BT escapes prosecution over web snooping

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13015194

BT will not be prosecuted for snooping on the web browsing habits of its customers.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has dropped a request bring charges against BT and Phorm - the firm that supplied the monitoring system.
The Webwise software used cookies to track people online and then tailored adverts to the sites they visited.
The CPS explained its decision saying that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution.

Well who would have predicted that?

[Skie]

It seems pretty ridiculous that they can be on the one hand claiming that they don't need to review email snooping laws because "interception without explicit permission is already illegal" and on the other hand ignoring blatant instances of it.

Cue return of "Usual Suspects"....................................


(expect explosion of outrage, calumnies against police/CPS/BT, intimations of corruption, etc etc)

[Mick Fisher]

As no film stars or government ministers have complained that their clickstreams were violated I guess, after sitting on this for years, the CPS have finally decided the coast was clear enough to finally sweep this shameful affair under the carpet.

I can only hope it will come back to bite their backsides just like the NOW phone hacking scandal did.

In the meantime it appears that Big Business UK can rape their subscribers communications with impunity so Huawei and Allot might be extra busy for a while.

Some clarification of the CPS decision - CPS

[Stuart]

From the link supplied by Incog

We do decide if there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction (effectively, whether a jury, properly directed, would be more likely than not to convict), but whether or not the law has been broken is a matter for courts and juries to decide – not the CPS. In this case, there is currently insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction

So the CPS are not saying that BT didn't act illegally, more that the CPS can't make that decision, and that the CPS did not find enough evidence that they did (which isn't the same as not acting illegally at all).

[Sirius]

What concerns me is that any company offering information via deep packet inspection can now get away with what ever they sodding well like knowing that all they have to do is SAY they took legal advice. Q lots of little phorm like info providers out to make money.

I am sure the dpi supporters will be along shortly to say why they should be allowed to look at everyone else's info and make money from it.