Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
It strikes me that BT have delayed the trials because of unanswered questions that either they hadn't thought of, or that they didn't think the public would care about. And they have been retrofitting that trial like mad to try and make it "fit" the new climate. And they aren't ready yet.
<snip>
So what else might BT not have thought about, or be hoping that no one actually asks them?
|
As the cookie is set at browser level and not at account level, why is there a change to the account holder's terms and conditions? Surely it is the responsibility of the person connecting through a behaviour targeting advertisement sponsored connection to agree to any T&Cs relating to the service. [Reference the T&C used by the free Wi-Fi connections which are using similar profiling techniques to fund the service.]
Why is there no login provision to ensure that only those individuals who have consented to the interception are able to be intercepted?
What complaints procedure is in place? Who will be liable for accepting a contract to intercept usage where the person agreeing to that contract is not legally able to accept the terms.
Is BT maintaining an audit trail to show when each individual browser is allowing their data to be processed through the profiler?
What about an audit trail to show that those who are not opted into the profiler are not having any part of their data stream redirected to any part of the profiling system.
Legality: who is the legal entity responsible under law for the operation of each of the different elements of the profiling system? The diagram on the BT Webwise site shows different areas: 5 blue areas, 3 green areas, firewall, 2 orange areas, 1 pick area. Which laws apply to each area and which jurisdiction will any claim fall under? Where the legal entity is not a UK resident business, is BT the legal representative of that foreign business for the purposes of any claims under the law?
Who is responsible for the audit trail on each of the different coloured areas? Is there any area which does not provide an audit trail? [It has already been indicated that the anonymous nature of the whole system means that no one knows which user and which website is processed through the Data Mirror and the Profiler. Who has verified this and, if there is no audit trail, what control mechanisms are in place?]
What part, if any, of the Home Office report titled "Targeted Onlie Advertising: interception of communications or not? It it is, is it a lawful interception?" has been used to form the legal interpretation of whether or not BT's implementation of the OIX advertising exchange is legal?
What systems are in place to ensure that interceptions which fall outside the scope of the above Home Office report are not intercepted and processed by the profiling system: both BT and non-BT elements of the system. Who is legally responsible for any such interceptions?
Are BT and Phorm jointly and severally responsible under the law for everything and anything relating to the interception, monitoring and profiling systems?