Has anyone read RIPA?
AC, above, mentioned the RIPA definition of unlawful interception, but neglected the important "and without lawful authority" part. Section 3 includes the definition of "Lawful interception without an interception warrant", and specifically para (3) states:
"(3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if---
(a) it is conducted by or on behalf of a person who provides a postal service or a telecommunication service; and
(b) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service or with the enforcement, in relation to that service, of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunication services."
I would suggest BT's lawyers would claim that "enhancements to the service" - which is what they will claim Phorm is - would fall under part (b), even though, to me, it has nothing to do with actually PROVISIONING or OPERATING (in the technical sense) the service.
Such greyness can only be cleared up, in UK law, by a test case, but, unfortunately, such greyness also provides a perfect excuse for police - in this case - but also the DPP (see RIPA 1. (8)) - to "decide" the case needn't go forward.
If you don't like it, *write* to your MP - that's snail mail write - they routinely ignore email and e-petitions because it takes very little effort, I kid you not.