Evidence that ISPs running DPI systems for advertising do not need to sign the IAB guidelines?

Link: [1]File-List

31st March 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0241736

Dear Mr Hankin

Thank you for your correspondence dated 31 March 2009 in which you have
made an information request.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 under the reference number shown above.  We will
therefore respond to your request by 30 April 2009 which, allowing for the
Good Friday and Easter Monday bank holidays, is 20 working days from the
day after we received your request.

Yours sincerely

Adam Stevens

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager.

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad8A18D_files/filelist.xml

Link: [1]File-List

30 April 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0241736

Dear Mr Hankin

I write further to our acknowledgement letter to you dated 31 March 2009
and in response to your request for information. As you are aware we have
treated your request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

Your request of 31 March 2009 contains three points, all with reference to
communications in the last twelve months. I will address each point
individually below.

1. One supplier of DPI systems (Phorm) has signed the new Internet
Advertising Bureau guidelines. As the DPI system is actually run by the
ISP (BT will operate Webwise for example), please release any papers
written or communications that have taken place this year where
consideration is given to the lack of signature to the IAB guidelines by
the ISP companies.

Whilst the IAB guidelines promote good practice, there is no requirement
in the legislation we regulate (the Data Protection Act and Privacy and
Electronic Communications Regulations) for any body to sign up to them.
Therefore we do not hold any records of discussions or communications
where consideration is given to the lack of signature to the IAB
guidelines by the ISP companies.

It is important to note however, that there has been contact directly with
ISPs including BT to ensure they are acting in line with the legislation
we regulate about the issue of DPI systems.

2. ICO have publicly stated that the IAB standards are broadly compatible
with compliance with the legislation which ICO enforce. Please release any
documents that discuss the degree of compliance which the guidelines will
give.

Having contacted the relevant department I have located two documents that
fall within the scope of your request. Much of the discussion regarding
this has occurred via conversation, therefore the documents located are a
set of meeting notes and a record of a telephone discussion. These are
attached. The telephone record is an extract, as there was additional
information in the same document that did not fall within the scope of
your request.

Documents attached – ‘Meeting notes.pdf’ and ‘Telephone
notes.pdf’.

I have also located an email sent on 24 February 2009 containing an
extract that may be relevant to your request. The email was sent by Phil
Jones (Assistant Commissioner) to the IAB. It states;

As regards the draft news releases I am happy with the Trade press one
where we are “supporting” the IAB initiative.

I am less keen on the consumer press one because we don’t formally
endorse guidelines. There are sensitivities here lest arguably guidelines
don’t necessarily reflect the full letter of the law. I would therefore
prefer “This initiative is supported by ….”.

The rest of the email does not fall within the scope of the request.

3. This issue does seem to be somewhat 'dragging on' because it is a
complex one, and the operation of such a system does seem to be legally
and morally questionable. I trust that ICO is being provided with the
expertise needed to manage through it. Could I finally ask, in the past 12
months, what technical expertise and support has ICO requested to evaluate
the issue. Have any technical assistance requests in connection with Phorm
or BT Webwise been denied the resources to obtain it?

In the past 12 months the ICO has not requested any external technical
expertise or support to assist in evaluating this issue (and hence have
not been denied resources in obtaining support or assistance at any
point). Work relating to Phorm and BT Webwise has been conduced by the
Data Protection Policy team.

I hope this information is of assistance to you, However, If you are
dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a
review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been
handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team at the address
below or e-mail [2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to the Case Reception Team, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information
Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is enclosed.

Yours sincerely

Adam Stevens

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager.

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radF36F5_files/filelist.xml
2. mailto:[email address]