Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
As I've said numerous times, please re-read my original messages. The RIPA argument relies on consent. It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content.
I am actually trying to strengthen the anti-Phorm argument by challenging some of what I see as the weaker points being used in letters to MPs to hopefully focus people's minds on what I see as the stronger points.
My view, my opinion, your choice.
|
good.
you are aware that there are more people on this very thread, that have had, and have, direct contact with simon watkins in this RIPA regard, far more responses than the single reference in the original news posts....
several searchs have seen several quotes for instance
#
4017
Dephormation
Pete
"More reasons to love the web
Protecting privacy and protecting the public
[Simon Watkins]All data should be protected by their service providers. The law requires all disclosure and investigation of communications data to be strictly necessary and appropriate in the specific circumstances – never more than is necessary and never inappropriate, arbitrary or discriminatory."
"#3415 15-04-2008
Florence said:
I have had a reply to my email sent to Simon Watkin, he was informed this would be posted here, so here goes.
Quote:
Florence,
Simon Watkin said:
Firstly, I should explain that the Home Office was approached by a number of
parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In response to those requests we prepared an informal guidance note.
That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give.
Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology.
There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual, and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user is considered to be interested in a category of advertising.
As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all depends on how they are offered and how they work.
> > To me this is unlawful interception of my surfing habits on the second
> > point I already block all advertisements online never see them so why
> > would I want this company to snoop on my clicks to target me with
> > adverts from only companies signed upto their packages.
You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the protection of their personal data.
Explicit consent should be informed consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do.
> > .... you are opening a whole Pandora's box with this ruling which might
> > come back later on and bite you back.
It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully.
> > I hope that you will review this and take a look at the illegal trials
> > undertaken by BT and Phorm in 2006/2007 where thousands of people where
> > intercepted without their consent.
My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable
information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".
Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE
[1]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ch/083561.html
"