Home Office endorsement for Cryptome

[Nicholas Bohm]

Peter Tomlinson wrote:
> They don't acknowledge that there might be mutiple users of a system, 
> all but one of them not knowing what has been (allegedly) agreed to, a 
> point that has been clearly made on this list. Are they assuming that 
> these users are all using the browser with the permission of the person 
> who gave consent to phorm?

One view of the HO Note is that it is an entirely theoretical exercise 
about how one might construct a justification for an imaginary targeted 
online advertising system (loosely based on Phorm's press releases).

In this imaginary system, the person who gives consent to be phormed 
will ensure that nobody else uses the machine without first giving 
similar consent, and the ISP can safely rely on the punctilious 
performance of this unrewarded and self-imposed duty.

Back on earth it may be another matter, of course.

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

> Richard Clayton wrote:
> 
> Given the ire which has in the past been directed at John Young's
> Cryptome site, it's nice to see the Home Office referencing it as the
> canonical source of one of their own documents!
> 
> The tone of the rest of the answer is of course disappointing!
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=
> 
> <URL:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/805
> 20w0001.htm>
> 
> Written Answers
> 
> Tuesday 20 May 2008
> 
> Advertising: Internet
> 
> The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
> 
> Whether any official or Minister in the Home Office has offered written
> or oral advice to any executive of the company Phorm as to the legality
> of their targeted advertising software product; if so, what was the
> advice; in what circumstances was it given; and what was the
> justification for giving it. [HL3268]
> 
> The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of
> Spithead): The Home Office was asked by a number of parties, including
> Phorm's legal representative, for a view on the compatibility of
> targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory
> Powers Act 2000. It provided a guidance note for those parties.
> 
> The note is not, nor was it intended to be taken as, a definitive
> statement or interpretation of the law, which only a court can give. Nor
> was it intended for publication. However, a copy of that note has been
> published at http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf.
> 
> Working to protect the public, the Home Office is keen to help industry
> understand its legislative responsibilities, and to work with business
> in order to achieve a workable balance between commercial interests and
> public safety. In this way potential legal obligations can be taken into
> account in the conception of new products and services.
> 
> -- richard                                              Richard Clayton
> 
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin