Phorm and the Home Office May Have 'Worked Together'

E-mail exchanges obtained by a member of the public under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) Act show the conversations between the UK Home Office and the Phorm advertising company. The archives, which have been sent to the BBC, show that the company influenced the way in which the authorities decided the policy guidelines that applied to all other companies in the field. The discovery comes shortly after the European Union announced it started an infringement procedure on the island nation, for not ensuring that the privacy of its citizens' Internet traffic was protected.

The incriminating e-mails also hint at the fact that the advertising company inquired the Home Office as to the legality of its methods. That is to say, Phorm wanted to see if the Home Office had anything against it spying on the online behavior of its citizens, without obtaining their prior consent. This is a blatant violation of EU regulations, which clearly state that individuals need to give their free and informed consent before the ad company can monitor their behavior. Already, Internet provider BT has acknowledged to using Phorm on its users, without asking for permission beforehand.

Baroness Sue Miller, who is a Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman, said after shuffling through the e-mails that the documents were “jaw-dropping.” They date back to August 2007, when the company sent a few documents to the British authority, in order to get its perspective on them. Phorm has always claimed that it did so in order to help the Home Office understand “public safety considerations and legal obligations” of its technology.

“My personal view accords with yours, that even if it is 'interception,' which I am doubtful of, it is lawfully authorized under section 3 by virtue of the user's consent obtained in signing up to the ISPs terms and conditions,” an unnamed Home Office official said in an e-mail dated August 2007, talking to Phorm's legal representative.

No further than January 2008, another Home Office official wrote to Phorm again, telling that, “I should be grateful if you would review the attached document, and let me know what you think.” The attachment referred to a series of regulations that the British authority was to pass. It still remains unclear why the Home Office would need to consult with a private advertising firm before passing “impartial” laws to regulate the field.