Phorm and consent

[Nicholas Bohm]

Roland Perry wrote:
...

> Now, having got that off our chest; what about my point regarding the 
> cache being the "intended recipient" of a page that the cache asks you for?

I think the cache must be among the intended recipients; I don't see how 
caching by itself can be interception.  Persons requesting things from 
the cache are also intended recipients, I would think.  If the cache 
operator uses the content of the things it fetches for the purpose of 
modifying those things before sending them in response to a request, 
that sounds like interception.

(Done without consent at both "ends" also sounds like a variety of 
wrongs; e.g. passing off against the person whose material is altered, 
by analogy with unlawfully putting inserts in newspapers in course of 
distribution, which is actionable by the publisher; and some form of 
fraud or misrepresentation against the customer who isn't getting what 
he asked for but doesn't know it.)

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF