Quote:
Originally Posted by mark777
I've spent the last hour or so going through the leaked document again and it's still mind-boggling how much 'dirt' is in there.
|
I've posted an analysis with 13 points in it, (12 of which are not about charity ads) over on BT Beta forums - it may be helpful for anyone planning an ICO letter or MP letter because I've put in page numbers etc. to save everyone squinting at the scan.
I mentioned this a day ago but a lot of sewage has flowed under the bridge since then.
You should be able to access it here (scroll down to my post on June 5th 11.27am)
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...t=750&tstart=0
I've also expressed my views on the legal heavyweight action in a seperate post - just got back from London and am catching up!
I really wonder whether Bt would want to be taken through that leaked document point by point in front of a jury. It's not as if their reputation could have been damaged by the noDPI article - it was on the floor already - and a courtroom cross examination of a BT executive with detailed questioning of all the things they have have done and said would be most unwelcome for them.
Imagine them discussing their understanding of the word "transparency" as used in the leaked document, and then asking them what it means when Kent uses it in a PR statement or when he speaks to his privacy auditors or the ICO
Imagine getting them to explain in court just what they meant by "stealth trial" - or "avoiding any perception that their system is a virus" (while reminding them what their support staff called it when Stephen Mainwaring rang them.) - getting them to explain the circumvention of T&C's by 121Media's cookie dropping campaign - the monitoring of helpdesk calls while not actually "helping" any customers who wanted to know what the *** was going on - their awareness of customer complaints about the trials but their cover up of what they were doing - their intention to improve "transparency" in the second trial (which sort of transparency was that Ms Sanderson? Your sort or the sort Phorm PR team were touting? Covering up while pretending to be open?) - the admission of javascript injection - the misinformation regarding IP addresses in terms of submissions to the ICO when it would seem that IP addresses were in fact available -
Do they really want to be taken through all that in cross examination?
As well as have either a lawyer or Alex take them through his paper on the trials, paragraph by paragraph and ask them about it - in court - under oath? Are they sure they want to do that?