back to article Police drop BT-Phorm probe

City of London Police have decided not to formally investigate BT and Phorm for their allegedly illegal secret ISP-level adware trials, arguing that there was implied consent from customers and it would be a waste of public money. Officers in London's financial district were handed a dossier of evidence against the two firms …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Heart

    hmmm

    There's a certain irony in a load of IT professionals who know fuck all about the intricacies of the legal system complaining that the police are dropping this case because they find IT crimes too difficult to get their heads around ....

    Hands up who's studied the laws allegedly broken? And who are legally qualified to comment on them? Hmm?

    Ok, now hands up now who's read about this story on the net and have now read a policeman's email, and have an outraged opinion to voice? Ah, right. For you guys, the stand selling the Daily Mail is over there.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Email your MEPs before Wed 24 September

    Do something about this before Wednesday 24 September. Two important amendments (133 and 138) to EU Telecoms package being voted on to prevent filtering and surveillance, and sanctions on users without judicial review. Email your MEPs asap, see details at link below:

    http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/09/20/to-do-this-weekend-ask-your-meps-to-vote-for-telecom-package-amendments-133-and-138/

  3. Frumious Bandersnatch

    @hmmm

    Enter one "Anonymous Coward":

    Hands up who's studied the laws allegedly broken? And who are legally qualified to comment on them? Hmm?

    Enter Mr. Hanff:

    The fact that I handed the police a very comprehensive complaint outlining which laws I felt had been broken, citing the relevant sections of those laws, directly referencing which sections of the BT internal report provided evidence of the breaches; yet still DS Murray asked me to come up with some questions he could ask BT at the meeting he had with them on Sept. 2nd.

    Any questions dimwatt?

  4. Angus
    Thumb Down

    the aim was to enhance their products." ?????

    Riiight...

    I would respectfully suggest it would be more accurate to say.. "the aim was to enhance their bottom line."

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Perhaps it's worth complaining...

    Surely if enough people complain at http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Contact/MakeAComplaint/ they'll take the hint.

    Obviously the plod that made the announcement is sufficiently low down the food chain that he was just the messenger but it's ridiculous that if BT / Phorm have broken the law, the police should decide if they should be prosecuted.

    It could be that the CPS has been involved too in which case, they have to come clean and give their explanation.

    Just because some little useless police force doesn't have the smarts or the ability to handle a case like this doesn't mean that your local force can't.

    Surely the offence has not just been committed in their "manor" but everywhere. Might be worth complaining to local police forces.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Hardly surprising

    What did my grandad say about coppers being thick? Two possibilities come to mind. Either the Met are too thick to understand the law or pressure was bought to bear from someone that meant the Met dropped it.

    I've said before that the government desperately wants this technology. How better to get their way than to get the police to play stupid and say "no crime was committed here"?

    In years to come when the state of Gordongrad has been imposed and those who haven't emigrated find themselves imprisoned, children will ask "Didn't you do anything to stop this?"

    How will you answer?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    wankers

    "its was too difficult to explain to customers what the trials were about"??? More like you would be digging your self in to a fucking big hole if you tried.

    And as for the City of London police, well they just getting more useless by the day. Time for Met integration I'd say.

  8. Irate BT User
    Thumb Down

    Erroneous Conclusions Lead to Strife!

    "Implied Consent" was a phrase used by a BT Exec, on many E-mails concerning Web site Owners?

    So who did the Police actually Speak to!

    And NO DS Murray "My information is MY Copyright" & it does not in anyway imply consent to trawl or use it for other purposes especially without "MY CONSENT"

    Since that Profiler was used on my connection in 2006 & 2007 & some other incidents, which I can relate rough dates to I will not "EVER" let this matter rest until BT Either admit publicly they got it wrong or they are taken to Court on the Issue!

  9. Chris
    Unhappy

    Nice to see someone's still keeping up with the story

    Though you're in for a long walk if you want to talk to some of the other few people who seem to be reporting this... http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=phorm+bt+police&btnG=Search+News

    Hell, the Beeb can't even be arsed to put out a few lines about how this vidicates the goverment's "Why should we give a monkeys?" approach

  10. michael

    I am shocked

    shocked

    suprised

    astonded

    actuley i am not and that is what worries me the most

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Useless

    They won't investigate because the 'speed gun merchants' would have to get off their fat lazy arses and do so work. If they cannot solve a crime by pointing a speed gun at it they are not interested!

  12. Chris

    Oh my!

    How fucking predictable!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Local police?

    Was the kit to do the intercepts installed at local exchanges? If so, surely a copy of the relevant conplaint can be sent by someone in each area it applied to, to the local force. After all, the offence occurred in their jurisdiction rather than the Mets.

    Maybe one of them might actually be uncorrupted enough to take it further? Especially if it mean putting a finger in the Met's eye....

  14. michael
    Flame

    going to get flames for this but

    "How can the Police make a qualitative judgment that BT's intention was to "improve" their service? BT's intention was clearly to make more money, and to do so covertly. What's the Police's definition of "improve" in this case? Is it "to make more profitable" or what?"

    if bt can suberdise the cost of a internet conenction by selling adds they the cost of the line can go down or at least stay the same and that "improves" the prodect

  15. Mark

    @Dave

    That argument is how the US government gets around their laws: they pay a private company to do it and then exercise their force in ensuring you can't sue the company for doing it.

    The government protecting BT is the government exercising its power to the cause against the public.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Government?

    I'm not tin-foil-hatting here, but it's fairly obvious that the government are turning a blind eye to this, see how it all pans out. All the world's governments have seen the wonderful effect the Great Firewall of China has had and what government wouldn't want a snifter of the ability to snoop on ALL electronic communications? State of Denmark and all that guff.

    The only thing you can do is lobby your MEP for tomorrow's vote on EU Telecoms and then write hard copy letters to your MP expressing your dislike of the whole situation, in clear, non-technical English, Explain why this abomination of justice, should not be allowed.

  17. Jimmy

    With a little help from our friends.....

    Before this bitch-fest gets closed down can I just say a big 'Thank you' to Alexander Hanff for his persistence and diligence in trying to expose what is, despite Mr Plod's conclusions, one of the clearest examples of illegal covert surveillance you'll find in a lifetime. The issue of consent does not even arise since it was neither sought nor given, explicitly or implicitly.

    Given the government's determination to see surveillance technology installed in ISP server rooms, it's not hard to imagine that discreet high level 'conversations' took place during which favours were called in, promises made and if necessary, arms were twisted. DS Murray was just the last man standing when the music stopped.

    The wheels of justice grind slowly, and nowhere more slowly than in Brussels, so while we await the outcome of that process what can we do? If you are a BT customer apply for a MAC code and tell them explicitly why you are leaving. Tell friends and colleagues you have left BT and why. BT are determined to damage their brand image, so with a little help from their friends it will soon be 'mission accomplished'.

    Nulabour? Ah, what can you say. Mission accomplished already, no assistance required.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    You scratch my back...

    And today Brown announces that BT will fund free broadband for poor (labour) voters. Hmm, purely coincidence of course.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Paris, because

    Even she doesn't give it up that easy...

  20. Mark

    The wrong PR

    The so-called police are great at swinging into action if it involves 'getting tough' on some NuLab PR idiocy or Janet Street Porter swears at her neighbour. But not apparently when a large company flouts the law - thats totally different of course. The message to the public is very reassuring; drop a fag butt and you'll have armed coppers desecrating your Koran but don't complain to us if some powerful kleptocrat gives you a rogering.

    Why do we pay for such utter morons?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well if that is not intent

    not sure what is.

    They intended to look at other people's communications illegally with the intention to profit by delivering advertisements profiled to the content.

    Not only that, they also breached copyright laws by maintaining an illegal copy of someone else's work, which they used to base their profiling off.

    Well looks like law and order has broken down in the UK - nothing new there is it. The thing is it is not that shocking it is just same old same old, UK citizens just accept this crap, like little poodles.

  22. Mr Chris

    Mens rea

    IAAL, and there have been some misunderstandings here about "mens rea".

    The "mens rea" for a crime is the intent to commit the act. You don't have to be thinking "oooh, I'm committing a crime" as well - you can form the necessary mens rea while still believing your act to be justified and legal. For example:

    The mens rea for theft is intending to permanently deprive someone of something.

    The mens rea for murder is intending to kill (or commit GBH, as it happens).

    The mens rea for an offence under RIPA is to intend to intercept communications.

    Bosh. There's no such thing as "criminal intent", just "intention to commit the act".

    I'm not surprised Plod misunderstood the law here - the police very rarely seem to understand any of the laws they're supposed to enforce. Anyone else see that article a while ago about a Times journo who got beaten up, phoned the police to tell them who it was and the copper on the other end of the phone cautioned him that he would be committing an offence under the DPA if he (the chap who'd been beaten up) told him (the copper) the guy's name and address. "FFS" doesn't even cover it.

  23. Charlie

    Re: That's a great decision

    Erm... yes? You can't be found guilty of theft if you didn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of their property. That's how it has been for many many years and would be pretty unfair otherwise.

    Speeding is a bad example; it's a strict liability offence, so there's no need to prove any intent.

    The BT/Phorm debacle is shocking, but it would seem even they have a better grasp of the law than you ;)

  24. John
    Unhappy

    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.

  25. Werner McGoole
    Alert

    A possible explanation?

    It could be that BT pushed the anti-phishing line on our not-so-bright plod and persuaded him that they were on the side of justice and therefore that any incidental breach of the law was either non-intentional or worthy of being overlooked.

    I gather the police regularly have to do this. For example, security firms often encounter material like kiddie porn. Strictly, it's illegal for them to possess or view this, but the police don't prosecute them because the firms involved are on the same side as the police. To lock them up would be pretty counter-productive. Clearly the police have to use their discretion.

    So I can see that this might be a good line of defence if you were a BT executive being questioned by a junior plod. "We were trying to stop phishing against our customers, so we're really on your side, mate." If you read the police statement again with this in mind, I think you'll see how it sort of fits together.

    So maybe the police are not as corrupt as it might appear. Maybe they're just a lot stupider than the BT guys.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Yes I am utterly "sick of these bent politicians and police yet?"

    "sick of these bent politicians and police yet?" By Liam Posted Monday 22nd September 2008 15:28 GMT

    Yes, very. I have already purchased said mask and fully intend to take a walk in the pleasant autumn air. Date, time and venue already decided

    (The linked blog site is not for the timid) http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2008/07/old-holborn-is-going-for-walk.html

  27. JayB
    Flame

    To lose faith you have to have had it in the 1st place

    Dear fucking lord, are we so far removed from a proper form of govening that a simple DS can tell an entire country to fuck off???

    Face it folks, we are buggered. City of London Police just green lit every piece of spying, corporate treachery, govt sleeze and corruption going. Frankly I feel feel sorry the people in the vicinty of BT's Legal office as their eardrums shatter from the shrieks of laughter coming from the Lawyers.

    Is this a case of :-

    a) Police Corruption

    b) Police Incompetence

    c) Police apathy

    d) all of the above

    Posting neither anony-mouse-ly nor in any hope that emailing my MP & Complaints at CoL will get me anywhere, but I'm still going to do it if only to irrritate him and the City of London Police.

    PS Big Party round Phorm's Head Office.

    Phorm - Phucking the Populace under Police Protection

  28. Sir Runcible Spoon
    Flame

    We assign your ip addresses

    we connect your ethernet cables

    you call us when you've infected your computer with malware

    do *not* fuck with us.

    I call shennigans on this whole sorry farce - a two day techie strike would show them that we are not without some power if we act as a unit. Who's up for a two day strike? And this time, if only six of us do it, I will leave this sorry-arsed apathetic fucking country to it's deserved fate.

  29. Alfazed
    Pirate

    They are in on it

    Obviously !

    What the hell do you think it is all about ?

    Pharming the humans, init !

    The pigs will be lining the trough alongside BT, et al.

    Durr.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Hanff - why don't you just get a real job?

    Oh boo hoo! What an awful crime!! Like child abuse or GBH!!!

    Gosh, you're a bunch of pathetic whiners. Why don't you get some sense of proportion?

    Yes, BT were stupid and acting in breach of the law by not informing their customers. What do you expect to happen – Ian Livingston being hauled before the judge in a criminal court?

    This is a sensible decision not to waste any more of the police’s time and taxpayers’ money on a pointless prosecution. Phorm will eventually be the norm – GET OVER IT!!

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Excellent news

    Excellent and now with Ofcom's backing we who aren't scared of our shadows, can look forward to faster cheap internet subsidised by phorm.

    No Luddite.

  32. This post has been deleted by its author

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Why doesn't Alex Hanff get a real job?

    Oh boo hoo! What an awful crime!! Like child abuse or GBH!!!

    Gosh, you're a bunch of pathetic whiners. Why don't you get some sense of proportion?

    Yes, BT were stupid and acting in breach of the law by not informing their customers. But what did you expect to happen – Ian Livingston being hauled before the judge in a criminal court?

    This is a sensible decision not to waste any more of the police’s time and taxpayers’ money on a pointless prosecution. Phorm will eventually be the norm – GET OVER IT!!

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    RE I'm OK

    James, in spite of the hilarity of your comment ( oh, I'm holding my sides now they hurt so much from laughing) The provider of your telephone line does NOT come into it. It's the provider of your Internet ( that could be Nildram, or BT, or AOL etc etc)

    To be honest your ignorance and comment sums up the mass hysteria that Alex Hump has generated. You don't understand the issues.

    And to the guys who would deny free broadband to the poor - hey, have a little compassion fella do you want to pay for it?

  35. WonkoTheSane
    Black Helicopters

    Re: Why doesn't Alex Hanff get a real job?

    Let's see now, 2 IDENTICAL anonymous posts 53 minutes apart...

    Just how long have you been a BT director?

    Black Helicopter - because that's who's REALLY paying for all this to go away!

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Free and Poor?

    Eek i've just been made redundant - and hence will be poor soon - no thanks BT i'd rather use a modem, library, or college - their profiling will be useless there.

    Paris - cause the girls are cuter - libraries are full of grannies

  37. Acidbass

    AC@1550 has it nearly right

    I don't think this was ever about advertising, that's just the cover story. Describe it as 'the Home Office's latest system for intercepting communications within its borders' and it doesn't sound so bad, it's just the latest in a long line of schemes which we've been living with for years. Dress it up as an advertising trial being run by one of BT's 'trusted third party associates' and you can then run a plausibly deniable trial, complete with semantically devoid Home Office legal advice. If it gets rumbled you can let everyone vent steam about the evils of advertisers and move on to the system the *other* company was building for you with a different cover story.

    It all makes perfect sense really. Of course the home office, information comissioner, police, etc. are not going to investigate, they're the clients!

    The funniest aspect of all this is that the admirable Mr. Hanff has probably got a special branch operative listening in to all his phone calls, but the good news is that they won't bust his dealer because it'll show their hand.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Martians.

    I'd really love to post a lengthy comment, but I need to make sure the Martians aren't stealing my trash.

    Sorry.. oh, and I need to finnish covering the walls of my house with aluminium foil to stop the bad people reading my pc, and reading my thoughts.

    PS I do know who killed JFK, I also know who's behind the Princess Di conspiracy, who stole the Lindberg baby,

    Strike. Euro MP, Local Police,

    Fucking grow up and stop whingeing...

  39. Bob. Hitchen

    BBC ignores invasion of privacy

    Guess what the government arse lickers have not mentioned this on their website. Why am I not surprised?

  40. Stewart Haywood
    Joke

    Manslaughter

    "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."

    So the crime of manslaughter no longer exists in London then? How very very strange.

    The icon is to represent the City of London Police.

  41. b
    Stop

    Re: Why doesn't Alex Hanff get a real job? @ Martians

    Kent you really need to sack this latest group of PR people....

  42. CTG
    Flame

    Implied vs Inferred

    DS Murray said there was "implied consent" when what he actually meant was "inferred consent". In other words, BT/Phorm _inferred_ that the users consented. The users were unaware of the trials at all, so were *unable* to give consent, explicit or implied.

    This is deliciously ironic given the police are the worst offenders in the misuse of "infer":

    Inspector Flint: Are you inferring that police are thick?

    Wilt: No, I'm implying it. You were inferring it.

    (Wilt, Tom Sharpe 1976)

    Try using "implied consent" as a defence against rape, and see how that works for you, DS Murray.

  43. Alexander Hanff
    Happy

    BBC ignores invasion of privacy

    I have a telephone interview with the BBC tomorrow.

    Alexander Hanff

  44. Bobby

    Question?

    Is hacking now allowed if we just say there's no 'criminal intent' or should we say it's 'implied consent' ?

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Only Broadband?

    Well I find it hard to belive that this "intercepting" of internet traffic is confined to broadband... I imagine that it will apply to all internet traffic going through BT including Government Traffic not using broadband. Plua there is no indication that if you opt out that your traffic will not go through Phorm services. What is going to happen if I pay google to display adds on a webpage and then phorm posts there own adds over my ads or strip my adds out and replace then with others? What will they do to the page layout?

  46. Bobby
    Unhappy

    Corruption...

    You cannot control government corruption and evil will always prevail when there's two billion up for grabs in the next year or two.. A lot of people are going to get very rich serving up this misery on the ignorant public therefore there's nothing anyone can do apart from suffer and pay for their benefit...

    I would love to see one very brave police officer stand up and arrest these evil bastards and what a scandal would come to light thereafter with the numerous charges that would be made against 121 media ... One arrest, one charge and the whole spyware thing they've been plaguing us with for years will suddenly come spiralling down making the internet a better place for us all..

    Yes I do believe BT had some kind of implied consent to test/experiment to improve users connections but they most certainly had no right to pass users account data to known 3rd party spyware merchants that we all so despise...

  47. Sir Runcible Spoon
    Heart

    Isn't it funny

    that the only pro-Phorm people posting on here are 'AC's :)

    You can spot the PR shite from a mile away because they ignore the facts and go straight for the slanderous denigration. Talk about projecting your insecurities...muppets.

  48. Chris
    Stop

    @ Why doesn't Alex Hanff get a real job?

    Pathetic whiners?

    Phorm will certainly NOT become the norm. I am cancelling my BT Broadband and moving to Be.

    Here's a suggestion for you mate; GTFO.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    FAO: Murray

    Tonight you're going to die in your bed, murdered as you sleep, but it's ok, because you're such a blithering turncoat with no respect for the law you supposedly uphold, you were asking for it, so it's ok, because you implied consent by your actions!

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Re: james's "I'm ok" AC replier

    Kingston Comms are the ISP and phone line provider - there isn't the BT infrastructure here (or the need for it unless it turns into a "we want choice" cross post), so the Phorm hardware doesn't affect the KC users unless they're emailing someone who IS affected (For example).

    I'm off to start a revolt and take over Sealand, with a chuffing great cable going to someone elses exchange where my privicy CHOICE isn't removed by greedy 'tards and their lapdog police.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.