p2pnet - rss feed: UK government OKs Phorm privacy invasion
p2pnet news view Freedom | Advertising:- It’s OK for BT, Britain’s largest ISP, to use Phorm DPI privacy invasion technology to secretly spy on users, says the UK government.
The European Commission expressed serious concerns over Webwise, a DPI (deep packet inspection) application used by Phorm to scoop data on users without their consent to make it easier for advertisers to target them.
Phorm critic Alex Hanff launched an official criminal complaint to the City of London Police but, “In a shocking correspondence from DS Barry Murray at City of London Police CID the police have stated they will not be commencing with a criminal investigation of BT and Phorm Inc.’s illegal, covert trials,” says Hanff on NO DPI.
The UK government, “responded to concerns raised by the European Union over the legality of Phorm’s ISP-based ad-targeting technology, planned to be rolled out by major U.K. ISPs,” says clickz, continuing »»»
In July, the E.U. Information Commissioner, Viviane Reding, requested information and clarification on Phorm’s practices from the U.K.’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). Phorm is based in London.
Although the BERR has not published its full response to the commissioner, sent last week, it issued a statement today outlining why it believes Phorm can be implemented legally, appropriately, and transparently in the U.K.
“After conducting its enquiries with Phorm, the U.K. authorities consider that Phorm’s products are capable of being operated in [a legal manner],” the statement read, if users are “presented with an unavoidable statement about the product and asked to exercise a choice about whether to be involved.”
Says Murray »»»
The matter will not be investigated by the City of London Police as it has been decided that no Criminal Offence has been committed. One of the main reasons for this decision is the lack of Criminal Intent on behalf of BT and Phorm Inc in relation to the tests. It is also believed that there would have been a level of implied consent from BT’s customers in relation to the tests, as the aim was to enhance their products.
The matter is considered a civil dispute, and your desire to elicit clarity around the wording of the relevant acts would necessitate senior Counsel involvement and it is thought this would be inappropriate for Police to use Public funds to pursue civil issues where there is no suggestion that Criminal Intent exists.
I know this is not the answer you were wanting to hear but some redress may be sought through the Complaint process available through the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. If you would like to discuss the matter further please E-mail me or phone me on [removed].
“Obviously I am not happy with the decision and disagree with it entirely,” says Hanff in a response, going on »»»
Your suggestion regarding contacting the Surveillance Commissioner would be inappropriate in this matter as the Surveillance Commissioner only deals with complaints with regards to public bodies in relation to suveillance (such as the Police or a City Council) and they have no jurisdiction over corporatations.
I will be writing a full complaint to my MP and forwarding all of our communications to Commissioner Vivian Reding at the European Commission as she has requested information from the Government with regards to how they intend to handle the illegal trials in 2006/2007.
Once I have heard back from my MP I may also continue forward with a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and will be seeking advice on whether a Judicial Review may be appropriate.
Same old same old
However what they did release is basically the same script the UK Government have been reading from the onset; there was nothing new in the information released by BERR. They confirmed that the system needs to be opt in to be legal, which is the stance that was offered by the Home Office back in March. So whereas Phorm advocates are singing the press release as good news for them, it actually isn’t for the following reasons:
In correspondence between BT and the Government which was released under a Freedom of Information Act Request earlier this summer, BT expressed their concern about the Government’s insistance on Opt In (otherwise known as Informed Consent).
BT have since hinted that their next trial will be completely Opt In - although they’ve also stated that if people who are offered the opportunity to Opt In and turn it down whilst then proceeding to block all Phorm/Webwise domains in their Hosts File, they will be unable to browse the web - but Phorm have on numerous occassions insisted that Opt-In vs Opt-Out’s a red herring and that their system (which is actually Opt Out based) more than meets the requirements of law (which it doesn’t and which has been confirmed by the EU Commission).
So there are conflicting details coming from Phorm and BT which means we can only assume that the system will be launched as Opt-Out since that’s what Phorm are saying. Needless to say any model which does not require explicit informed consent will be illegal under multiple UK and EU Laws/Directives and there is no way the campaign against Phorm will stop until it’s Opt In for users and of course content providers (the people who provide the web pages BT users will be visiting).
Furthermore, BERR have confirmed in a recent correspondence with a member of the public that web site copyright exists and behaves exactly the same way as any other copyright; therefore if Phorm do not respect the license granted by content providers it’s highly likely they will get sued (I will personally push a campaign for that to happen and will probably call for some support from the US to file a class action over there for content providers who want to sue Phorm).
The other bit of bad news from the BERR press release for Phorm is that BERR refused to release any of the answers relating to the EU Commission’s questions about the illegal, covert trials of 2006/2007. It’s important to remember that the original questions from the Commission to BERR related specifically to these illegal trials; so one has to assume that either BERR refused to answer those questions (which I doubt) -or- BERR did answer those question and they formed a substantial part of the correspondence.
Freedom of Information Act Requests have already been sent to force disclosure of the entire letter from BERR to the EU Commission so hopefully in time we will see what they really had to say.
Obviously my own work hasn’t ceased either. So pressure is still very much on and Phorm’s share performance certainly illustrates that with them hitting a two-year low earlier this month and struggling to pull themselves back from it.
Just yesterday there was a sale of more than £350,000 worth of shares from one investor which shows a significant lack of confidence.
I already have a complaint drafted up for my Member of Parliament with regards to the police handling of the complaint and the interests of the general public being ignored, hopefully though I won’t have to use it.
Failing that there is of course the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the European Court so there is plenty of stamina left in this campaign yet and I can assure you I won’t stop until BT and Phorm are held accountable and punished for their illegal activity in 2006/2007 which breached criminal law and the human rights of 10s of thousands members of the British public.
I will also be in communication with Commissioner Reding’s office over the next couple of months to keep on top of the EU side of this offensive.
So in summary, nothing has changed. Webwise still hasn’t been deployed. Phorm and BT are still singing the same tune. Phorm share price continues to dissolve. And Public awareness continues to increase.
DPI privacy invasion technology - Phorm and DPI: Alex Hanff, May 20, 2008
expressed serious concerns - EC targets Phorm, May 27, 2008
criminal complaint - Very bad Phorm — ‘criminal actions’, August 15, 2008
NO DPI - City of London Police - Too complex to spend public money, September 22, 2008
clickz - Phorm’s ISP Targeting Deemed Legal by U.K. Regulators, September 17, 2008
dslreports - Phorm Gets Green Light From British Government, September 18, 2008
backed away - Nebuad suspends ad-spy technology, September 4, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Alex, thank you for your determination.
Looks like the corps run the NuLab government. Welcome to the fascist future.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
So if I run over and kill a pedestrian with my automobile, can I get off because I lacked criminal intent?
How about if I rob a bank? I had no intent to commit a criminal act, I just needed the money.
EPIC FAIL.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The British government is pathetic. Our only recourse is the European courts, which evidently care more for British citizens than the national government.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I’m glad we are in the EU. It’s so much more simple to bypass our corrupt government.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I wonder if the Phorm folks are scientologists ?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
BERR “Pull the other Leg this one now hurts too much!”
YOUR TIMED RESPONSE TO THE EU DID MORE TO PROMOTE THE CURRENT SITUATION THAN MOST OF THE OTHER PRECEDING EVENTS!
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?9079
The “Unavoidable WebPage” you speak of, is a Browser Hijack Technique employed to steal many peoples Personal Credentials; very good of a Major ISP/Telco to use subdifuge & pervert protocols designed for the correct functioning of the WWW isn’t it?