Now I am no techie, I may be married to one and spend a significant amount of my working life talking to them but believe me I think I have done well when I right click and find “properties”. That said I’ve been hearing rumblings about Phorm for some time.
It seems that BT have partnered with Russian software company Phorm in order to trawl customers’ internet browsing and email traffic with a view to targeting advertising.
Significant trials of the technology took place last year, involving many thousands of BT’s customers, who had given no consent for the intercepts.
Now, at this point I raise an eyebrow but if I’m honest its a bit of an “am I bovvered” eyebrow. The fact that ISPs are analysing email and web traffic for commercial purposes is not a huge shock to me. I had, in truth, assumed that something of this nature had been going on anyway though, as my husband soundly points out, its one thing to be sanguine about data privacy but would I be so relaxed if BT was tapping my phone line?
He’s right of course. A quick look at The Register will show that there are many clever geeks working to fight Phorm on privacy grounds.
I will leave that argument to them but below is an extract from the response of the City of London policeman, DS Barry Murray, who had been asked by an anti-Phorm campaigner to investigate BT’s breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). His response is unbelievable:
“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“
Sorry? Run that by me again? One of the main reasons for this decision is the lack of Criminal Intent?!?!?
Now, I am no more a lawyer than I am a techie and I understand that intent will make a difference if we’re deciding on murder vs. manslaughter and will impact a judge’s sentencing decision in most criminal cases but since when has “no criminal intent” been a reason not to prosecute for anything?? Did I entirely dream up the long held tenet of “ignorance of the law is no defence“?
If I had a second income and failed to declare it for tax do you think “no criminal intent” would wash?
If I was on a motorway and failed to spot a 50 limit do you think “no criminal intent” would wash?
If I was plying my 4 year old with booze and fags in the mistaken belief that it would stop him doing either later in life, do you think ”no criminal intent” would wash?
I hope my techie friends will forgive me when I say that it this comment which I find most disturbing in the whole sleazy Phorm episode. Confirmation in black and white that there is one law for big business and another for the rest of us
