Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1
on thing you miss, the data is available to the system admins in the form of the diagnostic logs, which we are told are kept for upto 14 days but not told what happens after that
peter
|
I think this was mentioned. If they keep any logs that contain what is deemed communication data then would likely be an interception under RIPA (if it's stored it can be accessed by someone). However, they may well change what is logged for the roll out and we don't know what was logged during the trials either. If they logged IP addresses, I don't think that is communication data, but traffic data, so may not fall fowl of RIPA. It would however come under DPA, as it is PII.
Looking at the bigger picture -
There are many potential legal problems with what phorm is trying to do. Whilst it may be possible to work within the bounds of the law, it certainly isn't easy. The trials seem to fall well short of the requirements for legality. (no consent from anyone at all, code injection, etc.) However a lot of the evidence relating to the trials has probably conveniently disappeared now. All that we are left with is the claims of phorm and BT. The same claims that got them the all clear from the legal advice they sought.
I imagine an exchange something like this:
"We don't store anything and We don't use any PII"
"Well it should be legal then"
Of course, they do store various bits of data, and they do process PII, and they do copy copyrighted content. All of which puts the legality into serious doubt.
I know some of you don't care about the legality or not - "it simply must be stopped". To which I say this: If it is found to be illegal by a court, then it will be stopped - dead.
P.S. (Going off on a tangent slightly) I'm surprised that any lawyer would give a simple statement that something was legal. It'd leave them too vulnerable. Instead I'd expect something along the lines of "Based on the information available to me at this time, I believe that the proposal in its current form is unlikely to be in breach of <specific act of parliament>"