European Commission; First Stage of Infringement Proceeding

Dear Sir or Madam,

on 14 April 2009, the UK were given two months to respond to
infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission
(64/08/INSO).

The proceedings arise following the covert trials of Phorm/121Media
interception and surveillance systems by BT Internet on hundreds of
thousands of its customers, and the web sites they used.

The last working day for the UK Government to submit a response was
Friday 12 June 2009.

Please will you

- confirm or deny that a response has been submitted

- indicate which Department of Government was responsible for
submitting the response

- disclose the content of that response in full

- disclose the content of correspondence between BERR
and the European Commission concerning the same matter

- disclose correspondence between the BERR and other UK
government departments contributing to the response concerning the
same matter

Yours faithfully,

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 Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's handling of my FOI
request 'European Commission; First Stage of Infringement
Proceeding'.

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

Please could you reconsider the public interest
exemption. The public interest is best served by openly and
transparently disclosing the reasons why the UK Government either
failed to enforce the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act/Data
Protection Act/Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations
(among others), or in the alternative, failed to correctly
implement the European Directives highlighted by the EC Infraction
proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Sir or Madam,

please can I chase progress on this internal review?

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

The public interest is best served by openly and transparently
disclosing the information requested.

It has taken the CPS almost a year to consider the evidence of
criminal offences by BT/Phorm.

I am particularly keen to know what explanation was provided to the
European Commission that might explain this extended delay, and so
understand the ongoing failure to prosecute executives of BT/Phorm
for illegally intercepting UK personal and commercial
telecommunications without authorisation or licence.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Mr Mr Rutnam/Mr Balchin,

many thanks.

In passing, the prolonged secrecy surround this matter is
confounding to many like me.

I am perplexed by the failure of the Government, regulators, and
Police to act against a private sector company that has quite
clearly broken the law.

I'm surprised by the silence of Government Ministers.

And increasingly concerned by the refusal to justify or explain
this inaction to UK citizens (though you are evidently prepared to
provide the same to the European Commissioners).

UK citizens and UK businesses are owed an explanation.

Yours sincerely,

P. John