see (IANAL), viz google indexes pages, it doesn't intercept the user's interactions with a particular page, comparing the two seems fallacious in the extreme to me, but hey, IANA highly paid L for BT.

Interesting to see the DMA whinge and the Out-Law Out-Right admission of illegality turn up so close together. A different tack for the PR pixies, methinks, but perhaps not a wise one, sympathy for the DMA is low to non existent outside of that industry, for a start.

Fight desperate rearguard actions much PhormUKFlyingPRMonkeys ? You are so transparent I could use you as a component in a greenhouse, and you are still messing it up. No performance bonus for you lot this year.