There's fresh and disquieting evidence today that the tentacles of Phorm (the so-called "deep packet inspection" company) reach deep indeed - straight into the heart of the British government, writes Martyn Warwick.
The news has come to light after a member of the public made a request to see emails sent between Phorm and the UK Home Office (the British equivalent of a Ministry of the Interior) under the Freedom of Information Act and then passed them on to the BBC.
It transpires that since August 2007, one of the UK's three great Ministries of State has been in regular email contact (and who knows by whatever other means of communication) with a commercial, for-profit company whose snooping technology is causing considerable anger and opposition amongst Britain's Internet users.
The released emails show that Phorm approached the Home Office and asked the ministry for its "view" on the company and "informal guidance" as to whether or not the Phorm "Webwise" behavioural profiling software is legal in the UK.
The Home Office responded by asking Phorm for full technical details about its software and thereafter a cosy electronic relationship sprang up between the two parties. Emails from Phorm's legal team show that the company repeatedly pressed the Home office to confirm that the British government "has no objection to the marketing and operation of the Phorm product in the UK".
In an e-mail of August 2007, an anonymous Home Office functionary contacted Phorm's legal department and wrote, "My personal view accords with yours, that even if it is "interception", which I am doubtful of, it is lawfully authorised under Section 3 by virtue of the user's consent obtained in signing up to the ISPs terms and conditions."
In a later e-mail dated 22 January 2008, another apparatchik wrote "I should be grateful if you would review the attached document, and let me know what you think."
By January last year, civil servants were even "thanking" Phorm for comments and changes to its draft paper, which show the company was permitted to alter, adapt and cut parts of the document itself.
Most damningly of all, in another email another "anonymous" mandarin writes "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted?"
In other words, the Home Office is considering using Phorm's own arguments and rationale vis a vis Webwise to sell the deep packet concept to the general public and is so deeply involved with Phorm's management and commercial aspirations that it actually asks the company if it's happy with the ministry's approach.
How compromised, how partial and how cynical is that?
And if any further or more damning evidence of the depth of the collusion between the British government and Phorm is needed, take note that some of the emails emanated from the Security and Counter Terrorism section at the Home Office. This surely is prima facie evidence that the government is interested in deep packet inspection technology for its own surveillance purposes.
It should also be remembered that the Home Office is the government department tasked with defining policy to protect people's privacy not to put it in even greater jeopardy than it is at the moment by getting into bed with a leading protagonist of a surveillance technology that will compromise individual privacy.
Amongst those heading the opposition to Phorm in parliament is Baroness Miller, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Home Affairs. This morning she said, "My jaw dropped when I saw the Freedom of Information exchanges. Anything the Home Office now says about Phorm is completely tainted ."
Calling the Home Office's clandestine exchanges with Phorm "cynical, she continued, "The fact the Home Office actually asks the very company they are worried is falling outside the law whether the draft interpretation of the law is correct is completely bizarre."
For its part, the Home Office denies that it gave "any advice to Phorm directly relating to possible criminal liability for the operation of their advertising platform in the UK".
Meanwhile, in a letter to the Guradian newspaper Phorm's CEO, Kent Ertugrul, insists that there is no "collusion" between his company and the British government.
He writes, "This is untrue and misrepresents the way in which the British legal system works. He also says that the "advice" Phorm got from the Home Office was "an informed opinion on ISP-based targeted advertising", adding, "in the United Kingdom it is for the courts to decide what is or is not legal, not the Home Office".
Significantly he also insists that it is "misleading to invent a link between Phorm's innovative technology and the Government's plans for counterterrorism". So exactly where is the "invention", Mr. Ertugrul?
Nonetheless it is evident that the CEO has been rattled by recent events, The company has launched a new website, "Stop Phoul Play" designed, Ertugrul says, to put a stop to "orchestrated smears" against Phorm. Take a look - it's enlightening.
The site says, "Phorm has been the subject of a smear campaign orchestrated by a small but dedicated band of online "privacy pirates" who appear very determined to harm our company."
Of which more tomorrow...... but first I have to go out to the garden and smell the roses in an effort to get the stench of a rotten government out of my nostrils.
please sign in to rate this article
44864