ICO respond to questions about Phorm's registration
Alexander Hanff
ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:39:13 +0100
--001636c5b5411487ec04672e763e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
2009/4/9 Roger Hird <roger.hird@argonet.co.uk>
> In article <298c5f970904091016x483676c0n5a95fabe4aaabb20@mail.gmail.com>,
> Alexander Hanff <no2dpi@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > As I said on our forums, I doubt there is a way to argue this with the
> > ICO as a: they have made it clear they are not interested in taking any
> > enforcement action for the illegal trials; and b: the law is worded in
> > such a broad way, meaning the ICO can basically interpret it any way
> > that suits them.
>
> Hmm, in the old days there used to be a writ - certiorari (? - I'm not a
> lawyer - it's still in use in the USA) which you could use to make an
> official/official body justify its decisions before a court - I guess it
> would be judicial review nowadays here - but it wouldn't come free, I
> guess.
>
> --
> Roger Hird
> roger.hird@argonet.co.uk
>
> Running RISCOS 4.39 on an Acorn StrongARM RiscPC
>
> Hmmmm one of our members raised an interesting point. 121Media were not
registered with ICO either and had a London address from 2005. Since they
were independently peddling spyware onto to people's PCs back then as
opposed to jointly installing spyware into ISPs surely they would have
needed to register with ICO for People on Page, ContextPlus, Apropos?
I think we might need to investigate this a little further. If the ICO saw
fit to bring criminal charges against the Consulting Association for non
registration, surely the same should be true for 121Media/Phorm.
Alexander Hanff
--001636c5b5411487ec04672e763e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/4/9 Roger Hird <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:roger.hird@argonet.co.uk">roger.hird@argonet.co.uk</a>></spa=
n><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb=
(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In article <<a href=3D"mailto:298c5f970904091016x483676c0n5a95fabe4aaabb=
20@mail.gmail.com">298c5f970904091016x483676c0n5a95fabe4aaabb20@mail.gmail.=
com</a>>,<br>
<div class=3D"im"> =A0 Alexander Hanff <<a href=3D"mailto:no2dpi@googlem=
ail.com">no2dpi@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D"im">> As I said on our forums, I doubt there is a wa=
y to argue this with the<br>
> ICO as a: they have made it clear they are not interested in taking an=
y<br>
> enforcement action for the illegal trials; and b: the law is worded in=
<br>
> such a broad way, meaning the ICO can basically interpret it any way<b=
r>
> that suits them.<br>
<br>
</div>Hmm, in the old days there used to be a writ - certiorari (? - I'=
m not a<br>
lawyer - it's still in use in the USA) which you could use to make an<b=
r>
official/official body justify its decisions before a court - I guess it<br=
>
would be judicial review nowadays here - but it wouldn't come free, I<b=
r>
guess.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Roger Hird<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:roger.hird@argonet.co.uk">roger.hird@argonet.co.uk</a><br=
>
<br>
Running RISCOS 4.39 on an Acorn StrongARM RiscPC<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div>Hmmmm one of our members raised an interesting po=
int.=A0 121Media were not registered with ICO either and had a London addre=
ss from 2005.=A0 Since they were independently peddling spyware onto to peo=
ple's PCs back then as opposed to jointly installing spyware into ISPs =
surely they would have needed to register with ICO for People on Page, Cont=
extPlus, Apropos?<br>
<br>I think we might need to investigate this a little further.=A0 If the I=
CO saw fit to bring criminal charges against the Consulting Association for=
non registration, surely the same should be true for 121Media/Phorm.<br>
<br>Alexander Hanff<br>
--001636c5b5411487ec04672e763e--