Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 27-03-2008, 12:15   #1801
AlexanderHanff
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,028
AlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful one
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kt88man View Post
Just thinking, possibly out of my rear orifice.

The age of consent (no, not that one)...

Yes, I know, parents should all be aware of their children's activity on the internet. However, let's ignore that for the moment.

Assume ISP/Phorm are using a per PC cookie based opt out system. Let's say we have a young child, aged 9 or 10 for example. They have their own PC for their exclusive use which shares an internet connection via a router. Is the child in a position to give "Informed Consent" (as RIPA requires) to the profiling of their browsing behavior?
Informed Consent when it comes to minors is a tricky bit of case law. Generally kids over the age of 12 are considered old enough to give informed consent unless it is in matters of medical decisions (including mental health). I wrote a paper (2 actually) which cited the relevant case law for informed consent from minors, I will dig them out and add the relevant case law to this post. The papers I wrote were on the Biometric Fingerprinting of School Children scandal and the Teen Screen scandal. Watch this space I will post the details shortly.

OK here we go I will cite directly from my paper on Teen Screen:

"Under British Law children are not deemed as legally competent to give consent unless they can be judged to 'understand' the research; this is known as 'Gillick competence' (also known as Fraser Competence)... In 1985 it was determined by the House of Lords that children could only give consent on matters of health care of medical treatment given the following conditions:

'Children under 16 can truly consent to treatment only if they understand its nature, purpose and hazards'
'To be able to consent, the child should also have an understanding and appreciation of the consequences of: (1) the treatment, (2) a failure of treatment, (3) alternative courses of action and (4) inaction' (Kings College London, 2004)"

To my knowledge this is the only current case law with regards to informed consent and minors, so whereas I am not saying informed consent doesn't count on non medical issues, to my knowledge it has never been tested in case law in the UK.

I have some better information with regards Informed Consent in my Biometric Fingerprinting of School Children paper but unfortunately my original paper was kept by my department for it's merits and the digital copy is on a drive which is not currently plugged in to anything so I can't reference it at this time. Informed Consent was a big issues when the biometric fingerprinting systems were introduced in UK schools because they were being used on children as young as 6. I will try to find some more info later today but I have to go to a meeting shortly.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline