You've probably all reached a conclusion on this but I've been trawling through the documents from the ICO (very impressive it is too) which reveals the level of written communication between the ICO, Home Office, Phorm and BT alas, the "calls" referred to were not recorded.
I think that communication is the wrong word here isn't it?
Collusion
That's more like it!!
I have finally got to
ico_documents_covering_letters.pdf, which I probably should have read first, but having digested the bulk of the material and being a cynic, when the ICO said (Statement dated 4 April 2008 pg10 of 11)
"We will continue to maintain close contact with Phorm and BT throughout the trial. Clearly the trial should reveal whether this is a service that web users want, whether it is privacy friendly and that users are comfortable with the privacy safeguards put in place by Phorm"
Who was going to monitor the trial and provide the ICO with the answers to those questions?
Until the storm of protest that we are a part of - it was going to be Phorm and BT wasn't it?
Won't that still be the case??
At that point in April it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the ICO shared the same interpretation as Phorm and BT :
"whether it is privacy friendly" = "whether anyone realises what we're doing"
It's quite sickening when evidence of what you thought might be taking place is suddenly laid before you in black and white.
