Posts by VM should comply with DPA

Google's WiFi snoop - who knew and who didn't?

Then let them ask me

for my data and my consent. If it's a useful service I'll give it to them.

Cops back in on BT/Phorm case

Ignorance of the law is not a defence

I believe the applicable defences are that BT (a) reasonably believed that by conducting DPI, they would not be intercepting users' data or (alternatively) (b) reasonably believed they had the consent of their customers and the customers' electronic correspondents to the interceptions.

As I understand it, you are saying that BT can rely on mistaken advice (from civil servants) that there was an argument that by using the internet, people had consented to DPI interceptions of their correspondence by ISPs. I think this would be a mistake of law, not of fact, and would not alter an ISP's liability.

Mitigation might have an effect on sentencing, but is irrelevant to the question of guilt: ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Meaning of "intention"

"Intention" in this context does not mean an "intention to commit a crime". It means an intention to commit the acts whoch give rise to the facts that constitute the crimonal offence.

For example, a murderer must have an intention to kill. They don't need to have an intention to break the law.

As posted above, BT may or may not have been mis-advised on the effect of RIPA. but ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Issue of consent

Exactly. I think BT's argument is that they had constructive (albeit not actual) consent of the people whose communications they intercepted. The European Commission's case against the UK is that the law should have been implemented in such a way that users must give their free and informed consent (if ISPs were to rely on consent as a defence to a plea of unlawful interception).