Quote:
Originally Posted by warescouse
I disagree. Monitoring the presence of a cookie must be classed as interception. Also all the contents of the communication is available to someone who is not the sender or the recipient IMHO.
|
I believe it
should be classed as an interception. However I'm not sure that a court would class it as such under RIPA. Baroness Miller said, "They intercepted people's communications without their consent. That can't be any more legal than someone slitting open a letter addressed to me and reading the contents." I agree with the sentiment, but I think there is potentially an important difference between phorm and someone opening letters. Phorm uses machines, not people, to read your communications. If phorm can demonstrate that no part of the communication is made available to a person, then it is not an interception under RIPA. The Baroness also said, "If the trials were not illegal, which they should be, it is because the law hasn't kept pace with technology". I agree unreservedly with that statement.
Note: I am not legally trained and this is only my opinion. I am in no way endorsing any of phorms past or planned activities.