Check with Rob Jones regarding the copying of websites - I'm sure that he got this in writing from BT.
Regarding the CMA, this was my interpretation of the act and it's application to Phorm's cookies. I wrote this on the
BT Forum in early April so feel free to comment on it or pick any holes you find. I asked for feedback at the time but no-one seemed interested - I'd be interested to know what people think now especially as Andrew Liversage has now stated that the next trial could go ahead using opt-in/out cookies.
Have a read of the Computer Misuse Act . I don't see how this can't be applied to BT's secret trials.
In essence, it is an offence to "secure access to any program or data held in any computer" without authorisation when the miscreant knows that they are not authorised. It then states that the type of data is not a factor.
In other words, simply accessing a cookie or reading the contents of the PCs memory (which must contain the data of the current webpage) without authorisation from the computer's owner is a criminal offence.
Even better, Section 2 of the act makes it a further offence to commit the Section 1 with the intention of making it possible or easier to commit other such offences.
In other words, even planting an unauthorised cookie or inserting any daya or code into the webpage (which is also held in the PC's cache and memory) with the intention of reading or writing to it later is an offence in it's own right.
Section 3 makes it an offence to perform "any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer" if the accused deliberately set out to do so and knew that it was not authorised by the computer's owner. It also specifically states that it is irrelevent whether the modification is permenant or temporary.
In other words, altering the contents of any cookie or any webpage (which are also held in the PC's cache and memory) without the authority of the computer's owner is an offence.
There doesn't appear to be any requirement on the part of the complainant to have any personal involvment under the act so it would appear that BT existing admissions and statements should allow any of us to make a complaint to the Met as BT are Lodon based.
Can anyone see anything here or in the act itself that could prevent a criminal charge being brought against BT under the terms of this act or prevent such a complaint from being accepted and investigated?