Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1
my bold / UL so is this say that the HO should only give advice regarding interception under warrant? if so does that mean that phorm spoke to the wrong dept and got duff info?
and that BERR are the ones they should be checking with and so should we? anyone done an FoI request to DBERR?
note the important point "provision of value add service" AKA anti phishing
could it not be argued that to be a value add service it would need to be a service users required not duplicate one they already have? if this were so then webwise would lose its immunity from pecr as it would no longer be a value add service?
peter
|
There are no current FoI requests regarding BT/Phorm lodged with BERR
I know that BERR, along with the ICO, have been in discussions with BT over the webwise technology.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/berr