TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yep. The relevance and point of this post responding to a frankly throw-away comment was...?

Ah but the problem was that you didn't throw it away - you posted it.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Ah but the problem was that you didn't throw it away - you posted it.

You're still wrong about that Huawei IP address though.

Go on, admit it. If you can spend a month or however long it was without uttering a word you can admit you were mistaken here.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You're still wrong about that Huawei IP address though.

Go on, admit it. If you can spend a month or however long it was without uttering a word you can admit you were mistaken here.

Perhaps you could quote the CF post in which I am "mistaken about that Huawei adddress". Not what you think I said mind, and not what OTHERS have said on the same subject, but what I actually said. (BTW - I've referred to Huawei IP ranges, rather than a single address) & I have referred to what others have posted, so that there could be discussion here of THEIR evidence, and I have several times made it clear that I do NOT have that evidence on my own logs.

There are just 3 of my posts here that mention Huawei, to look through.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086021

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086221

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086396

You'll have to explain the "one month without uttering a word" reference, it isn't at all clear to me what you are referring to. I've never been told off for saying too little before. People usually complain about me saying too much. I'll come back more often if you've been missing me.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

You'll have to explain the "one month without uttering a word" reference, it isn't at all clear to me what you are referring to. I've never been told off for saying too little before. People usually complain about me saying too much. I'll come back more often if you've been missing me.

I was referring to your 30 day silent retreat doing the full spiritual exercises of Ignatius Mr Jones.

You refer to it as evidence of bots following customers, it's nothing of the sort from what I've seen so you are, either due to being simply mistaken or a predisposition towards believing the worst regarding this programme, wrong.

Topic people.Let's not wander too far from it please. I fail to see how someone's religious beliefs are really part of the topic..

Originally Posted by R Jones

Perhaps you could quote the CF post in which I am "mistaken about that Huawei adddress". Not what you think I said mind, and not what OTHERS have said on the same subject, but what I actually said. (BTW - I've referred to Huawei IP ranges, rather than a single address) & I have referred to what others have posted, so that there could be discussion here of THEIR evidence, and I have several times made it clear that I do NOT have that evidence on my own logs.

There are just 3 of my posts here that mention Huawei, to look through.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086021

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086221

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/63...l#post35086396

You'll have to explain the "one month without uttering a word" reference, it isn't at all clear to me what you are referring to. I've never been told off for saying too little before. People usually complain about me saying too much. I'll come back more often if you've been missing me.

You are being a little slippery with your propositions, Robert - one may be suspect you of casuistry.

You may not have stated that you saw that information, but you did (imho) state that others had, and used those statements to back up your proposition.

In your first link, for example, you state

All the requests I have seen on my logs have been for specific pages rather than just the domain. Because I do not have login sections on my site, and I do not nowadays, set cookies or run a forum, I have not seen session id's etc in the urls requested during the trial, but other websites do seem to have seen this and it looks like TT are acknowledging that at least to the ICO if not on the TT blog.

You referred to Huawei "equipment" - the discussion that I have seen has indicated that Huawei IP addresses were involved in this following process - although I don't see that in my own logs for the May-July period. That is something that AFAICS TalkTalk have not addressed at all in their responses.

and

The various IP ranges from which the trial seems to have originated are all given on the TT members forum discussions, including both TalkTalk and Huawei ranges

In your second link (which refers to your first link), you state

you will see that what I am referring to is their lack of acknowledgement of the tracking/mirrored url requests coming from Huawei IP ranges

and

However there are claims out there regarding Huawei IP addresses being the source of requests turning up for urls used a short time previously by TalkTalk customers

and in your third link you state

your explanation about Huawei reading articles in the Register and then visiting the forum unfortunately doesn't fit with the specific evidence I have seen and which you can see to if you choose to. It isn't a question of my own credibility, because it isn't my evidence

You keep stating it isn't your evidence, but you use it to back up your proposition - you can't have it both ways; if the evidence isn't credible, neither is your proposition....

[Rchivist]

I'm still waiting for the indication of where my statements on this matter are incorrect. In fact - what WAS my proposition? You don't quote it.

You may call it casuistry. But I call it being careful. I'm sorry if that doesn't give the ammunition required.

Originally Posted by R Jones

I'm still waiting for the indication of where my statements on this matter are incorrect. In fact - what WAS my proposition? You don't quote it.

You may call it casuistry. But I call it being careful. I'm sorry if that doesn't give the ammunition required.

Nice attempt at deflection by saying I said something I didn't.....

Thank you for another example of your sophistry - I did not state your statements on this matter were incorrect (just pointing out the fact that you refer to others' "evidence" in your posts, which you are happy to use, but you also seem to be employing the old "plausible deniability" with the "but I didn't say it" gambit.

btw, I am not looking for any "ammunition" - just facts, rather than skewed hypotheses.

[Rchivist]

A tag team? - just one at a time please.

statement about casuistry - not sure about the exact meaning as the grammar is a bit astray

Originally Posted by foreverwar

one may be suspect you of casuistry.

statement about me being incorrect/wrong

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You're still wrong about that Huawei IP address though.

Go on, admit it. .....(off topic material snipped) you can admit you were mistaken here.

I think I've done my best with both of those already. I don't think picking up on the rapid deployment of "sophistry" to replace "casuistry" will get us much further either. If I produce a clever argument refutiing it, that will no doubt be regarded as more sophistry, or am I being casuistic now? Shall we get out our dictionaries? (not a wise move, I'd advise against it)

Here is a more on topic question - which I've tried before. (how time flies - four days ago now - http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35084463-post81.html )

It's a general sort of question, it's on topic, it's relevant, and I'm sure someone here has an opinion. It keeps getting lost in this other personal stuff and unless I've missed it, no one has ventured an opinion yet. It doesn't even involve any controversial evidence - I think the fact that the TalkTalk tracker is processing url requests for web pages (rather than just domains) is agreed all round.

Would you say that a request from a TalkTalk tracker that uses a webpage url and not just a domain, was dealing merely with "traffic data"?
(let's ignore session IDs for the moment and assume - for the sake of argument - to avoid diversions, that those unedited urls with session/login data included, were a TalkTalk slip up - although the jury is still out on that, not least at the ICO)

- bearing in mind how the gov.uk advice site defines such things
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7586/7586.pdf
"traffic data may identify a server or domain name (web site) but not a web page"
and giving an example of "traffic data"
"web browsing information to the extent that only a host machine, server or domain is disclosed;"

If you really don't want to answer it then just say so and I'll note it down as an unanswered question. I honestly don't mind if you disagree. But it would be a pity to ignore it. I raised it first in post 81.

I honestly think that if we can get that one answered, that's my list of questions finished for the moment unless some more news breaks.

[Ignitionnet]

My answer is I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Without checking the letter of the law and consulting a lawyer I'm not in a position to answer that appropriately.

In my opinion no it shouldn't be, I see it as no different from the last few digits of a telephone number, the domain, etc, being area code and prefix, however what the law, as tested by case law would say may be different.

Again per previous I'm not a lawyer and this is a legal question. The technical question I was able to answer and duly did. For me to comment with any kind of authority or even offer an opinion on this matter would be potentially arrogant of me given my lack of legal experience, however opinions are opinions and that's mine.

I shall leave the legal commentary to other posters in other forums who appear to be far more sure of legalities and comment with far more authority. I have a maths degree to study for which is in my opinion far more interesting than these laws

[Rchivist]

Not sure of course what the statistics are behind this statement from Mark Schmid, communications director for TalkTalk but I thought it interesting in the light of comments above about how little outcry there seemed to have been from website owners about the impact of the TalkTalk monitoring.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...trial-to-phorm

Schmid stressed the system looks at websites, not user data, and said the vast majority of the queries TalkTalk has fielded about the system were from website owners wondering why their sites were being scanned, not from the ISP's customers.

The comment was made in response to the recently released ICO comments about the trial, involving criticism of TT for neither informing customers or the ICO. Particularly unfortunate as CPW/TT were already under an enforcement notice from the ICO (January 2008) concerning earlier DPA breaches.

Of course, the statement could mean that TT have had three queries, and two (the vast majority) were from websites, but the noise elsewhere from customers, on the TT members forum, suggests that if website queries vastly outnumber customer queries, there may be more than just two websites who have noticed this.

Perhaps something for those with maths degrees? (Not me unfortunately)

[Rchivist]

The story about the ICO reprimand of TalkTalk has now made it to the BBC news site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11213488

"It didn't cross our minds that it would be compared to Phorm," said Mr Schmid.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Not sure of course what the statistics are behind this statement from Mark Schmid, communications director for TalkTalk but I thought it interesting in the light of comments above about how little outcry there seemed to have been from website owners about the impact of the TalkTalk monitoring.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...trial-to-phorm


The comment was made in response to the recently released ICO comments about the trial, involving criticism of TT for neither informing customers or the ICO. Particularly unfortunate as CPW/TT were already under an enforcement notice from the ICO (January 2008) concerning earlier DPA breaches.

Of course, the statement could mean that TT have had three queries, and two (the vast majority) were from websites, but the noise elsewhere from customers, on the TT members forum, suggests that if website queries vastly outnumber customer queries, there may be more than just two websites who have noticed this.

Perhaps something for those with maths degrees? (Not me unfortunately)

If you're referring to me I'm studying, don't have one.

Likewise I never quantified websites that may have noticed so not really anything interesting for me in any event. I actually mentioned that others were looking into this. Any website of sophistication would have noted those accesses via automatic log analysis.

Though the title of the article is delightfully tabloid and inaccurate. There is of course absolutely no comparison to Phorm at all, merely a note of public perceptions.

Incidentally that BBC link appears to end up at PCPro - http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...trial-to-phorm. Comment opportunity!

Note: Now going to BBC website properly - paraphrases PCPro article.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by PC Pro

While the ICO has not publicly condemned the trial, a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Peter White and listed on MySociety's What Do They Know site, revealed the watchdog asked the ISP for full details of the system, following concerns that consumers hadn’t been warned before the trial started.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35083921-post77.html

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I thought this was all about privacy?

Originally Posted by bluecar1

nope, it is about a webmasters rights over their own content and how it is accessed

I didn't know the ICO governed or had some input into content rights?

Originally Posted by R Jones

The story about the ICO reprimand of TalkTalk has now made it to the BBC news site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11213488

Well, next time I'm "reprimanded", I hope it is as soft as this one.....

In August the ICO received a Freedom of Information request, asking whether it had investigated the system.

It revealed that it had and in correspondence with TalkTalk, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: "I am concerned that the trial was undertaken without first informing those affected that it was taking place".

He also revealed that TalkTalk had not told the ICO about the trials.
"In the light of the public reaction to BT's trial of the proposed Webwise service I am disappointed to note that this particular trial was not mentioned to my officials during the latest of our liasion meetings," he added

ZOMG, he was "concerned" and "disappointed" - that's TalkTalk frakked, then....

(actually, I do think TT were in the wrong about undertaking this trial without informing their customers, but I also think some people need to get a sense of perspective....)

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by R Jones

The story about the ICO reprimand of TalkTalk has now made it to the BBC news site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11213488

Not from the BBC, but http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35086523-post132.html

And it's expressing concerns, and disappointment, but it does not appear that the ICO is reprimanding Talk Talk.