[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?