Quote:
Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters
This has blown the claim by Phorm out of the water that they do not use PII**, and has created further doubt to whether the updated version of the System will also use PII, this will now need clear verification to either prove or disprove. (**The European Data Commission had indicated that the IP Address for any Internet User IS PII)
|
Ok, one thing I would like to add. IP address is NOT PII in any legal act. It may one day become PII but it is not classed as such yet.
I have changed my position based on legal papers presented to me by Dr Clayton. My last comment on the subject was:
I defer to the legal analysis of Nicholas Bohm and retract (though I’ll leave the full original post here for the record) my previous comments. I now agree that a full investigation should be carried out.
If laws have been broken then I agree with you that BT should be prosecuted on your second point for all the reasons you mentioned.
My understanding without any evidence to the contrary (indeed the Home Office/ICO seemed satisfied) was that section 18 of Nicholas Bohms’ document was satisfied. I refer to this section:
“RIPA s3 is relevant to whether that interception can be lawful. RIPA s3(1) makes it lawful if the interception has the consent of both sender and recipient (or if the interceptor has reasonable grounds for believing
that it does).â€Â
My understanding based on your document was that this was satisfied by getting consent from both the consumer and the advertising network.
I don't think anyone in my industry agrees with deception and therefore I will write another post to re-iterate my position.