Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
Rather premature when they haven't finished testing it yet. Would you crashtest a car before adding the airbags ?
|
Either you're incredibly naive or this is indeed a rather subtle and highly intelligent point. I will credit you with the latter and say that indeed it could be hard to try a technology in court when the technology itself is subject to change.
HOWEVER - it should still be possible to test the principle without finalising the technology, so I disagree with your point. The principle - that a piece of equipment sits in the ISP and monitors web browsing habits is illegal plain and simple - is not dependent on the final implementation or even on the method for opting in or out (it will be, in this instance at least, to quote Kent, a red herring).
I firmly believe that even with consent, Phorm will be illegal under RIPA, and CD&P, because it doesn't get the consent of the "other" party in the transmission. This is my view, IANAL, and it is in line with FIPRs view.
---------- Post added at 17:51 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
What is the most disturbing is none are willing to be truely transparant, they all are hiding something in the closet.
1, BT are not 100% sure or Emma wouldn't have been so uncomfortable answering the questions. She did put on a good show but anyone can see certain questions made her feel uncomfortable. Leads people to belive there is some economy with truth possibly.
|
Sorry Florence I diagree - I don't think she put on a good show. On live TV she said, in relation to the two secret trials BT have admitted to, "We absolutely were not spying on our customers..."
Now, considerind that the participants to the trials didn't know about the trials, and that the trials covertly watched their web browsing habits, anyone with a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary could have something to say about Ms Sanderson's assertion here.