You forget though that this site is for rational internet users primarily, The Register peddles hardcore pron for those of a Tin Foil Hat wearing inclination.

In reply to:

---

Just seen the news article on the front page - seems a fair summary.

---

What else did you expect, a Jelv type conspiracy theory

Yes there is a private prosecution process in the pipeline.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/14/phorm_private_prosecution/

and more
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=phorm+private+prosecution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

I hope such a prosecution would be sanctioned, however I doubt it very much.

In reply to:

---

highly qualified legal bods with detailed knowledge of the law in this area.

---

Of whom none are judges.

Funnily enough, BT Group Legal Services probably have some equally if not more qualified legal bods kicking about with detailed knowledge of the law in this area too.

Edited by deleted (Mon 10-Nov-08 19:55:11)

Your confidence in BT is touching. What needs to be factored into the equation is who was asked what questions when. A lot of the murky story of BT Webwise involves secrecy. For example ask BT what date they consulted John Regnault and see if you get a reply. The dates around the contacts with ICO, DBERR and Home Office are also very confusing and I think will eventually prove embarrassing to BT. I do wonder if a lot of decisions were made at BT Retail BEFORE the right legal questions were asked and before the full facts about Phorm and 121Media were known by people who would have dumped the whole plan if they HAD known eary enough.
So much of the story looks just like a retrofitting exercise - retrofitting Webwise to deal with one legal and technical issue after another. Even the Webwise invitation page wasn't in its final form when the trial started and had to be changed when a customer pointed out something missing that was legally important to include. It still looks very unlikely to satisfy the Consumer Protection from Unfair Regulations 2008.
Oh yes - and see if anyone can tell you when Bruce Scheier of BT Global was asked about the security implications.

You will draw a total blank on all these issues, unless you find a BT insider.

All BT need to do is answer these questions clearly. But they won't. Their choice.

My own experience of direct contact with BT Retails legal department did not inspire confidence. Greg Hughes is the man you need to talk to there.

Why should I be asking questions? I don't care.

I just wish they would hurry up and roll it out so I can replace the Google Ads on my sites.

PlusNet, sometimes, appears to be rather like another episode in the 'Carry On....' series.

I bet their first thought was,

'Oh no. Not again. Why does it always have to be us?'

One thing is for sure, it just shows how close the networks are to being integrated. This could have happened to any other ISP that uses BT's network. imho.

Actually, the networks are nowhere near being integrated, with no plans to do so.

RIN was a trial, back in 2007. It didn't work to Plusnet's satisfaction so they haven't gone ahead with implementing it. There are legacy triallists still using it, and it was one of those that was affected.

They must be nearly integrated otherwise it would not even have been possible for that person to even see it, let alone receive an invitation. Fact! A simple flick of a switch and they can turn it off. If no integration, that would not have been possible to switch off as quick as it was.

It just goes to show how easy it is for BT to route DPI equipment through their, or Plusnet's Network. Fact of the matter is, it should never even have happened, and I hope the person who is responsible for it, gets fired.

BT are nothing short of parasitic scum in my humble opinion.

Edited by soundsystem (Tue 11-Nov-08 08:59:28)