|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
18 April 2008
From: "Pete John" <pjohn[at]blueyonder.co.uk> To: <ukcrypto[at]chiark.greenend.org.uk> Subject: Home Office Disclosure: Phorm Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:47:44 +0100 I asked the Home Office, under the Freedom of Information Act, to explain whether they were made aware that BT were testing Phorm systems in 2006/7, whether the trial was authorised by the Home Office, when they first started advising BT/Phorm/ISPs, and what instruction they are giving Police Detectives. From the statement received the Home Office I draw these conclusions. The Home Office were unaware that systems supplied by Phorm were being used to monitor Internet traffic in 2006/7. Consequently, the trail was likely to have indiscriminately intercepted traffic relating to Military Staff, Police Officers, Judges, Solicitors, MPs, Doctors, Bankers, Civil Servants, Security Services and ordinary citizens without any Home Office advice or oversight. There was no authorisation given by the Home Office to conduct trials of Phorm in 2006/7. The first contact with the Home Office was 4 February 2008... meaning that Phorm and BT conducted trials in 2006/7 without ever consulting the Home Office, and acted without that advice in hand (including advice concerning consent to intercept, and assumed consent). And no Police Detectives have sought advice from the Home Office concerning RIPA. (I plan to pursue that question; what advise would Police Officers be given?). The response received from Simon Watkin is shared with you below. regards Pete. ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr John, You write: “…. it is clear your office were advising Phorm in January 2008. Well before the public announcement of agreements between Phorm and Internet Service Providers” The Home Office was approached by a number of parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The single response to those requests was made in the informal guidance note, dated January 2008, which was not made available to any of those parties until 4 February 2008. "Please now inform me - Whether the Home Office were made aware of the secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7" It wasn’t. "- Whether the Home Office authorised secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7" The Home Office was not aware of the trials/tests. "- When you first started advising BT and Phorm (and other ISPs)" Asked for a view we gave that view to all parties who asked for it on or after 4 February 2008. "- What advice Police Detective Inspectors are being given by the Home Office concerning prosecutions of BT (and other ISPs)" No such advice has been sought. I have asked my press office to communicate this response to Chris Williams at The Register. Simon Watkin HOME OFFICE