Police drop BT-Phorm probe

[Peter Fairbrother]

El Reg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/bt_phorm_police_drop/

"One of the main reasons for this decision is the lack of Criminal 
Intent on behalf of BT and Phorm Inc in relation to the tests."

Would interception be an offence of strict liability? Shouldn't it be?

If so, is a lack of criminal intent irrelevant? And once it has been 
pointed out that an act is an offence - as is implicit in basing the 
decision not to proceed on a lack of criminal intent - can they go ahead 
and do it again?



"It is also believed that there would have been a level of implied 
consent from BT's customers in relation to the tests, as the aim was to 
enhance their products."


That sounds very thin indeed - and ignores the requirement for consent 
from the web page owners.

-- Peter Fairbrother