Hank

Already done LOL!


Dear Sir or Madam,

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office) has stated that the Home Office was asked by a number of
parties for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

How many parties requested this information about RIPA 2000 and compatibility of targeted advertising prior to the writing of the
January document produced in answer to these questions? (published here http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf)

When were the requests received?

How many of the parties making such requests are British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in the UK?

Other than Phorm, have any other non-ISPs made such requests prior to the writing of the paper referenced above?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

I'm sure there are more questions that we can ask but these are the most interesting ones I could think of. I think if one asks too many then it can easily become what they term vexacious (spelling?) as it costs a lot of time to pull answers together. Will see what comes of it...

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Patricia Hewitt has been kind enough to respond to a second email I sent her. Unfortunately I'm still quite new to all this (never felt so strongly about a need to stop something!) and I did not say I wanted to publish her response, so I will paraphrase very carefully to keep the meaning the same:

Dear Mrs Hewitt

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I have to say though, given the current information available and the detail that BT has provided you with, I believe that the actions of BT may not have been legal.

I fully agree with them that if no personal information was stored or used then it was not illegal under the Data Protection Act. However, 'RIPA' is another matter and they intercepted the communication of thousands of customers without any legal authority to do so. I don't see how that action could be seen as within the bounds of the law.
I am xx years old and when someone tells me that customer research says something I know that the detail behind the statement is what matters. In your business you will be very well aware that surveys will obtain answers in support or against a position depending on the way the questions are asked and the specifc content of the questions. Therefore, assurances based on reference to the research do not work without full published detail which makes it somewhat worthless. I do understand BT is a plc, so publishing might be completely unacceptable in terms of the competitive nature of the sector.

Thank you again for your contact. It is unfortunate that the secret trials took place. It is very concerning that BT are working with Phorm at all and, since contacting you previously, my views are now firmly set that this use of the interception is wrong and should be stopped.

Regards


She thanked me for my email, she's checked the exact detail with colleagues at BT and confirmed that, before conducting the small-scale trials in question, BT took advice on the legal situation.

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

She does remind me about how the forthcoming trial will be on an opt-in basis, so customers are entirely free not to take the service and the BT team is confident that their legal position is robust.

She acknowledges that the BT Board will want to debate the trial after it has run, but she doesn't think that it would be right for BT to end their business relationship with Phorm when the trial has not yet run its course.

Note to self: Tell them you will publish their response unless they ask you not to!!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

I've had a letter from the ICO - They've assigned a case worker to my questions. It's taken them 7 weeks to do that which they say sorry for. They enclose detail of how long it can take to complete cases and respond fully. So... I see it could be a long wait for an outcome!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Hmmm. Good point popper... I do wonder what changed their mind on that... Alexander? Dr C? Was it one of you perhaps?



Hank