UK Police Drop BT-Phorm Investigation

L4t3r4lu5 writes: "City of London Police have decided not to formally investigate BT and Phorm for their allegedly illegal secret ISP-level adware trials, arguing that there was implied consent from customers and it would be a waste of public money.

The matter will not be investigated by the City of London Police as it has been decided that no Criminal Offence has been committed. One of the main reasons for this decision is the lack of Criminal Intent on behalf of BT and Phorm Inc in relation to the tests. It is also believed that there would have been a level of implied consent from BT's customers in relation to the tests, as the aim was to enhance their products.

Who decides where there is implied consent? What about informed consent? Where does this notion of "... lack of Criminal Intent..." come from? Can I use that as a defense in the future?"