PI did not get paid by Phorm & I suggest you refrain from your libelous comments. It was an entirely different company that did Phorm’s PIA.

And for the record, I ran the campaign against Phorm for the better part of 2 years. I filed the criminal prosecution against Phorm and continue to push the CPS for a criminal prosecution.

Seems to me that you are just a sad and bitter individual, perhaps jealous because some of us have the integrity to stick to our principles against all odds and you don’t have the moral stamina to do so.

I will not respond further to your pathetic whimpers.

That process of consideration is, as far I’m aware, still ongoing and we need to bombard Mr Cable’s office with evidence that privacy is at serious risk, as well as all the other elements he needs to consider in terms of sections 17 and 18 of DEA.

So if you UK guys have nothing else to say about the DEA, you can at least copy this TF article and its url and send it to BIS asking they reconsider the unfair assumption that people will be assumed GUILTY until they can somehow prove their innocence.

You can contact BIS here
http://www.bis.gov.uk/contact
Click on Dr Vince Cable MP

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/252274/privacy-international-we-re-not-hypocrites-over-phorm

and PI did nothing over Phorm -

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4514-ruling-on-bt-phorm-case-delayed-by-crown-prosecution-service.html

a: PI never said they would sue Phorm, in fact PI did nothing regarding Phorm because they didn’t have anyone on staff to deal with commercial interception. They brought me on board specifically to deal with comms issues.

If you still believe PI did say they would sue Phorm please do post a reference to the “numerous media statements” you claim we made.

b: ACS:Law – I spent well over a month working on the ACS:Law issue every single day. I received literally hundreds of emails from victims of the ACS:Law Data Breach and had discussions with over a dozen barristers regarding legal action. The only reason we were unable to take action is because the one good witness we had withdrew their co-operation on the advice of their solicitor so they could pursue a private civil suit.

I even offered upto 6k of my own money to pay for a barrister to file for an injunction in the High Court. Enigmax has a copy of the statement of claim I prepared for the injunction.

c: With regards the patents court – there is nothing we can do about that. We are not a P2P defence organisation, we are a privacy organisation. We got involved in the ACS:Law situation because there was a clear breach of the DPA when ACS:Law leaked their email archive. We do not have any power to over rule courts or court orders – neither does anyone else.

d: We practically don’t exist? We have been defending privacy for almost 21 years across the world. In the 20 months I have worked for PI I have spoken at dozens of conferences, lobbied dozens of politicians, written an array of government consultation papers, ran multiple campaigns, given hundreds of press/media interviews, filed multiple legal complaints and continue to do so. Other than a European Commission funded project which I have been working on for the past 9 months, I have never been paid for any of that work. PI staff do not draw a salary, all our funding goes directly to specific projects. And for the record, the one project I do get paid for pays me < 1K per month.

So I ask you, how many years of your life have you dedicated to defending civil rights 70+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year for no pay? I suspect the answer is 0.

So before you start insulting those of us who have dedicated our lives to protecting YOUR rights, for zero reward and very little thanks, perhaps you should lead by example eh?

Now, despite your diatribe, I will continue to do my work because even though there are ungrateful, sanctimonious pricks like you out there, I believe in the work I do and won't let your hypocrisy deter me.

And for the record, this is my personal response, not an official PI statement.

The reality is that apart from putting out the odd media statement they do not work on p2p/ACS law.

They just get media hits on the back of other people’s work. The ICO would have investigated ACS Law in any case, PI phone call or not.

Apart from various, ever changing interns and volunteers who gravitate around PI, and the odd media statement, they practically don’t exist.

The reality is that non of the people who have been accused by ACS law can count on PI for help.

Certainly, PI is nowhere to be seen when it comes to helping the 25+ individuals who have been dragged in front of the Patents County Court and have their hearing on the 17th. And they were nowhere to be seen when GM tried to force ISPs to hand over details regarding Ministry of Sound.

This is not even a story, everybody knows that there is a high margin of error when it comes to ISPs matching IP addresses to customer details. Has happened before, and will happen again. The system was designed for billing, and a high margin of error is accepted.

Doesn’t alter the fact that Vince Cable’s post was a complete fabrication though.