Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

Ian Batten igb at
Fri Nov 12 16:15:46 GMT 2010

> None of this helps with the case where a non-subscriber user actually
> does consent to something, and the consent gets treated as binding all
> other users.  That would need some even more convoluted small print, of
> very doubtful efficacy if challenged under the unfair contract terms
> legislation.

That was the point I tried to get over to BT when the threat was made of the 10000-strong Phorm trial.  

I was travelling a lot for work, so I asked BT to assure me that I would not be offered the Phorm trial, as I did not regard my children (who were, statistically, more likely to have encountered the initial greeting screen than my wife, by dint of their accessing a lot more webpages) as able to give informed consent to the Phorm interception regime.  BT by that stage had moved to a position of trying to vary users' contracts on an initial click screen.  The not-very-clueful BT person I was talking to said I would have to brief my children, as was "my responsibility" --- I asked whether they thought minor children were able to make contract variations on behalf of contract holders, and they appeared to say yes: that it was my responsibility to stop my children from consenting to things that constitute contractual changes, and BT would take as binding on my contractual relationship things that my children (or my cat, if I had a cat) clicked "yes" to.

At which point I gave up, and got ADSL 2+ Annex M from O2, with whom I'm very happy.  I could probably instead have encouraged my children to click "yes" to everything that BT offered and then seen them in court, 


More information about the ukcrypto mailing list