A few untruths in that article.
ICO says "The statement added that it would take seriously any complaints it received about the service but said it had not received any to date."
Untrue. There were / are complaints.
"Talk Talk said the trials would be with customers that have opted in to use it."
This is misleading. The Q&A which TalkTalk recently posted says:
7. Will only customers who sign up to Network Security have the websites they visit scanned?
We are scanning all the websites our customer base as a whole visits, in complete anonymity, You have to opt-into the Virus Alerts product itself, so if you don't want the warnings while you browse you don't have to enable the service, or if you activate Virus Alerts, you can switch it off again at any time afterwards From that customers can choose to opt-in to the virus alert service. But there is no confirmation or denial that their data is still intercepted. This is similar to BTs Webwise front. You had the choice of opting out of their malware detection service, but all your data was still processed by DPI and the profiler.
A detailed analysis of the TalkTalk trials is here [
nodpi.org...]
Heads up. The CPS said that the end of November is when they would announce their decision as to whether to prosecute over the Phorm trials in 2006 and 2007. That's next week (and nearly 800 days since they were first handed the case file).
Lorry loads of Crown Whitewash Paint seen being delivered to 2 Southwark Bridge.
