Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch
As opposed to what? The illegality of BTs covert trials has not been tested in a court of law yet. If Alex, or anyone else for that matter, didn't use the word 'belief' or 'alleged', then they might be liable to be sued under libel laws.
Does this change the fact that in many people's opinion, including IT professionals and specialists, and government bodies that BTs conduct was illegal and unethical? No, it certainly doesn't.
btw: Do you have any personal interest in seeing Phorm succeed?
|
You can only be guilty of libel or defamation if what you say is knowingly untrue. In order for me to be sued the comments I have made would need to be proved to be untrue and it would also need to be proved that I made the statements knowing they were untrue. This means the court would need to make a judgement as to whether or not BT did break the law in order to determine whether or not my comments were true.
I hope you can see where I am going here?
BT and Phorm already rattled their sabres at me and threatened to sue me if I did not remove certain comments from the NoDPI web site, I refused to do so and told them I would welcome the opportunity to defend my claims in court and that I would expect a letter from their lawyers to initiate that. They didn't take me up on my offer.
If BT and Phorm believed beyond a doubt that their trials of the technology were legal I am sure they would have sued me long before now.
Alexander Hanff