Police drop BT-Phorm probe

[David Biggins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Igor Mozolevsky
> Sent: 23 September 2008 12:45
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Police drop BT-Phorm probe
>=20
> Although you could infer that the mere act of asking for advice
> indicated that they knew they were questioning the legality, and just
> because they sought advice from an incompetent party should not
> absolve them of responsibilities under the law.

You could.  But a court might equally conclude only that they were
undertaking due diligence, and obtaining advice from the relevant
government department.

> > Though I have yet to see how these issues are to be resolved on
> > computers used by those who are not legally competent to express
> > informed consent, shared computer accounts and similar issues.
>=20
> I would guess if you are using someone else's account/machine then you
> effectively waive your right to privacy, and here you could argue
> implicit consent?

I can't see in any way why you should - at least with regard to anyone
other than the machine owner.  And certainly there is no way that you
are necessarily competent to waive rights on their behalf.

>=20
> This just sounds like a simple cost-benefit analysis: the police and
> the CPS would probably have to spend thousands of pounds investigating
> the case (hiring experts, etc) which may or may not yield a
> conviction. I would speculate that from the point of view of the
> target-driven policy, the time and money are better spent on "easier"
> cases.

No.  WE see it as a cost-benefit analysis,  and as Nicholas has already
said, if the police had presented this, it might have at least deserved
some respect - if not actual agreement.

But the statements made by the police make no reference to cost-benefit
analysis, and instead make specific statements about intent and consent,
that are arguably untenable.

Dave.=20