Sorry OF1975, the board cuts off quotes within quotes so it's difficult to follow the conversation. Hope this makes it clearer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowrebmit:
If the ISP (and Phorm) stick to the view that none of your personal data is being sent to Phorm, whilst nicely mis-directing the ICO away from the profiling equipment installed in the ISP network, what good is the DPA notice if all your IP traffic is still going to go through that profiling equipment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedee:
If they're 'allowed' to break the law, then of course our legal 'rights' under that law are useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowrebmit:
Under DPA, what law have they broken?
|
|
|
So, aiui, flowrebmit is asking what if the ICO is convinced that the data VM pass to Phorm really *is* sufficiently anonymised? Ie. outside the scope of the DPA? (That's close enough in summary, flowrebmit?)
I wonder if the only effective protection will be to specifically extend the privacy of other forms of communication to the online sphere, making *any* interception without explicit consent or lawful warrant a criminal offence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OF1975
To the best of our knowledge neither Virgin Media or Carphone Wharehouse have yet to break the law but BT and Phorm almost certainly did by carrying out a trial on their users without obtaining consent of ANY sort last summer. Its quite clear that under RIPA consent has to be obtained and not only was consent NOT obtained but BT even lied about it at the time and denied anything was going on. Secondly, its questionable as to whether Phorm had even complied with the DPA at the time as I dont think they had registered with the Data Protection Registrar.
|