[Rchivist]

As the BT Webwise/Phorm trials theoretically approach, (due by May 26th according to latest BT claims) and the likelihood of 10,000 BT customers having their browsing intercepted so that they can be given the invitation to join the trials, the issue of "inphormed choice" becomes rather urgent.

I am pressing BT to give me detailed arguments (and to give ALL their customers open access to such arguments when invited to join Webwise) as to how they think this system is LEGAL. Because the only detailed published opinions on the legality of Webwise so far, suggest it is illegal on multiple counts, BT are failing in their duty of inphorming customers, by not issuing detailed rebuttals of those criticisms of Webwise/Phorm made by FIPR, Richard Clayton, Alex Hanff, et al.

Their earlier claims about consultation with the Home Office have fallen apart with the recent HO notes.
The Ertugrul garbage about Pricacy International audits and his reliance on some irrelevant US auditing firm Ernst & Young (accountants who are no strangers to FTC punishments), don't cut the mustard either.
The ICO have toughened their stance, particularly on opt-IN and informed choice.
The FIPR analysis remains UNanswered by Phorm or BT.

As a BT customer I am still without detailed information from my ISP that tells me this system is legal. It is not enough for BT to simply "reassure" me, because any average rational BT customer who hasn't been asleep for the last twelve months, will take such BT management statements with about a ton of salt, because BT have a clear record of dissembling on the whole subject of Phorm, and have NO grounds for expecting me to trust them.

The government are also dragging their feet in refusing to answer written questions put to them in the House of Lords.

So BT - you say you have done due diligence.

Lots of people I DO trust say this Webwise/Phorm system is illegal.

YOU say it's legal but refuse to give me the details. How do you rebutt Nicholas Bohm from FIPR?
What is your answer to Alex Hanff?

Point by point please?

RIPA?
DPA?
Fraud Act?
PECR?
Civil liability to website owners?

If you won't do this, then you are refusing to inform me properly about Webwise. I can't make an informed choice. So you are breaking the law if you present me with an invitation to join Webwise, without giving me (and 10,000 other customers) a lot more legal infomation than you have currently supplied. It is NOT enough to say "we have carried out - er - um - sought extensive legal advice". The weight of published opinion on this subject is AGAINST Phorm/Webwise. You must redress the balance, if you can, and if you genuinely wish to offer your customers the opportunity to make inphormed consent.