Email from Simon W to "Florence"

[Peter Fairbrother]

For those who haven't seen it:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated-page-228.html#post34529144

"all [the informal guidance note] says is it **may** be possible for 
such services to be offered lawfully"

-- Peter Fairbrother



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 
examplew hether 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