[Frank Rizzo]

I guess I need to give an update from my perspective.

BT Business Broadband
Yes I was a BT Business Broadband customer. A more than happy business broadband customer from 2001 up until June 2007 when all the lies and deception started.

note some of the differences between business broadband and home broad band were

20:1 contention ratio instead of 50:1
Free helpline number instead of XX per minute
Better webspace and email facilities
Payment quarterly (I think home you have to pay monthly?)
Cost was effectively 17.5% higher than home broadband (VAT exclusive / inclusive)

I run my online business at home. The limited company paid for the internet connection. As the director I authorised my self and my family to use the internet connection for personal use in accordance with Inland Revenue Homeworking guidelines.

So how come my 'business' internet connection was being intercepted by sysip.net? How many other businesses (either small, work from home, medium, SDSL, leased line businesses were also being intercepted?

Yes, the Kingston RAS was the key here. BT have always said that 'The tests were done on ONE EXCHANGE' so that would be Weston-S-Mare then?

No. What they are not telling you is that the test was done on ONE SUPER EXCHANGE - the Kingston RAS. This is a RAS where something like a third to a half of all BT connections go through. It covers an area from South Wales, South West, West, South East and parts of London.

Anyone within those areas could have been part of the trials.

ICO Investigating
I don't want to make this post seem like a rant about the ICO but every question I ask them is replied with weasel words and cop outs. They also seem to be desperate to find technicalities in order to not investigate the matter fully.

I will just point out one of the latest responses from them.

When I informed them that IP addresses are personally identifiable information, and thus they have a duty to investigate the processing of MY data under the DPA, they wrote back to me saying:

"As your internet connection was paid for by your limited company... the DPA only applies to living beings rather than companies ... we will therefore not investigate further."

Quite astonishing that. I replied with:

"I authorised the use of the internet connection for my self for personal use and for my family. At the time of the trials my son was using the internet daily. BT had therefore intercepted and processed the personal data of my self and my family without our consent. What is the point of the ICO and the DPA if a large company can profile and process the personal data of a minor and get away with it?".

European Commission
When all this erupted back in February / March someone told me that it would be up to Europe to sort this mess out. At the time I thought it did not have to go that far: we have the ICO, the home office, the police, MPs who would be eager to get justice done.

I can now see that communicating with them has produced more action than if I had gone straight to the local police - as it was suggested to me a few months ago.

(I do note and appreciate the good work done by Earl of Northesk and Baroness Miller but they must be as frustrated as the rest of us with the lack of response from the various government departments and agencies).

Compensation
I don't want to say too much about this as it is ongoing. I have put in a claim to BT and this was initially turned down (as expected).

I am in contact with a customer services person (I think this is the top level customer services team - very efficient, friendly, helpful and understanding. This is a Swindon number which redirects to a Scottish location). The latest I am told is that the office of E.S. has written to me this week although I have not yet received that letter.

What I did say to the CS person is that I am not willing to go back and fore explaining this and that. IMO the position is perfectly clear:

BT intercepted my communications and processed personal data. They did this without consent.

This had a considerable impact on my business and I am claiming compensation for it. The fact that they lied about the trials, and told me (insisted) I had a virus, and the fact that those lies went on until March this year made the matter worse.

I have no doubt that what BT did was illegal and I have submitted a claim. If they do not pay I will take this to HMCS. BT will therefore have to explain why they are not paying and this will presumably involve them explaining why they think the trials were not illegal...