Prosecutors kick Phorm case upstairs Prosecutors have further delayed a decision on whether anyone will be prosecuted over BT's secret trials of Phorm's web monitoring system. The case is now under consideration "at a senior level", the Crown Prosecution Service said in a letter to Alex Hanff, the privacy campaigner who complained after police refused to …
Friends of friends that contribute to the previous and current administrations and quango's for there ever to be a prosecution, It'll turn in to another govt inquiry with millions spent but nothing gained, just like Bloody Sunday, Guernsey child abuse and the dead taxi driver from the miners strike
The Metropolitan Police have showed they haven't got a clue in relation to RIPA law and this case. Whilst I would love to see Ertugrul, Livingston, Vahidi, Scleparis and other BT & Phorm execs dragged into court and given the grilling they so richly deserve, I can't help but feel the CPS is trying to hang this on until they've found some weakass excuse they can pin a "no" decision on.
It is in the public interest to prosecute the people responsible for mass breaches of RIPA, it would just be very embarrassing for the guilty parties when the whole truth comes out. That's the reason why a prosecution isn't something the former government and certain civil servants want to see.
Have the CPS got the balls to prosecute? I say not.
Is there any chance we can extradite the BT and Phorm boards to the US as hostages whilst Julian Assange appeals his case? Then we can honestly say we deal harshly with people who don't resPect private data AND have a national feel good moment.
If we can throw BT and ex Labour minister Patricia Hewitt into the deal as a sweetener it'd make my day.
There is clear evidence that a serious crime has been committed. RIPA allows for a sentence of 5 years per offence, and we have evidence of at least 38,000 individual offences.
The police initially refused even to investigate. Under pressure, they made declarations about the law which are entirely without basis (and well beyond the remit of what they were supposed to be doing).
Now we need a decision "at senior level" from the CPS about whether or not to prosecute.
This wouldn't happen for most criminal activity - why is it even countenanced in the event of crimes committed by rich people?
Oh, hang on...
Vic.
Given Sony BMG shipped 150k+ root kits (violation S1 & S2 CMA90), with help from their suppliers in Bridgend (violations S3 CMA90), and the police and CPS never even looked at them, is anybody surprised?
It's one law for the citizen, and a blind eye for anybody with a large lobbying firm!
"It is obviously in the national interest (never mind the public interest) to prosecute people who engage in covert espionage, copyright theft, fraud, and computer misuse." .... dephormation.org.uk Posted Friday 17th December 2010 12:53 GMT
It is obviously not in the national security interest (never mind the public interest) to prosecute people who engage in covert espionage, copyright theft, fraud, and computer misuse.
Move along now, nothing to see here.
Given that Phorm clearly breaks UK criminal and civil laws (RIPA, DPA, HRA......), and I personally can not forsee a jury having a problem convicting, given that while the technology may be complex, the intent and outcome are not, one can only assume that CPS needs more time to try and find an excuse not to prosecute.
It seems to me the CPS have completely ignored the fact that the European Court(s) of Justice have already started to look at this case, and will not take kindly to their (the CPS') attempt to mess around and waste time.
I look forward to the EU ripping the UK a new one on this .....
There are many serving and ex-police officers who refer to the CPS as the Criminal Protection Service, normally when they have had their case bounded.
Bounced appears to occur for the following reasons;
1. the police failed to collect enough evidence, and/or contaminated it (dodgy statements, etc.)
2. it looks like hard work, so they will drop to a lower charge to get a quick "result"
3. it looks like hardwork, and may adversly effect their "conviction rate" statistics
4. it has implications on the paymasters (e.g. Junior Minister or Civil Servants wants to get a consulant or NED job at the company in question)
5. They fail to understand the law as written
PS.
Personally never understood the concept of the conviction rate stats, on the basis that if 100 innocent people are found not guilty at 100 trials, does the consequent Zero Percent conviction rate indicate a failing judical system?
When the CPS has to decide whether there is a "realistic prospect" of conviction, what exactly does it mean... it would be nice to know before they rely on it whether it's reasonable likelihood, balance of probabilities or something else. [Personally, whilst BT may be innocent until proven guilty I tend to think of this case as rather more Not Convicted until Defence Proved Vacuous...]
"In deciding whether or not to prosecute, the CPS must consider whether there is a realistic prospect of a conviction on the evidence available, and whether it would be in the public interest."
So they aren't even bothering to consider the fact that the EC are going to hammer UK.gov if they don't prosecute? Surely it is in the public interest to prosecute if the failure to prosecute will leave the tax payer with a bit fat law suit to settle.
As far as I understand it the European word came down from on high that the Phorm trial was in breach of European law and that as such UK.gov would be sued if they did not prosecute BT and or Phorm. So why are the CPS still farting around like this. Do they really believe that the European courts will accept their judgement in this? Or are they desperately trying to protect whoever it was at the Home Office who gave BT the go ahead?
> So they aren't even bothering to consider the fact that the EC are going to
> hammer UK.gov if they don't prosecute?
If it were genuinely against the public interest to prosecute, I would hope they would indeed ignore any such threats from the EU.
But that doesn't describe the situation here. It is *clearly* in the public interest to prosecute to the fullest extent possible, and that happens to tie in nicely with what the EU want as well. We can do All The Right Things (tm) in one go.
But that won't matter to the CPS. If they were genuinely interested in upholding the Law - both UK and EU - the prosecution would have happened a very long time ago. That we are jumping through ever more arcane hoops to try to avoid a prosecution is clear indication that there is a lot of arm-twisting going on.
Vic.
If they decide not to prosecute, their answer will have to satisfy the European system, but I really don't like the idea of the European administration forcing a prosecution. A big chunk of the system is based on the National Governments writing and enforcing their own laws to comply with an EU directive. And I doubt that other countries would like any precedent being set.
> The condemnation of Phorm ... with the defence of wikileaks
The two are unrelated.
Wikileaks has published information. BT& Phorm have gone digging for information that is not theirs.
The closest you will get is comparing BT's behaviour with Bradley Manning's - and, if the reports so far are accurate, Mr. Manning does indeed have some questions to answer.
The difference is that Mr. Manning has a "public interest" defence - the information he leaked is useful to the population at large, and there is a good argument that the population has a right to see that information. But this is a defence, not a licence to leak.
BT, on the other hand, are just money-grabbing little oiks who invaded their users' privacy for profit. They have no public interest defence.
Vic.
of *another* breach of human rights.
Article 8 not only requires states respect their citizens privacy, it places a POSITIVE OBLIGATION on them to protect them. It seems to me that the lack of positive action here is amounting to a breach in itself ...
I'm just waiting for the Chinese ambassador to register his protest ....
I've been having loads of speed issues this week and when I run a traceroute I can see that all of my traffic is being diverted via network nodes operated by a company called "BareFruit"
when you look up what this company do, they have a close relationship with BT (in that you can opt out of their service via the BT website), they offer "monetisation of DNS and HTTP errors"
If BT have a tie in with this company I can see why some traffic would go through them, however from what I can see ALL of my traffic is being relayed through the network of a company I have no direct connection with
which is pretty outrageous
The last time the CPS delayed this long was probably the Ian Tomlinson case...and we all know how that turned out.
At the end of the day, they're completely unaccountable. The DPP, Keir Starmer, is appointed by the Attorney General and when I complained about the Tomlinson decision, and other questionable decisions, some made personally by Mr Starmer, to the Home Office, Prime Minister and Deputy PM, the first two replied that the matters raised were the responsibility of the CPS and passed my letters on to them. I hardly think they're going to chastise themselves (in fact, they haven't bothered replying either).
The Deputy PM didn't even bother acknowledging my letter.
I don't see much difference between BT's interception activities with Phorm and the interception activities that gov will want them & others to perform in support of IMP, when it comes. So they'd be prosecuting them one day and legalising it the next. Hence the delay - they can't work how to do it all without looking like arses.
"So they'd be prosecuting them one day and legalising it the next. Hence the delay - they can't work how to do it all without looking like arses."
This makes a lot of a sense. However Phorn and BT are now both *public* companies. Neither is part of a govt, Whatever they are now calling the Interception Modernization Programme now (did
someone wake and realise what acronym the Government IMP made?)
There *is* no conflict, although you can't help wondering if some senior civil servant gave Phorn or BT some "assurances" that they would not be prosecuted and we know how such people hate to break a promise to companies.
The CPS claimed they had, up till quite recently, spent about 5 grand looking into this case.
By my reckoning that's the cost (to the CPS, including overhead recovery and wotnot) of about two man-weeks worth of undivided indifference.
Over a period 800 days.
Now there's commitment for you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
