[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by popper

in this case Pete it wasnt officially published as such, hence the later "...not ment for publication" etc and the responses Florence posted here.

see "Home Office endorsement for Cryptome Richard Clayton "
on the threads here
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ypto/2008-May/

they were as suprised as you that the HO were endorsing Cypto, their nemesis it appears.

just reading the full (ish, note section 1 seems to be missing)

look at point 21, "consent of the ISP user and web page host would make that interception clearly lawful" followed by "the implied consent of a web page host (as indicated in para 15) MAY stand in the absense of any specific express consent"

para 15 says "it may be argued that section 3(1)(b) is satissfied in such a case because the host or publisher who makes a web page available for download from a server impliedly consents to those pages being downloaded"

there is a difference to me about being downloaded by an end user and it being profiled for profit by K*nt and his spyware

peter

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

Originally Posted by icsys

Is anyone compiling a list of questions for the AGM, assuming you gain access and have the opportunity to ask?

You could also request details of the 'significant due dilligence' in the area of security and legality which is so frequently mentioned, conducted on behalf of BT by Dun & Bradstreet.

There is something affoot on the webwise.com site too...
yesterday I was accessing http://www.webwise.com/privacy/opt/ where I could physically switch webwise off and on (despite it supposedly not being live). Today the same folder returns... 'Forbidden You don't have permission to access /privacy/opt/ on this server.'
I am trying to access today through Virgin, yesterday I was at work.
More changes to the opt-in opt-out I guess or is it the VM customers are blocked?.

are they getting ready for trials?