Quote:
Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters
Again I agree, but I feel that it is open to interpretation;
Article 3 of European Directive 2006/24/EC
Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58/EC lay down the rules applicable to the processing by network and service providers of traffic and location data generated by using electronic communications services. Such data must be erased or made anonymous when no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, except for the data necessary for billing or interconnection payments. Subject to consent, certain data may also be processed for marketing purposes and the provision of valueadded services.
Article 5 of European Directive 2006/24/EC
Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC sets out the conditions under which ember States may restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided or in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of that irective. Any such restrictions must be necessary, appropriate and roportionate within a democratic society for specific public order purposes, .e. to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public ecurity or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communications ystems.
The above is the Directive which is the driving force behind the Data Retention, you should note that Article 3 makes it possible for Services such as Phorm to be Implemented and Article 5 give the reasoning behind the Directive.
IMHO - if we do not grasp the opportunity to involve the Campaign in the protest in October, we will be effectively allowing the implementation of the Legislations that are clearly designed to Legitimise the likes of Phorm.
EDIT: Also compare the wording for Article 3 with the Phorm Webwise System - and you have a 100% match. This is clearly what they are using, or attempting to use, to Legitimise Webwise. So therefore this is very relevant to Phorm.
|
This may be what phorm are atempting to use but glancing over the directive as seen
here I note the following sentence:
Article 5
Categories of data to be retained.
2. No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive.
It is my interpretation that the Phorm system requires the content in order to profile it?
There is no doubt that this is a grey area and open to interpretation. The fact is that it should not be open to interperetation, it should be clear cut - and probably is to those who understand it, which is why I suggested earlier that the government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done.
All impending trials of this technology need to be officially and publicly stopped, right now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called in and a test case is put before the courts. The experts who wrote those directives are the ones who know whether or not they confirm or deny the legality of the phorm technology.
If our government will not call a halt and apply the legislation then the EU should do it for them.