Being safe on the internet (was Re: Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?)

[James Firth]

Ian Batten wrote:

> A more likely proposition would be that BT are in a position to frame
> actions as crimes,

I don't accept your analogies to imitation firearms or even thefts from
cars, locked or unlocked.  As you succinctly put it "BT are in a position
to *frame* actions as crimes".

It is this which I object to.  A Tesco employee is (was at least) given
comprehensive training on how to deal with shoplifters.

Merely acting suspiciously, even taking products and hiding them under
coats, nests of bags or even ones hat should not be acted upon - even
thought I suspect this could be shown as conspiracy to commit theft.  The
employee is trained to gather any available evidence and wait until the
point which a crime is committed - the items are removed from the shop.

It is my view that BT are a large organisation and should therefore be in
a position to understand the CMA and take proportionate action, only
involving the police where necessary.

Unless the actions a.) did cause harm (cf. goods have been taken from the
shop) or b.) there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a substantial
attack which if left unchecked could cause damage (cf. clear evidence of a
conspiracy to commit theft) large operators should know full well that
sending correctly-formed protocol requests is not sufficient evidence to
bother wasting the police or court time.

This is the gist of my clearly elitist argument.

James Firth