BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[David Hansen]

On 6 Jun 2008 at 10:50, Ian Batten wrote:

> But the `victory' is rather pyrrhic: McDonalds are still in every  
> street, their employment and sourcing practices are precisely the  
> same,

They claim otherwise.

>  McDonalds may have lost in  court,

Officially they won. The dice are so heavily loaded in favour of those 
with deep pockets, to the extent of the victims having to prove every 
one of the claims in the leaflet was correct beyond reasonable doubt. 
They were unable to prove all the points, not the least because of all 
the obstacles put in their way by the courts. They thus lost the case 
and the Hutton said that they must pay £60,000 damages to the criminals 
(he didn't quite use those words:-)

In the real world McDonald's lost. They tried to prevent the 
"offending" leaflet being handed out. Not only did they fail to do 
that, one can read the "offending"leaflet at 
<http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html> and its 
successor leaflets are still handed out today, for example the ones one 
may download from 
<http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/leaflets.html>.

I see people leafletting outside their "restaurants" from time to time 
and I doubt if anyone in the organisation would again try and stop such 
criticisms being made.

What big business and their pals in the Labour Party have tried is 
getting the police to oppress anyone who disagrees with the dear 
leader's desire to spread big business everywhere. In a way this is 
good, oppressing the British just makes them more stubborn and less 
likely to worship the dear leader. At the moment this strategy is 
particularly being tried on animal rights people, recorded in 
<http://netcu.wordpress.com>, using the same "economic well being" 
bullshit we see in RIP. Once one disentangles the animal rights 
hyperbole a clear example of collusion between the state and big 
business interests emerges. I can't think of a better way of ensuring 
the animal rights bods eventually win.

However, the police do try these things out on others, for example 
<http://www.tollcross.org/Article788.htm>. Having spoken to people who 
went to the same school as one of those victims, a year or two before 
her, I have no doubt that the only people who should be in court over 
this are the police officers (and Fiscal rascals of they continue with 
the case).

> There comes a point, quite quickly, where the issue ceases to be about  
> the company and becomes about the bravery, honesty and self-image of  
> the critics.

Some of the mass media may prefer to adopt this approach and some may 
be misled by this into not dealing with the actual issues. Fools will 
always be with us.

> A lot of people have heard of the McLibel two, and (like me) admire  
> their bravery.  How many of them know the first things about the  
> criticisms that were being made of McDonalds?

Most people are not going to take the time to find out the details. 
However, I don't think it follows from that they will think in the way 
you indicated. They can look up the facts if they want to.

> If Phorm/BT can turn this into a debate about the critics, and not  
> about what is being criticised, they win.

That is certainly a tactic they may/have tried. It is certainly 
something to be challenged if they try.

> Meanwhile, all Phorm/BT have to do is sit back, say nothing that will  
> look unreasonable later, and hope that Intel release a processor with  
> a minor arithmetic flaw or Apple release a version of iTunes with some  
> dubious DRM extension or Microsoft say something unwise to the OOXML  
> standards process.  The corollary of the process I'm describing is  
> that people lose interest if they're not getting a rise out of The  
> Man, and move on to the next flash-mob issue.

Some people lose interest. Others do not. Always been the case, always 
will. However, campaigns are not always about numbers.
 
> But if we want a victory in which a pragmatic campaign is ground out,  
> resulting in a regulatory framework which protects our interests and  
> prevents this encroachment on our privacy, the route is not the one  
> that's being embarked on.  It's a route of dealing rationally with  
> regulators, industry bodies, consumer groups, journalists and so on.   
> At the moment, we're heading for a glorious, meet in pubs and  
> reminisce, defeat.

Some people will shout loudly about the issue, others inform the 
public, others prod the regulators and so on. All three are important.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54