[madslug]

When I spoke with Ms Plod, I was asked if I could provide evidence of a crime. BT have offered a very good catch 22 situation - they claim to not know who was profiled so are unable to provide IP address range data (possible DPA restrictions?). Everyone with access logs for that period could be sitting with all the proof that Plod requires to prove the case yet Plod is not prepared to initiate a case and require BT/Phorm/121Media to provide logged evidence unless there is a strong likelihood of success.

Is admission of a crime over a public media permissible evidence in Court?
What about the published opinion by out-law that it was only a 'technical breach' which did not cause harm to anyone?
When there is a 100% probability that content on my sites was used to target my visitors with an advert from my competition, even one advert, then my business has suffered potential harm from visitors being spied upon.

And, if any pro-phormers are reading this: this is not the same as a search engine displaying ads along with a link to my site. At that stage, they are not yet my visitor. They have a choice which ad to click on: a paid or free ad (natural listings are just a 'free' ad). With a search engine, all links are equal, the positioning of each link, free or paid, reflecting the amount of money spent to put it into that position. Even though the search engine logs which link has been clicked on, once off the search page it can no longer track what the visitor does nor where it goes.