121Media, Phorm, and Covert Trials

Dear Sir or Madam,

In 2006 and 2007, British Telecom conducted covert mass trials of a
communication surveillance system supplied by 121Media. The system
intercepted the private telecommunications of tens of thousands of
UK subjects (possibly hundreds of thousands) and the organisations
and businesses that served them.

Please could you disclose for me;

1) the date on which Prime Minister Tony Blair was first advised
that British Telecom were conducting, or proposed to conduct,
covert mass trials of 121Media products in 2006 and 2007.

2) the date on which Prime Minister Gordon Brown was first advised
that British Telecom were conducting, or proposed to conduct,
covert mass trials of 121Media products in 2006 and 2007.

I would also be grateful if you would disclose

3) the dates of meetings between the Prime Minister and
BT/121Media/Phorm to discuss the use of 121Media/Phorm products
(PageSense, NetSense, ProxySense, Webwise) since January 2005

4) the topic, agenda, and minutes of those meetings

5) all correspondence (letters, fax, email, etc) between the Prime
Ministers Office and 121Media/Phorm since January 2005

6) all correspondence (letters, fax, email, etc) between the Prime
Ministers Office and BT concerning the use of 121Media/Phorm
products since January 2005

7) all correspondence (letters, fax, email, etc) between the Prime
Ministers Office and BERR, DIUS, DCMS, Home Office, and the UK IPO
concerning 121Media/Phorm since January 2008

8) all correspondence (letters, fax, email, etc) between the Prime
Ministers Office and the European Commission concerning EC case
reference 64/08/INSO (proceedings against the UK Government for
failing to prosecute BT)

Noting particularly that Phorm claim to have recently engaged with
the Prime Ministers Office (23 February 2009).

Yours faithfully,
P John

Dear Ms. Clark,

in previous FoI requests made to the Cabinet Office, I have been
informed that the Prime Ministers Office and the Cabinet Office are
distinct and serve different functions.

Indeed I was told in recent letter from your colleague Sue Gray
that 'it does not necessarily follow that the Prime Minister or his
office will be privy to the same information as the Cabinet Office,
and vice versa. There is correspondence which will be dealt with by
the Cabinet Office which will not be sent to the Prime Ministers
Office'.

So I'm concerned that the reply you send originates from the
Cabinet Office, not the Prime Minister's Office. The original
request was clearly addressed to the Prime Minster's Office.

It is unlikely that there can be no such information.

Concerning questions 1 and 2, according to Lord West "The Central
Sponsor for Information Assurance lies within the Cabinet Office".

Consequently I would expect GCHQ/CESG/CPNI to have reported the
detection of large scale unauthorised surveillance to the Cabinet
Office/Prime Ministers Office.

Or, in the alternative, if the Cabinet and Prime Minister were not
advised by GCHQ/CESG/CPNI of unauthorised surveillance, you would
expect considerable concern when it was exposed in April 2008.

And even if one assumes there was no such detection, and no such
concern, the imminent threat of a prosecution by the European
Commission then arises. The letters from the EC were passed to the
Cabinet Office.

In all cases above, one would naturally expect a considerable
volume of documentation and correspondence to arise at Prime
Ministerial/Cabinet level. And one would expect the Prime Minister
to be informed.

I understand from information published by Phorm that the they
engaged with Number 10 on about 26 February this year.

Consequently I would expect to see evidence of meeting invitations,
and replies to those invitations, agenda's and minutes of any
meeting, notes taken by Civil Servants, or other items of
correspondence to/from Phorm.

"# engaging with Number 10, 9:02 AM Feb 26th from web" - Radha
Burgess, Phorm on twitter.com

If that meeting/correspondence was not with the Prime Minister,
please could you tell me who Phorm did meet/engage with at Number
10?

Please could you reconsider your reply to each of the questions
posed, otherwise, I will have to request an Internal Review.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Ms Clark,

you may also with to draw the attention of the Prime Minister's
Office to the various online petitions to Number 10, one of which
has attracted over 20,000 signatures.

I am certain the Prime Minister's Office could not have ingnored
these petitions.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ispphorm/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/datapro...
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/target-...

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Ms Edwards/Ms Clark,

I tried calling to clarify.

>I am re-sending this as said undelivered.

Your message seems to be blank, and without attachments, at least
as displayed here;

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...

Would you mind trying again?

many thanks
Yours sincerely,
P. John

Dear Ms. Edwards,

I understand you are treating this as a request for internal
review.

many thanks
Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's
Office's handling of my FOI request '121Media, Phorm, and Covert
Trials'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Ms Edwards

its a feature of the 'whatdotheyknow' site.

When it changes the state of the FoI to 'internal review requested'
a message is automatically sent. (No need to reply to this note).

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Sir or Madam,

please could I chase progress on this internal review.

It has been approximately 6 months.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Ms Edwards,

thanks for your note, I believe the Internal Review reference is
IR264864.

You'll find details of the request here;
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Ms Smart,

so, for the avoidance of doubt, and despite 18 months delay
resolving this FoI request...

You have no idea when the Prime Minister was first advised that
British Telecom were conducting illegal covert surveillance of the
UK telecommunications network using Russian supplied surveillance
technology developed by spyware criminals?

You have found no correspondence items, no meetings?

Despite a petition that garnered 25,000 signatures asking the Prime
Minister to intervene (to which he eventually responded)... despite
police complaints... despite complaints to the Information
Commissioner... and the subsequent complaints to the European
Commission... despite a private prosecution attempt... and a
CPS/Police investigation alleging fraud/illegal
interception/copyright theft/computer misuse/data protection
offences which is still on going?

I think you may be pulling my leg.

To be blunt with you: as the days have rolled into years it has
become ever more obvious this is an episode of serious political,
civil service, police, and commercial corruption.

It is simply inconceivable that the Prime Minister was unaware that
this criminal activity was going on in 2006 and 2007. Still more
shocking that he was prepared to tolerate a third illegal trial of
the technology in 2008.

And still, no one is in jail.

Yours faithfully,

P. John