[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

1. "BT sought their own legal advice"

Can we see that legal advice? Can the ICO confirm it was bona fide?

2. "BT did not associate your enquiry with the 2007 trials and as they were not able to identify individual cusomters that had participated"

BT knew full well I was participating in the trials - I told them as soon as I started unearthing the murky world of 121media. BT logged support, abuse, and customer service records in my name and thus knew I was part of the trials.

3. "(because of the anonymity of the process) they were unable to contact you"

As with 2. BT knew full well who I was. I told them about 121media. They had support, abuse and CC records of my contact details

4. "They have advised that they attempted to contact you after you had expressed concerns online at 'The Register' however they were apparently not successful."

Was the line constantly engaged? Did they not know my phone number or address? I was a god damn BT customer! Of course they had my contact details.

5. "BT have confirmed that no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. We have no reason to doubt this assertion."

So BT told the ICO that was the case. Did the ICO see evidence of this or did they just take BT's word for it?

6. "Regulation 6... the user should be provided with 'clear and comprehensive' information..."

BT did not provide this information during the trials. They therefore contravened that Regulation. The ICO allowing BT to get off that hook because 'we could not comply with that regulation because we did not know who the customers were’ looks a whitewash to me.

7. "Regulation 7… It is arguable whether the requirements are engaged in this instance, however it is our view that Regulation 6 would be likely to apply… BT’s view is that the trial was small scale and technical in nature and no ads were served.”

How small scale is small scale? How many people were involved in the trials? Did BT give the ICO a figure? Did the ICO agree it was small scale? It doesn’t matter if it was one or ten thousand. A contravened regulation is a contravened regulation.

8. ”Our view is that, whether or not there was a technical breach of the Regulation, there is no evidence that the trials generally involved significant detriment to the individuals involved, or privacy risks to individuals”

There was significant detriment. BT lied to me and caused disruption to my business. As for privacy risks please explain exactly what happened to my internet communications. As far as I am aware my internet connection was connecting to sysip.net – a domain owned by 121media – a company with a history of spyware and rootkits. Please give me evidence that my privacy was not at risk.

9. “As I mentioned briefly, Regulation 30 specifies that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention can make a claim for compensation”

ICO don’t want to know and they would prefer I pursue this matter in the courts, at my expense. What exactly is the point of the ICO if it is up to individuals to seek recourse themselves?

If you've just received this response, then on the basis of the time-lag, I would imagine it was prepared in advance of the latest published communication from the European Commission spokesperson which I think makes reference to your case. (text here - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16046 )

I think if it was me, I would be inclined to reply to the ICO saying I was sending their response for consideration by the European Commission spokesperson and to your MP and MEP's (all of them - available via theyworkforyou.com etc). I would copy the latest Commission statement along with that letter back to the ICO, along with your rebuttals.

And I would send the ICO response you have just published, to the Commission spokesperson who replied on behalf of Vivian Reding (not sure of name) also with your rebuttals and say that you think the ICO is not pulling their finger out and could someone remind them of how the EC view these things.

At the very least it should generate some correspondence between the ICO and the EC which may mean that the next complaint the IC gets (and he will be getting several!) is considered a little more carefully, and maybe the IC will organise a visit to the dentist to get his teeth sharpened (or perhaps get false ones fitted if all his own have fallen out). At best, the IC will say - oh dear I haven't been properly informed about those other details - we'll look at this again.

Don't see it as a defeat, merely the first hopeless incompetent ill-informed
fudge from a civil servant interested in the easy life. Make their lives harder till it becomes easier to take you seriously than ignore you.

I'm sure you are probably aware of all this anyway so apologies for sounding patronising.

It really does sound as if all a "defendant" has to do when the ICO contact them is say "no we never done that officer" and the case is over. Which won't do.

Mischievous thought - I wonder if you could send in £10 and an FOI request to BT asking for the details of their responses to ICO concerning your case?

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

NTLVictim. I already had....

With the earlier conversations I had with the ICO it was clear that they would not be able to actually do anything.

In those conversations I was informed that the ICO can only take action after a second contravention has taken place. If a contravention takes place the ICO warn the company not to do it again. If the second contravention takes place the ICO have the power to fine the company. Although the figures talked were laughable - they only have the power to fine a few thousand.

I did not expect such a whitewash today though. I had expected firm confirmation that PECR was contravened so that it was crystal clear BT broke the law and that the police could then not refuse to investigate. This is now not the case and once again a buck has been passed and it is up to a lawyer to enforce the law.

EU it now is.

Oh and I am now more vigorous in pursuing for compensation

Just to cheer you up - I'm preparing a letter to ICO regarding BT's cookie handling and the way they have been running bt.com, in association with custhelp.com and webwise.bt.com, in terms of handling personally identifiable data which has been made available to Phorm.Inc. So the case load is beginning to build up, and this is a different but related issue illustrating how poor BT are at protecting customer data. there's some good stuff on file.

Maybe eventually it will click in the ICO's mind that BT have difficulties finding and speaking the truth owing to a mixture of their incompetence, corporate poor communication, and general greed.