[vicz]

The following is not aimed at any poster(s) in particular, but is the result of having digested the ICO FOI response and 'slept on it'.

I think it is pretty obvious that the ICO and to a certain extent the Home Office have been a bit gullible and, deliberately or not, have been supportive of BT and phorm, against the best interest of the public. However, we need to remain focussed on BT and phorm as the villains of this piece. They managed to sucker-in the HO and ICO using their PR spin and maybe contacts in high places. We have all seen how this operates, and while one might have hoped that the ICO in particular would have shown a bit more healthy scepticism, the fact is that they have to balance the rights of legitimate businesses and the consumer. The behaviour of BT in particular probably came as something of a shock to them as the true story emerged. But properly informed, the ICO remains one of our strongest potential allies. And the documents show that they did highlight the opt-in requirements, which may yet prove to be a mortal blow. So I think our interests are probably best served by providing them with the ammunition to hold BT and phorm to account, rather than berating them for their alleged incompetence, satisfying though this may be.

The tide may appear to be turning in our favour but I'm sure we all agree we can't afford to relax our efforts yet.