Quote:
Originally Posted by tarka
"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!!
|
its perfectly clear , they are intentionally misleading the points and trying to cover it in flowery language and legalese
the mention of RIPA stanford case by me a while back, and their misdirection makes that perfectly clear in their response on the outlaw site elsewere.
its a simple 'rock and a hard place' just like the 80/20 scenario, outlaw/Pinsent Masons solicitors is used in many online news items, and they are also on the books of the ISP/Phorm paymasters, not a clever place to be right now.
while the znet reporter(s) are clearly quite Pro-Phorm, if you read the quotes its seems clear they have struggled to whitewash this.
dont be misguided or fall for the slight of hand in that news copy.
Martin Selmayr is a member of Viviane Reding's team and you can also contact him on that same fax machine
Martin Selmayr
Spokesman
BERL 2/330
(+32-2) 298.12.30
martin.selmayr@ec.europa.eu
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barro...m/index_en.htm
theres clearly large team there that are far more qualifyed to answer and look into all this once they have the facts from our side of the fence, rather than the ISP/Phorm, ICO arse covering PR text.
this seems clear enough
""We are looking into [the BT and Phorm trials], but a national sovereign state's decision
can only
be challenged if it commits a serious mistake," said Selmayr. "We're looking into it, but so far there has been no indication of that.""
"
However, on Wednesday
the Commission said it could only
take action if the Information Commissioner's Office itself could be shown to have taken a decision which contravened regulations, in deciding not to take action against BT and Phorm."
the question remains where are these regulations and what Exactly do they say?
surely it cant be that hard to see them and see if and were the ICO might have missteped.
i suspect its an ICO junior member making errors, or perhaps someone higher up implyed he shold be trying it on, to be corrected later by the big ICO lads and lasses if they cant pull it off.
BTW Tobys personal stance seems clear, shame he doesnt come here and air his personal views (mark them personal and alls well toby, go on you know you want to , you are allowed a personal POV
)
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/...t-spreads.html
"
Glad to see this one has brought the comments in, thank you for your input everyone.
Just to clear one point up: my role here is as an occasional commentator on privacy issues. I have my own personal opinions about the Phorm product set, but I keep those to myself. CW is a respected publication and I'm not going to publish (or be permitted to publish) my own speculation or theories on this site.
I also believe very strongly that if an organisation is taking a beating over its privacy practices, you have to stop kicking it when its down and give it a chance to sort the problems out - hence keeping quiet on Phorm. If Phorm go live without addressing campaigners' concerns then you can rest assured I'll have something to say about that :-)
Commenters are, of course, welcome to share their opinions!"