View Single Post
Old 15-04-2008, 13:45   #3415
Florence
Inactive
 
Florence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Services: The wonders of Sky TV BT line and Aquiss.net ADSL cable dies on 5th RIP VM.
Posts: 4,013
Florence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appeal
Florence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appealFlorence has a bronzed appeal
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

I have had a reply to my email saent to Simon Watkin he was informed this would be posted here so here goes.

Quote:
Florence,

Firstly, I should explain that the Home Office was approached by a number of
parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues
relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services,
particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In response to those requests we prepared an
informal guidance note.

That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a
definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can
give. Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed
technical examination of any particular technology.

There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example
whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the
record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual,
and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user
is considered to be interested in a category of advertising.

As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it
**may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all
depends on how they are offered and how they work.

> > To me this is unlawful interception of my surfing habits on the second
> > point I already block all advertisements online never see them so why
> > would I want this company to snoop on my clicks to target me with
> > adverts from only companies signed upto their packages.

You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising
services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by
the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the
highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the
protection of their personal data. Explicit consent should be informed
consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do.

> > .... you are opening a whole Pandora's box with this ruling which might
> > come back later on and bite you back.

It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully.

> > I hope that you will review this and take a look at the illegal trials
> > undertaken by BT and Phorm in 2006/2007 where thousands of people where
> > intercepted without their consent.

My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale
technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks
during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable
information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".

Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE

[1]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ch/083561.html
I am about to reply to him just ned to decide which is most important... any suggestioins.
Florence is offline