Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo
According to this even the EU Commissioner doesn't really want to get involved. 
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9432962,00.htm
I think the EU Commissioner needs an avalanche of correctly worded letters pointing out that the trials were illegal.
It's plain and simple in black and white. Communications were intercepted WITHOUT consent. Customer data was processed WITHOUT consent. |
"Technically, over whether the technology breaches the law, the jury's still out," said Jay. "Because [Phorm] uses technology just to look at activity and deliver results based on that activity, it's difficult to say if that's an interception. We need another vocabulary, as the law doesn't address the complexities of the technology."
How can they keep missing the point?!?! Although note that it is Pinsent Masons again (legal advisors to BT, although they deny giving any advice to BT about phorm). The same people that said while phorm may be technically illegal, it complies with the "spirit of the law".
So... user1 sends an http request to
www.website.com... resulting in a number of "packets" addressed the server the website is on. Instead of delivering the packets to their destination like they should, they instead "INTERCEPTED" the packets and read the contents!!!
It's not "just looking at activity", it is intercepting and collecting data that was addressed and intended for another recipient!! Even if you erase the data you have intercepted it doesn't change the fact that you INTERCEPTED and anaylsed data that was adressed to someone else!!!
Words cannot describe my anger at the ignorance of these people!
I am starting to think that they are deliberately acting dumb!!