Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
|
Re more Home Office nonsense.
Consider the
facts...
In a statement, the Home Office emphasised that
the note should not be taken as gospel by anyone. It said:
"We can't comment on the legal position of targeted online advertising services. It is up for [sic] the courts to interpret the law.
"We did prepare an informal guidance note. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. It wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology."
It was
not intended for publication, but was disseminated by one of the companies.
"The note expressed a
generalised view on whether RIPA was relevant to targeted online advertising. However,
it was not formal guidance nor was it a definitive statement of the law. "
Based on the FACT that the HO cannot say whether it is legal or not and DID NOT examine the technology nor did they instruct any technical experts to examine it, the Home Office 'informal guidance note' should be withdrawn with immediate effect. They should never have given the view in the first place.
It's a good job that it was leaked into the public domain to show how incompetent the Home Office is on such matters.
They will not retract, no doubt because of the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong.
Because of this absurdity, both phorm and BT believe they can commit corporate eavesdropping without fear of redress.