Quote:
Originally Posted by rryles
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.
|
Actually you are not entirely correct on this issue. The legislations which are relevant to this make it very clear that it doesn't matter whether it is a person or a piece of automated equipment carrying out the interception - without consent it is a criminal offence.
Alexander Hanff
---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Advocate
...
|
For the record:
BT Group PLC committed criminal violations of the following laws in their 2006 trials (and Phorm were complicit in those breaches):
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Computer Misuse Act
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
They -also- committed violations of the following civil laws and torts:
Data Protection Act
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act
I am perfectly happy to go on record and make this as a statement of fact and if BT wish to take me to court I would welcome the opportunity for said court to rule on this issue.
As for just a few people making wild accusations:
Nicholas Bohm - Legal Counsel for FIPR
Earl of Northesk - Peer in the House of Lords who was involved in the process of putting many of these laws into statute.
Baroness Miller - Peer in the House of Lords
Dr Richard Clayton - Technical Expert and member of FIPR/Lecturer at Cambridge University.
Information Commissioner - Stated that the trials DID breach PECR.
They are just a few of the people who state the trials were illegal.
So frankly, YOUR opinion is the one which is unsubstantiated, not ours.
Alexander Hanff