Ignorance is bliss or not
So ignorance of a law is no defence, but a general misunderstanding (which seems pretty much the same thing) of the law is.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed today that it would not be prosecuting anyone in BT's secret trials of Phorm's web monitoring system. "We have decided not to consent to a request from an individual to begin a prosecution of BT Group Plc and Phorm Inc in relation to alleged unlawful interception of internet browsing …
To be fair, I think if the government hadn't told either company that what they were doing was legal, then the CPS would have proceeded with this. Government tied their hands from the outset.
That said, I really do wish that BT and Phorm could be prosecuted, but sadly, we were let down by our surveillance society government :/
> if the government hadn't told either company that what they were doing was legal
If the government truly *did* say that it was legal, then that's a decent defence in court. But, given how blatantly illegal the action, it's something for a court to try, not for the CPS to filter.
It appears that the CPS are interpreting "not in the public interest" as "embarrassing to a few politicians". Again.
It all comes down to money at the end of the day.
The CPS have to filter cases and make charges on lesser grounds to save money.
The CPS have long been under-staffed and poorly maintained.
The truth is that the cost of trying something with no definite win is a sketchy prospect. I can completely understand, if not condone the descision.
The CPS just don't want to prosecute! The cited reasons are utter bollocks both in law and in practice and represent a prevailing shade of opinion.They show a not untypical pusillanimous approach to defense of the "small" individual/private interest against the "large" corporate interest. They and the police are going through the same hoop with News International. The gall of these fkrs is almost incredible.
Utter bollocks! Since when has ignorance of the law been a defence? If they were receiving conflicting legal advice then there should have been no action taken until they were certain that they were acting within the law.
If an individual were to claim that they mistunderstood a law and so cannot be held liable for an offence they would still be prosecuted. Too much money exchanging hands behind closed doors here methinks.
I have no idea how much this is going to cost yet. First I need to get back in touch with the CPS to find out if there is any process for appeal (they conveniently failed to provide any procedural information of this nature).
If there is no procedure for appeal, then Judicial Review is the next step at which point I will have to obtain a quote from a Barrister to determine costs.
over another matter it was explained to me that any member of the public can lay an information before a magistrate and commence a private prosecution without either plod or CPS being involved on any criminal matter.
You would have to act as prosecution yourself or employ lawyer to do so for you and if you lose they could award costs against you but the maximum amount, or so I was told is £50 in Magistrates Court.
You would have to do the plod job regarding collection of evidence yourself, or employ a PI.
I was fortunate that plod eventually took action in my case but I left them in no doubt that if they didn't I would and they would have to bear the resultant publicity.
That is not the case with RIPA, this CPS decision was the result of the private prosecution process. RIPA is treated as a special law where only the Director of Public Prosecutions can grant permission for a private prosecution under RIPA and if granted only the CPS are allowed to prosecute the case.
This is the route I took when the City of London Police refused to press charges; I wrote to the DPP seeking permission for private prosecution, he formally passed it to CPS to assess and any prosecution was completely dependent on CPS assessment, their assessment is not to prosecute, so no private prosecution is possible now.
Unfortunately an apology may be seen as admitting culpability; besides this, ignorance of the law (and promising never to do it again) has never been considered a defence.
Until now, apparently.
Didn't the European Court say they would jump all over this if the CPS decided not to prosecute? Where are they then?
In my experience the best way to avoid a repeat offence by a business is to take action against the perpetrator. A big fat fine - hit them where it hurts and they damn well won't do it again.
Fail, CPS - Fail.
I look forward to explaining my misunderstanding of IR35 if I'm ever found in breach, should go down a treat, that. After all I paid for advice, and I have the documentation to show I was acting within my understanding of the rules...
I stepped down from the running of NoDPI in November 2009 as my work at Privacy International meant I no longer had time to run the site. But the NoDPI group still exists and they are doing some great work exposing other companies on these issues.
Any money donated to NoDPI will be well received for their ongoing work and i encourage people to support them, but i should make it clear that it would not be going to me for my ongoing work.
It would be irresponsible of me to start a donation fund until I have had a chance to review all the options available. As stated in a comment above, I need to contact the CPS again next week and see if there is a procedure for appeal, if not I then need to speak to a Barrister to determine the cost of a Judicial Review.
At that point I will be in a position to setup a donation fund for people to help support the Judicial Review.
Hopefully, given The Register's interest in this issue and their amazing coverage and work on Phorm, they can be pursuaded to post a new article once I get to that point, or allow me to do another Op Ed for them as I did on Street View.
It is going to take a week to get all this sorted out, so I respectfully ask people to be patient and sincerely thank everyone for their eagerness to support the process.
Rest assured, I am not giving up on this issue and I will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to see justice, even if that means going all the way to Strasbourg.
So "it could be reasonably argued that any offending was the result of an honest mistake or genuine misunderstanding of the law" and the "behaviour in question [was] unlikely to be repeated".
I wonder how far I'd get if I tried the "I didn't know it was wrong and I promise not to do it again" excuse.
...Of the CPS?
It's up to a court to decide whether mitigating circumstances warrant a guilty defendant being discharged. The CPS' task is to prosecute those lawbreakers where they believe they can make a case.
If the CPS can't make a case against a criminal who has already admitted a crime, they are clearly not fit for purpose.
This whole thing smells really, really bad, but it'll probably just go down as yet another example of "Can't Prosecute Shit".
If there is no public interest in the prosecution of someone who has clearly, gratuitously, and repeatedly broken RIPA2000, then it is clear that the law in question is itself not in the public interest, and should be repealed.
Twats, the lot of 'em.
Actually they said there wasn't enough evidence, which is not the same thing as saying a crime was not committed, or that they don't think it worth prosecuting.
An example of this. My mum was on the jury for a case of someone accused of dealing in drugs. The man was clearly guilty, but he was found not guilty. why? The judge explained that while he personally had no doubt of the man's guilt, the Police had not produced adequate evidence of that guilt. Interestingly the judge also noted the distinction between Innocent (which means they did not commit a crime), and not guilty (which means they may have committed the crime).
> Interestingly the judge also noted the distinction between
> Innocent (which means they did not commit a crime), and
> not guilty (which means they may have committed the crime).
I doubt he said that, exactly, as that would open the door up to a mistrial.
A verdict of "not guilty" is identical to "innocent". The defendant is free to leave without a stain on his character. I rather like Scottish Law option of "not proven", but we don't have that down here.
If the judge said anything, he almost certainly pointed out to the jury that a verdict of "guilty" is only available if the prosecution has proven the case, and that a case insufficiently proven must be returned as "not guilty", even if the jury suspect that defendant committed the crime.
There's still the European courts.
And whatever happens, this dragged Phorm out into the public eye and destroyed it. BT of course lumbers on, but is no longer able to deploy its snooping plan.
Yes, I'd be happy to donate to Alex too. Hope he sticks up a paypal button or such like.
We obtained expert evidence to enable us to understand how the technology worked, how many people were affected and how they were affected.
I don't suppose the experts were from BT and/or Phorm... that's be too obvious... wouldn't it?
Thanks to everyone for their support on this issue. I am going to try and get this issue raised in the House of Commons in the near future and i am considering several other options such as:
1. Complaint to the SRA against the solicitors who advised Phorm/BT this was legal (ondue dilligence grounds)
2. Court Action against the CPS under the Human Rights Act
3. Judicial Review of the CPS process on the grounds that DS Barry Murray managed the investigation (the same officer who refused to investigate when i handed the complaiunt to the City of London Police).
So I m not done with this yet. The CPS decision today is an incredibly dangerous one as it clears the way for big business to break the law so long as they first obtain a legal opinion which supports their goals
Aain, my thanks for all the support over the past 3 years and I hope it continues for as long as there are options available.
>The CPS decision today is an incredibly dangerous one as it clears the way for big business to break the law so long as they first obtain a legal opinion which supports their goals
Surely there is already some precedence against this. I can take advice from a qualified accountant however when push comes to shove it would be my company which would be liable if it acted illegally based on their advice. I believe this is already well established.
> Surely there is already some precedence against this.
But what the CPS have said is that they currently deem the act of obtaining advice as a defence against anything that takes their fancy, Whether such advice needs to be accompanied by a sufficient number of stuffed brown envelopes sent to the CPS is left as an exercise for the reader.
So BT apparently took some advice. It can't have been very good advice - allow me to quote from the top of the very first page of RIPA2000 :-
1 Unlawful interception
(1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—
(a)a public postal service; or
(b)a public telecommunication system.
That pretty much wraps it up...
The next time I'm in trouble, I shall merely tell Mr. Plod that I took some advice from SomeBloke, to be found in his general haunt of ThePub, and he categorically told me it was fine and dandy to help myself to this 'ere Aston. According to the CPS, this is now valid :-(
> I suspect it was the Home Office advice saying it was OK
But the Home Office *didn't* say it was OK. They said it *would* be OK if they sought and received permission from those subjected to their spyware.
BT did not seek permission. Thus, the HO advice does not apply because it was completely conditional on something that did not happen.
But how does one go about starting a private prosecution?
Presumably, anyone caught with a spliff can now claim that they took advice from their dealer, and cannabis has now been ruled legal in the UK - a genuine misunderstanding guv, no criminality meant, probably won't do it again.
The ICO is always complaining he doesn't have powers to go after or punish data losses - well here is a clear case for him to prosecute to clearly lay down a marker - content transmitted or received by an ISP on a customers behalf is both private and sacrosanct. You must not look at the content, other than to maintain the efficient running of your network. Trying to profit from your customers data is wrong and immoral, and when caught you will be seriously punished.
I think a massive fine is in order in this case, with directors going to jail if it happens again. Proper jail too, not Ford Country Club.
The whole thing is incredulous. From BT and their lawyers thinking it was legal in the first place, to CPS thinking there is no merit in prosecuting, or that they won't get a conviction when BT have admitted to doing it. I can imagine how the conversation went at CPS:
Lawyer A: So they admitted to it?
Lawyer B: Yep, no chance of a conviction now.
Lawyer A: Well, they didn't mean to, ignorance of the law is a valid defence, right?
Lawyer B: Well, I'm ignorant of the law, so yeah, guess so.
"It said there was insufficient evidence to begin a prosecution .... "
Meanwhile, in another part of town ...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13014161
Remind again, who was/is Cameron's right hand man? Coulson/Murdoch? No wonder Dave and Sam fcuked off foreign, for the weekend ...... with his bag man outed as nothing more than a dodgy plonker, caught bang to rights in cahoots with the polis, which has sunk to new lows.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and that is not the way it is?
"As there was no evidence to suggest either company acted in bad faith, it could be reasonably argued that any offending was the result of an honest mistake or genuine misunderstanding of the law,"
- that annoys the life out of me. What about all the other victimless "crimes" and the fact that every member of public is expected to have full knowledge of the laws of the land ? Back-hander somewhere here. Judges with BT shares... Who knows.... A/C, for once.
So in one part of the news today, we have very serious and on going investigation and charges against the News of the World for wire tapping and spying. Yet in this news, BT and Phorm get away with effectively wire tapping style spying on many more people!
Looks like Phorm and BT have rich and powerful friends, whereas the News of the World was pissing off the rich and powerful, by spying on them.
I guess us little people don't deserve legal protection. Thanks CPS and government for showing you really protect the rich and powerful but don't protect us little people.
Congratulations also must go to the CPS, because today you crooked corrupt bunch of two faced bastards have today shown without any doubt, that you are now in direct violation of Article 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights, in that you have completely and wilfully failed to uphold the primary principle that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.". That’s the most fundamental aspect of Human Rights law. Legally CPS you cannot treat the News of the World differently than you do to BT and Phorm, yet that is exactly what you have done here today. Checkmate CPS, you've just shot yourselves in the foot big time. By law we the little people deserve as much legal protection as the rich and powerful who are pissed off with the News of the World spying. We little people are just as pissed off by BT and Phorm spying on us.
What we need now is for the European Commission to step up moves to sue, punish and humiliate the UK government and CPS into backing down due to their now total failure to abide by the most fundamental principles of international Human Rights law. Also government department heads now need to be thrown out and prosecuted for Human Rights violations against the people of the UK, over their depth of corruption in this Phorm/BR ruling today.
These corrupt two faced bastards need to be punished and thrown out.
The Home Office said it might be legal if they obtained consent; no consent was sought or obtained. Home Office never committed and in fact explicitly stated on the record that their opinion did NOT constitute legal advice or a qualified legal opinion.
ICO never cleared Phorm either, they admitted (again on the record) that Phorm probably breached PECR and re-iterated the Home Office on consent requirement.
"Informal advice" on the same matter was also provided by the Home Office, said the CPS
Several people at phorm used to openly chortle that they were the ones giving the Home Office advice. Home office were by several accounts utterly clueless about their own legislation. Bless.
I suspect you may be onto the main reason here. Clearly, if a government department was advising a private company on the finer aspects of the law, then assuming said private company complied with that advice, it would be very embaressing, if that company were to be later successfully prosecuted for it's actions.
Especially if it kept the paper trail to show it had been advised, and acted accordingly.
The problem here, is ultimately, it's one pair of hands washing another. The CPS is an arm of government, as is the Home Office. Incestously so.
No doubt the UK press will ignore this story anyway - I would be amazed it it got past page 10 in any paper that prints it.
The real problem will be when firms start asking the government for advice on employment law, or nuclear safety ....
Oh, it was very much in the public interest to prosecute - if we define 'public' as the ordinary people who live in the UK.
If we define 'public' as those public institutions that are very interested in intercepting the communications of ordinary citizens, and for whom a prosecution would have a pronounced chilling effect, then yes, the prosecution is definitely not in their interest.
Given that the CPS is naturally aligned with such institutions, their definition of 'public' comes as no surprise.
Funny (strange) isn't it how powerful companies seem to be able to do anything and it turns out it was ok after all, and yet if an individual does something, the book is thrown at them. What causes that, do you reckon ? It's a good job we have the same laws covering everyone and not one set for the powerful and another for the rest of us.
...yet it is interesting to see what sort of thing the CPS thinks ARE in the public interest.
One case that springs to mind is one I heard about from a friend of mine, who happened to be the defence barrister in question. The story goes a little something like this:
A gentleman (lets call him Mr A) receives bills from a large utilities company (lets call them Company B) despite not being a customer. He repeatedly phones them and writes to them and receives assurances that teh mistake will be rectified, but continues to receive threatening letters demanding payment from Company B.
Eventually Mr A gets fed up with this, and takes matters into his own hands. He takes the reply-paid envelope and staples it to a bag of rubbish from his kitchen (the reply-paid envelope covering an item of any size or weight, to be paid for by the receipient).
When it reaches the local Royal Mail sorting office, the bag of rubbish splits open, the local constabulary decide to arrest Mr A on terrorist charges. The reason for this? The bag of rubbish contains a large number of banana skins (Mr A quite likes bananas). bananas contain potassium. potassium can be used to make bombs, ergo Mr A is a terrorist. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Despite the sheer farce of this case, the CPS decide to push for these terrorism charges to be prosecuted. Needless to say, when it gets to court, the judge takes one look at the case and throws it out. Thank goodness for some common sense in the judiciary.
The fact remains that the case should never have been brought. My barrister friend (who had the job of representing Mr A) assures me, however, that technically, by the defionitions under the law, as passed by our beloved previous government, Mr A did actually commit a terrorist act.
Not in the public interest? My arse...
AC, to protect the innocent...
--"One case that springs to mind is one I heard about from a friend of mine, who happened to be the defence barrister in question. The story goes a little something like this:"
I guess the case can't be 'secret' if there actually was a trial, so why all the 'Mr A' stuff - didn't your mate tell you the actual names?
Why 'a little something like this' when there must be some reports online?
--"You couldn't make this stuff up."
Oh, I'm sure some people could.
I didn't ask the name of the person, having due respect for the privacy of others, and my barrister friend didn't offer that information, having a certain amount of respect for the privacy of her client.
I the end, as I understand it, there wasn't a trial, since the judge took one look at the case and threw it out. I'm sure if you were really interested, you could get the relevant details from Bristol Crown Court.
Getting to court rather makes a thing public as opposed to private.
--"I'm sure if you were really interested, you could get the relevant details from Bristol Crown Court."
I'd have thought various other people and news organisations would have been *way* ahead of me in doing that, if the case is essentially as you describe.
It's just that so far, I can't seem to find anyone who's reported on it, which does seem odd.
CLASS ACTION SUIT or what ever its uk equivalent is.
Get the names of people who have been phormed and see if they would be interested in a class action suit or similar against BT and Phorm and if you get enough people involved show that there is enough public interest to warrant a prosecution.
The cps does not decide that ignorance of the law is an excuse. its not up to them to decide the law there to do there job which in this case they have failed to do.
Go above and beyond the UK and go to the European courts with this one.
"BT and Phorm had received considerable legal advice...and were advised it was unlikely to be contrary to..."
There seems to be some confusion here. Lawyers are paid to say that black is white (and, if paid even more, to argue this before a judge).
What matters is the decision of a court (and only that). If "legal advice" carries weight, we could all "get our mitigation in first" by paying for a legal opinion in case our crookery came to light.
For years people have paid for an 'opinion' from a QC, and filed the resultant letters. They are taken very seriously by the courts as evidence of best efforts.
Doesn;t mean I approve of phorm, who all need to f*k off and die of something horrid , but lawer's opinions are routinely sought before going to court.
 Twice. At least.
There are sensitive and valuable national security interests and special techniques which any investigation is easily bound to uncover and/or highlight. It is therefore most unlikely that justice and the law will play any further part in the case. It is always the case in such cases which have fools and tools unmasked in the act of doing something they were incapable of doing well and unnoticed. History is full of such national follies and international blunders.
One does look forward to finding out whether Chilcot has balls enough to share the truth in their deliberations or whether they'll cop thirty pieces of silver to deliver Blighty to the knackers yard ..... with a less than forthright and unambiguous verdict.
"it may become clear prior to the collection and consideration of all the likely evidence that a prosecution would not be in the public interest."
That's because the Home Office told you in advance that there was to be no trial or prosecution or more importantly to set a precedent regarding interception by private companies. So not only have you pissed off a lot of people you've also wasted a lot of money on this phoney review.
This is a pisspoor sham of a mockery of a sham, CPI. Hang your heads in shame. Circular arguments don't win awards...
You can count me in as another willing MOP who would contribute some green to crushing Phorm under the heel of an outraged public (eventually, barristers willing).
It's them I want, rather than BT per se (although they need a good kicking for this debacle) as their CEO is (was?) such a donkey bollock.
***3. Judicial Review of the CPS process on the grounds that DS Barry Murray managed the investigation (the same officer who refused to investigate when i handed the complaiunt to the City of London Police).***
Wasn't going to be an ubiased investigation if he'd already refused in the first instance. Think you have every right to complain there (amongst other reasons!)
Sure, just pay a Queen's Counsel to give you their informed opinion on the matter and keep that in writing. You could even lodge it with the courts before you start shooting. I doubt the legal advice described here is someone ringing Injury Lawyers Direct and asking them what they reckon. A QC won't tell you what you want to hear, they'll give you a detailed and informed opinion on the law as written, as interpreted through case precedents. Put another way - if a QC says "fill your boots", you'll almost certainly win if you do end up in court. Probably the CPS are unwilling to proceed because they'll lose. That loss could then render RIPA unworkable and we're left with no usable legislation in place.
>Probably the CPS are unwilling to proceed because they'll lose.
>That loss could then render RIPA unworkable
Someone very senior has decided that. I suspect this is what is meant by "not in the public interest".
personally I'd like to see RIPA torn up and go back to whatever we had in the 1960s.
> Probably the CPS are unwilling to proceed because they'll lose.
BT do *not* have advice from a QC saying that their actions were permissible; they have one saying that consent is required (which consent they did not even try to obtain).
So the CPS would appear to have a case against BT for a clear breach of RIPA2000, and all BT have in defence is some advice saying that the way to make it legal is to obtain consent first, but they didn't do so.
Sounds like an easy win to me...
> That loss could then render RIPA unworkable and we're left with no usable legislation in place.
Aside from that really not being the end of the world, I think you over-estimate what advice BT were actually given...
Is that the CPS have effectively said that legal advice writes the law. If I receive legal advice that tells me something is legal, I can do that thing even if it subsequently turns out to be illegal, because that would just be a misunderstanding, and the act of seeking legal advice proves you have no intent. I can believe that defence for intent based offences. But this is not an intent based offence. It was a clear violation of RIPA, by a body (BT) that is in a position to massively abuse RIPA through the fact that it still runs most telephone exchanges. The same company that has stolen information to use for an advertising campaign, could equally well be stealing credit card numbers when we type them into our phone. Utter, utter fail.
The interesting thing is that, for low profile cases, the CPS just assume the police were right, and deal with issues when they first turn up for trial. It is very rare that the CPS have even read the case file until they arrive for the first trial. But for high profile cases they are very reluctant to prosecute.
I just want to make a point here.
The key phrase used here is "Public Interest".
The CPS on a day-to-day basis make descisions about how cases are prosectued. If any of you have watched proceedings at even magistrates courts you'd see how underprepared the CPS solicitors often are. Their case loads are often huge and they have precious little prep time.
Often, it can occur that the CPS will alter a charge based on the likelihood of a successful outcome.
I'm not saying that it's right, but the CPS's resources are finite, and as such they must prioritise. In this case if it is true that the goverment at the time agreed that Phorm was legal, then the companies involved do have pretty strong defences. I'd take a guess that as that government no longer exists there's no-one left to prosecute other than the legal minds who provided parliament with the advice.
I assume you have civil suits in the UK. And probably class action suits as well? I'm just saying, the CPS refusing to doesn't mean Phorm must get away with this crap scott free. You sign up for the class action suit, the lawyer sues on behalf of thousands of people and gets hopefully a massive settlement against Phorm, and you get your fraction of the take. They won't get jail time like they should, but at least they'll probably be bankrupted.
There is no such thing as a class action in the UK and RIPA cannot be used in a Civil Action as far as I am aware. For a Civil Action we would have to go for something under PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations) and then we have to prove "damage".
Civil Actions are incredibly difficult in the UK especially around privacy issues.
Who made the CPS, Judge and Jury!
They have no right to decide, if it is debatable (and it obviously is), then it should be debated in court..
I think it should be escalated to the European Court on Human rights. We might as well get something for all the millions of pounds we pay to be a membership of the wretched EU!
Between important government offices being in the pockets of Big Business and the cops clearly pursuing an agenda contrary to the citizenry's best interests, I'd say British system of justice has utterly broken down.
The only solution, it appears to me, is to fire all the bureaucrats responsible for these insane decisions, and to purge the country's police forces of the bad apples. Sadly, the bad apples among the cops appear to outnumber the sound ones, and have an undue proportion of the higher level positions.
Is it any wonder that protests in the UK often turn into riots whipped into a frenzy by anarchists?
Some politicians need to read about the famous Gordon Riots for an example of what Britons can get up to if you push them hard enough.
If you have the infinity service, try typing in a url in the a browser with an imaginary name, such as... http://www.pppplewerw.com.e/
You should be a 404 not found back, but BT somehow manage to recognise that it doesn't exist, and send you back their own 404 handler. This makes it difficult to write webservice handler software. How can they do this if they aren't reading the data no the way back?
This is why I sent Kate Barrow in Executive Level Complaints, an email, explicitly forbidding them from using any kind of intercept or analysis software on my traffic, be they call it Phorm, Webwise, etc.
Naturally I asked her to specifically confirm they weren't doing this, and she's not replied. This is a sign of guilt in my book if ever there was one.
Since I've explicitly forbidden them from doing it, all I have to do is to sit here now and wait for a big expose, and they're wide open for a law suit. I suggest everyone writes to them and explicitly forbids them from doing it. They have then to ensure they aren't. They can't say they "thought it might be legal because noone hadn't objected."
I couldn't give a shit about the government doing mass surveillance. They protect my friends from nutters. But I object to private companies doing it for profit.
> You should be a 404 not found back
Actually, you should get a "domain not found" error.
They're almost certainly intercepting your DNS lookups, and substituting their own spam page for stuff that's not found. Virgin do the same. They also provide somewhat fragile DNS systems, so you can sometimes get this even when the domain is live and working.
My advice would be to get yourself a different DNS service. I run my own, but if you don't want to do that, there are plenty of servers available at zero cost. But if you choose OpenDNS, they default to exactly the same behaviour, and you'll have to turn it off manually.
I think we need start asking some very serious questions about the very existence of the CPS.
I immediately look toward their behaviour in both the Ian Tomlinson case and the Twitter Joke Trial, and what I see is a body that has no interest in justice as I understand the term...
How the hell can they argue there has been harm from this? I now have to encrypt my internet traffic (and pay for that) because I cannot rely on either the morals of my ISP or the laws of my country to defend me from a blatant invasion of my privacy! Many others I dare say have taken similar measures.
Maybe we need some sort of Public Prosecution Agency where we actually get a jury (not the trial jury, a seperate one) to act as the final decision makers on whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest.
Doing nothing, as the CPS seem to prefer, is most definitely AGAINST the public interest.
If you are considering a JR, you need to launch one soon and in any event within 3 months of the decision by the CPS not to prosecute.
Grounds might include:
1. An irrational decision, given the criminality.
2. Fettering discretion (by not looking at - or for - further evidence).
3. Bias (involvement/influence of a policeman who took a previous decision adverse to prosecution) - this may also indicate a fettered discretion.
Contact me on my e mail address if I can assist further.
They are usually not accountable for their actions. If BT was a person or a small company, they would have lost their license. It's the same with Deutsche Telekom. They were involved in a similar scandal in which they data-mined the connection logs of journalists in order to find a leak. In the end, only one person was prosecuted to a mild prison sentence. The whole thing just smells like sacrificing a pawn.
So ... if we apply some fault-finding logic to this ....
It would seem that the political and judicial structures that are in place, are constantly proved to favour big business over equal rights for all. - Not just in this case but in practically all areas of experience.
If this is the case, then it would seem logical that any and all argument with regards to the functions of these structures is rendered null an void by the simple fact that they are constantly able to bend, twist and break any rule to suit their motives with no pervcievble negative blowback effect.
How can we pretend to stop injustices by adhering to a system which has been proved to be inherently corrupt. ?
Surely this is a problem as old as man himself, power corrupts ... blah blah blah.
... But then surely we also want a form of goverment that conforms to our modern notions of equality and rights.
The most obvious answer that springs to my mind is that anybody and anything involved in the politicojudicial system be fully and publicly accountable. - Tomorrow ...
Why not ?
All monies spent and all commercial interests of all those invloved fully documented and published publicly.
Surely we have a right to request this immediately dont we - surely they serve us and not the other way around ?
Perhaps we need to start taking back some of our own personal responsibilities that have been so serious eroded to the point where we no longer have the power to take even simple desciscions without worrying about the backlash from a system that is constantly proved to be corrupt.
The point is that the problem is not with the CPS itself, rather the framework it exists within.
This problem - although systematic, is identifiable.
What is not so clear is what the path to bugfix will be.
Loads of clever people on here ... surely someone has a better suggestion than mine ... ;-)
is the possibility of getting a person rather than a company.
Penalising a company is quite difficult and generally means its customers just pay a bit more or its pension-fund shareholders lose out.
Perhaps the law needs changing to allow easier personal prosecution of directors and higher-level managers. That is what changes corporate actions.
There really aren't any.
Under UK Law, a company or corporation has the same legal standing as an individual. That is, they can sue for libel, or damages etc. against them in the same way that an individual person can. Technically, they can also be held accountable under law as a legal individual.
The issue, of course, lies in attempting to levy a punishment (such as imprisonment for manslaughter; thus corporate manslaughter exists) against a company.
So, they enjoy the defences accorded by the status of 'legal person', but none of the responsibilities.
For the record, I agree entirely with P. Lee (above), and believe that things will only change when corporate directors are held PERSONALLY LIABLE for the activities of their companies. As long as they can cower behind 'limited liability' nothing will change.
For more information, check out "The Corporation", a clip of which can be found here:
(I am aware that this is a US documentary and deals with US corps, but the laws in question were created in the UK and persist equally here too.)
Have a look at the Copyright Designs and Patents Act s107/s110.
Directors are personally, criminally, liable for acts of commercial copyright infringement. BT/Phorm committed millions of acts of copyright infringement for which the Directors should face prosecution.
"Where an offence under section 107 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
If this was an individual who could not afford to mount a defense and didn't have a PR machine to back them up then the prosecution would probably have gone ahead and most likely offered a plea bargain "Plead guilty on what may or may not be criminal and you will only get a fine. Go to trial and win or lose you will have to sell your house to pay the lawyers and if you lose you will go to gaol". Heads we win, tails you lose.
...but some people here seem genuinely surprized.
Surely this result was entirely predictable. At the time this was haappening Wacki Jaqui Smith was promising to ban pedophiles from the Interwebs using unknown technology, Phorm perhaps?
You just need to understand that we live in a developing fascist dictatorship. Phorm would have been a cheap way for the government to monitor web activity and filter web content. I expect the next step will be to grant BT Phorm a license to spy providing they do a bit of spying for the government.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019