Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter N
At this stage there's no real point in worrying about what may happen if Webwise is introduced because until and unless it is there have been no copyright breaches, no targetted children etc.
|
Are you forgetting the copyright breaches and targeting of the 2006 trial and copyright breaches of the 2007 trial (no ads displayed but they still used content which did not belong to them in the development of a commercial product)
Both trials involved adding additional code to the html code of the sites during delivery - generally that is called hacking.
---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter N
There's been something rattling around at the back of my mind for a while. It's one of those things where you know that something is wrong but you don't what it is - well I do now.
.....
Is it possible that BT and Phorm have been playing a crafty game in only ever mentioning PII in relation to Webwise and OIX?
|
This has been mentioned many times - the burglary and arson analogy. Innocent of arson and if no one talks about the burglary, then they are deemed innocent and UK law does not allow anyone to be tried twice on the same charge.
Phorm only ever talk about Phorm/Webwise/OIX. Even BT uses answers that are identical to the Phorm answers.
Whenever any questions are asked specifically of the BT side of the firewall (as per the BT diagram) the answer always centres around the legal advice comforting BT into knowing that they are not breaking any laws.