Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1
on going saga with dear emma
sent today as not heard from here regarding my questions,
peter
******************
Emma,
I have been waiting for a reply from you explaining to me why BT think they do not have to check credentials online before changing the terms and conditions of a customers contract to ensure it is the account holder who is authorising this change?
the approach as regards WebWise seems in total contrast to all other dealings I have with BT,
to check my children's browsing history in parental controls, I have to authenticate
to talk to someone at BT I have to passed DPA question to ensure I am the account holder
to pay my bill online I have to create an account and authenticate
to change my contract and sign away my privacy and to accept WebWise and provide BT with a new revenue stream, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE I AM THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OR AUTHENTICATE MY CREDENTIALS
just a tad inconsistent
I await your answer with interest, and it will be published on the BT forum and cable forum
regards
Peter
|
I've just reminded her of those issues today as well. She also mentioned in her reply to me that the interstitial page in the ICO/FOI bundle was a draft and that she was confident that the final one would meet requirements of the legislation. So I have reminded her that she was confident that the 2006/2007 trials were legal but the ICO differs, and that no one had mentioned the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in respect of the interstitial/invitation page.
My email included the following:
IMHO - in order to be remotely legal the "interstitial page" will need to
a) only be offered to customers while they are logged in to and visit a bt.com or BTYahoo page, and only while the customer is logged in as the primary account holder. (not offered to minors, not offered to sub account holders). If the page pops up during ordinary browsing of non BT sites it will constitute an illegal interception - effectively a browser hijack.
If it is offered to minors, then the change in the T&C's of the primary account holder that their acceptance will involve, is UNenforceable, and if it is offered to sub account holders, then the change in T&C's that their acceptance will involve is unenforceable.
You will also need to address the issue of targeting of adverts to minors and explain that in the invitation page so that the primary account holder can fully evaluate that particular issue.
b) contain adequate information about Webwise technology which the copy sent to the ICO certainly does NOT, in order to conform to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Representing Webwise simply as a means of reducing irrelevant adverts, or antiphishing protection, will be a breach of these regulations.
c) only be offered if the informed consent of website owners that the customer might visit while participating in the trials, can be obtained and verified BEFORE their unique data exchange with their customers is profiled, before the content of their websites is copied and exploited, before derivative copies of their websites are made for commercial gain (a CRIMINAL offence) and before forged cookies are made incorporating their domain name. You should be aware that there are many websites out there waiting for Webwise customers to visit their sites, at which point they will commence reporting BT for criminal (yes - criminal) breaches of the copyright laws.
d) the trials can only proceed if there is absolutely NO way that ANY traffic from non-opted in customers goes anywhere near the Phorm software. I am unable at present to see ANY way in which you can legally intercept traffic of all customers to find out whether they are opted in to the trial without access to BT Wholesale equipment or by illegally intercepting the traffic of non-opted in customers.
Hopefully that will give ES something to think about, and at the very least, they can't say they weren't warned.