Cable Forum - View Single Post - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

oblonsky · 12-08-2008, 17:38

CALL FOR A TEST CASE

I have received a lukewarm response even from anti-phorm campaigners when I suggested we should make a call on the govt, BT and Phorm to have a test case on the legality of Phorm (to examine all aspects including but not limited to RIPA, DPA, CMA, PECR, CD&P etc).

I wonder if El Reg will make this call on our behalf? Why is it such a bad idea to make this call? Lord West of Spithead already made mention of a possible test case in the house of lords, and I hear from a good friend of mine that FIPR would be willing to work on the anti-Phorm case, although they don't want to pay for it (anyone from FIPR confirm this?).

It would be hard for BT to argue against a test case. If Phorm is illegal, then surely better to find out now? If it's legal as they belive, then what's the worry?

A test case, simple. El Reg - call on UK.gov for a test case - who could argue against this?

12-08-2008, 17:38	#13846
oblonsky Inactive Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 86	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] CALL FOR A TEST CASE I have received a lukewarm response even from anti-phorm campaigners when I suggested we should make a call on the govt, BT and Phorm to have a test case on the legality of Phorm (to examine all aspects including but not limited to RIPA, DPA, CMA, PECR, CD&P etc). I wonder if El Reg will make this call on our behalf? Why is it such a bad idea to make this call? Lord West of Spithead already made mention of a possible test case in the house of lords, and I hear from a good friend of mine that FIPR would be willing to work on the anti-Phorm case, although they don't want to pay for it (anyone from FIPR confirm this?). It would be hard for BT to argue against a test case. If Phorm is illegal, then surely better to find out now? If it's legal as they belive, then what's the worry? A test case, simple. El Reg - call on UK.gov for a test case - who could argue against this?