[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I got an email this evening. Emma is "disappointed" that I have declined to remove the comments about them misleading ICO and has stated they will continue to monitor the situation. No more talk of legal action. So yes basically it would seem BT were indeed trying to menace me. I will look into this but I am sure there is something in the law with regards to threatening someone with legal action if you never intend to follow through with the threat.

Alexander Hanff

You had an email from Emma tonight wonder why she didn't answer my questions then well suppose it is time to put the questions on the forums so others can see what she is avoiding.

1. BT Retail BT Retail serves consumer customers and small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK, providing a range of *innovative products and services*. It also comprises BT Ireland and our Enterprises division.

I really think shareholders need to be given a complete rundown on what they are and if they include the targeted advertising?

2. BT Design and BT Operate *BT Design is responsible for the design and deployment of the platforms,* systems and processes which support our products and services, and *BT Operate is responsible for their operation.

*Here I highlighted two sections since both are relevant. I have read where BT ran phorm without BT design involved in this operation is this correct?
On the second bold reading the news leaked and other things about phorm BT Operate didn't do the operation of Phorm it was 121media why are the shareholders not being made aware of this?

3. Going back on the ICO where I have many emails on one of my questions I had this reply.
> 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".
>
Since BT design and BT Operate didn't have total control over these trials you cannot be 100% sure what was processed, what was logged or if it was in a way that they people could be identified. Scripting only needs a small line with a get command and the PC would tell them everything. Unless you are a extremely good scripter you wouldn't understand the scripts. Looking at the paragraph from ICO plus post around the forums you excluded the very people who could read the scripts was there a reason why? Plus to the shareholders you make it look like BT Design and BT Operate were handling Phorm, this puts them in bad position since you openly say they are responsible for the operation when they had no control 121media had total control. That is how it looks at present many are now wondering how much control you are passing onto Phorm?