Originally Posted by madslug (Post 34587550)

If you read the HO report, it is confirmed there that where the ISP customer has opted in and the website being intercepted is displaying the javascript which allows the OIX adverts to be displayed, then RIPA does not apply as both sender and receiver are deemed to have agreed to the interception.

I don't think anyone reading this forum has any problem with that analysis. If you don't follow what I am on about - read the questions: they are very specific about what is being considered.



I am so happy that she is aware of how unhappy people are. People are agreeing to having adverts delivered to them and to be warned about phishing sites.
Nowhere is anyone agreeing to having their visits to any other sites which do not display adverts intercepted. Nor are there any scripts on the non-OIX partner sites which can in any way be deemed to indicate that they have consented to the interception.

There is a very finely defined list of who may be intercepted: ISP customers (limited to individual identifiable users on the IP address) who have opted in and partner sites who are hosting the OIX scripts.

Even people who share the same IP address can not be deemed to have consented (so you had better not intercept their traffic looking for an opted in/out cookie). Likewise, all other sites must be excluded (if not there is RIPA [criminal] and Copyright [civil] to protect them).

Phorm need to have a list of opted in sites and users and need to ensure that those and only those communication streams are intercepted, else they fall foul of RIPA and PECR.

However, the ISP customers have not consented to the browser hijack nor the forged cookies that are being placed onto their computers (nor have the sites agreed to the use of the domain in this manner). The various Acts covering the legalities/crimes have already been discussed.

Phorm appear to be unable to understand the advice they have been given - no doubt trusting that their new cookie writing script will be successful in ensuring cookies are stripped and are invisible to all sites that can claim an illegal interception under RIPA.

That is because BT have kept very quiet about the millions of sites they will be intercepting who are not/should not be considered part of the trial.

Phorm and BT don't understand it - what chance has anyone else of getting close to the truth?

I can [sort of] agree with Phorm on this: the equipment that needs to be considered for PECR s7 is sitting within the ISP - the ICO should be asking this question of the ISP and not Phorm (although, as Phorm understand the technology, they should be answering on behalf of the ISP and not on behalf of Phorm/OIX). The ISP is using the IP address to deliver the advert back to the customer. Without IP address, the advert can not be delivered. The script delivering the advert will have access to the IP address and the UID (we only have Phorm's assurance that they won't use the display of the adverts to tie in the IP address and the UID).

And ignoring any discussion about interceptions that fall outside the Webwise remit.

I just hope that the HO and ICO read my letters to them regarding there being no provision within the trial for sites to opt-in. Assuming that all sites are happy to be opted in by default and requiring 165 million sites to contact BT to ensure that they are treated as opted out is not practical under common law let alone any other legal requirement.

Websites are commercial businesses. No one may copy the confidential communications between a business and its customers and then use that information to sell advertising so that the competition can come along and poach the customers. For the government to allow that to happen is to put thousands if not millions of small internet based businesses out of business.

It is not only me saying this. Webmasters around the world are shouting on many forums that their sites may not be intercepted. Are you listening, HO, there is no implied consent to sites' content being copied, profiled, channeled and sold to advertisers. NONE. Commercial businesses do not consent to their customers being tracked around the internet. The relationship between a website and its customers is PI to the business so why should Phorm be allowed to use [sell] it to commercial advantage?

And, why does everyone want to destroy thousands of businesses? - so that thousands of blogs that host on free hosting using free scripts and only take a few hours a day to maintain can be monetised and earn the writers some money for their spammy articles.

Anyway, icsys, I hope the above gives you some ammo to include in your reply to your MP and Shriti Vadera of BERR. They both need educating.

Originally Posted by Wildie (Post 34587572)

well teens is any age from 13 to 19 a minor as I see it is 12 and under.

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34587595)

In law, the term minor (also infant or infancy) is used to refer to a person who is under the age in which one legally assumes adulthood and is legally granted rights afforded to adults in society. Therefore a minor in the UK is a person under the age of 18.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel (Post 34587695)

I see you have all resorted to playing like little children.

Baroness whatever - please note the pathetic attitude of those on here. You are dealing with a bunch of very sad people who think silly postings on juvenile websites are amusing.

[Moderator Edit]

They all think it is amusing to tell someone to eff off.

How sad that people actually waste their lives on such rubbish.

The moderator appears to be happy for such silly personal insults to proliferate without comment too. Very poor.


[Moderator Edit (Rob M): Please see my comments below]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel (Post 34587695)

Baroness whatever - please note the pathetic attitude of those on here. You are dealing with a bunch of very sad people who think silly postings on juvenile websites are amusing.

Originally Posted by jtechs (Post 34587705)

On a phorm note, I want to collate all the contradictions made bt phorm and BT and the ICO and list them so its easy for people to actually see the lies and deception. wdyt?

It will take time to go over all of them, but i hope to have it done this week

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587741)

I just visited an IP analysis site, and it indicates that the OS used by a.webwise.com and b.webwise.com is the F5 BIG-IP. I just googled and found the product:

http://www.f5.com/products/big-ip/

"Our ground-breaking platforms deliver unmatched power, dramatically improving Layer 4-7 traffic throughput and providing better application delivery. F5's revolutionary TMOS architecture is at the heart of all BIG-IP platforms, efficiently isolating clients from the server-side flows to increase application performance and allow custom payload inspection and transformation capabilities with iRules."

Also the link for Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F5_Networks

"Add-on modules to F5's BIG-IP family of products offer email filtering and intelligent compression to allow for lower bandwidth and faster downloads in addition to load balancing and local traffic management capabilities."

The hilighted area above does not make me feel comfortable....

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34587602)

just a small point, or large for the executives, if their convicted.

when its copyright piracy for commercial gain, it falls under criminal law not civil (tort)law... also theres that next section that also happens to nicely cover Phorm and kent as the supplyers of said infringing devices to the executives in charge at the ISPs... ;)

and while its nice to have the police and the CPS do the deed and investigate each and every single one of these unlawful/criminal RIPA and copyright theft for commercial profit cases, ultimately, any single person effected can bring a private court case against these executives....

but the ISP/Phorm executives will be fine OC ,they already had their legal teams conduct those unpublished due dilligence legal report findings already, lets hope the judge doesnt do a stanford on them, and conclude given the stanford ruling and the masses of existing copyright rulings in all them well used QC law books dont say something different. :angel:

see:

S.107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA") established the following categories of offences: [img]Download Failed (1)[/img]making or dealing in infringing copies of copyright works;
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]making or possessing an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of copyright works; and
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]causing a work to be performed, played or shown in public.


Making or Dealing in Infringing Articles
It is an offence under s.107 (1) of the CDPA to
(a) make for sale or hire,
(b) import into the United Kingdom otherwise than for private and domestic use,
(c) possess in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing copyright,
(d) in the course of a business
(i) sell or lets for hire,
(ii) offer or expose for sale or hire,
(iii) exhibit in public, or
(iv) distribute, or
(e) distribute otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which is known to be or where there is reason to believe it to be, an infringing copy of a copyright work. Anyone convicted of such making, importing or distribution may be fined or sentenced to up to 2 years in prison upon conviction on indictment or 6 months imprisonment and a fine up to the statutory minimum on summary conviction, or both (s. 107 (4) CDPA). The maximum penalty for any other offence under s.107 (1) is 6 months imprisonment or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale on summary conviction, or both (s. 107 (5)).

Making or Possessing Specially designed or adapted Articles for Making Infringing Copies
It is an offence under s.107 (2) to make an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, or possess such an article, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business. The maximum penalty for an offence under this sub-section is 6 months imprisonment or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale on summary conviction, or both (s.107 (5)).
Communicating the Work to the Public
The new offence of communicating a copyright work to the public is provided by a new s.107 (2A). The penalty for that offence is a imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, a fine up to the statutory maximum or both on summary conviction, or 2 years imprisonment, a fine or both under a new s.107 (4A).
...

---------- Post added at 04:50 ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 ----------

remember, thats PER offence, not per trial conviction

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/offender...ntencing/fine/
Fines are penalties available to courts for a wide variety of offences. In the Magistrates' Courts offences that attract fines are subject to maximums from level 1 to level 5.
Level 1: £200
Level 2: £500
Level 3: £1,000
Level 4: £2,500
Level 5: £5,000
There's no limit to the amount the Crown Court can fine, but the amount will take into account the seriousness of the offence and the offender's ability to pay.

---------- Post added at 05:11 ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 ----------



well no matter what the Executives (and/or their legal teams told them, although if they did perhaps they need taking off retainer and replacing ) or other personel in the ISPs or Phorm think,or try and tell you that its legal, under uk law the Definition of a minor is
14. Under the Regulations a minor is a person under the age of 16 years.

and also Law: Being under legal age; not yet a legal adult.

so thats clear, not of legal adult age, being less than 18, hence not able to authorise a legal ISP contract change.... to be wiretapped,followed,tracked,stalked, etc, but we know this already :erm:

Originally Posted by warescouse (Post 34587766)

I feel concerned also. Function creep?

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587741)

I just visited an IP analysis site, and it indicates that the OS used by a.webwise.com and b.webwise.com is the F5 BIG-IP. I just googled and found the product:

http://www.f5.com/products/big-ip/

"Our ground-breaking platforms deliver unmatched power, dramatically improving Layer 4-7 traffic throughput and providing better application delivery. F5's revolutionary TMOS architecture is at the heart of all BIG-IP platforms, efficiently isolating clients from the server-side flows to increase application performance and allow custom payload inspection and transformation capabilities with iRules."

Also the link for Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F5_Networks

"Add-on modules to F5's BIG-IP family of products offer email filtering and intelligent compression to allow for lower bandwidth and faster downloads in addition to load balancing and local traffic management capabilities."

The hilighted area above does not make me feel comfortable....

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

I see you have all resorted to playing like little children.

Baroness whatever - please note the pathetic attitude of those on here. You are dealing with a bunch of very sad people who think silly postings on juvenile websites are amusing.

[Moderator Edit]

They all think it is amusing to tell someone to eff off.

How sad that people actually waste their lives on such rubbish.

The moderator appears to be happy for such silly personal insults to proliferate without comment too. Very poor.

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587772)

Also it appears that the F5 BIG-IP 2400 Model has SSL capabilities. The specs are limited, so I cannot see whether this amounts to similar Hardware which intercepts; inspects; re-encrypts; creates false certificate; finally sends.

Anyone in the know?

Link to help:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=

Originally Posted by jelv

Whilst I agree that launching a personal attack on you was totally out of order, I suggest it is totally appropriate that Phorm is listed on that site.

Why? This is a very, very important issue with implications for the future of the internet that go way beyond just BT, VM and TT. It is therefore highly appropriate that we seek to bring the matter to the attention of as wide an audience as possible. For example, I doubt that frequent visitors to KFO are in the habit of reading The Guardian! If as a result of the listing on KFO a few more people have become aware then in my view it was totally justified.

I'm sure people actively involved in the campaign will continue to find more channels to use to spread the message - long may that continue!

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34587826)

Rapidly approaching 10 000 unique visitors to NoDPI in just 2.5 weeks of running stats. Over 30 000 page views in the same time period, 740 people subscribed to the rss feeds and the site has been spidered almost 8500 times. So word is getting out, the torrentfreak article from yesterday has pushed a lot of traffic through in the last 12 hours too.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587801)

Totally agree, nobody asked phorm to be here, nobody wants phorm, i have yet to come across anyone who thinks phorm will benefit them(except for phorm shareholders it seems)in anyway, even on football fan forums i have yet to hear from anyone that supports it, just wait till phorm goes live on BT(if ever)and users start trying to find out what is phorm, i see many customers dumping pro-phorm ISP and going to a non-phorm ISP, in the end i hope phorm goes bust.

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34587828)

That is good news Alex..

I will be working on posters in lcal shopping center this week was also considering trying an shopping center campaign with printouts of the BT informed consent form. Asking shoppers if they use the internet and what if they saw that page displayed on their screen they thought they would be accepting..

I know what it wil be but need to gather some proof used to work for NOP so know how to do market research thinking of that wonder what they charge to do a survey on it :D

Originally Posted by roadrunner69 (Post 34587847)

Didn't BT carry out their own consumer survey?
I believe it showed overwhelming support for 'less irrelevant advertising' :erm: and better protection against phishing attacks. :rolleyes:

As with all surveys, ask the right questions and you'll get what ever replies suit your agenda.

Just try and be as neutral as possible when asking, Florence. We know we're right, we don't have to resort to BS. (certainly not suggesting you would act in any other way. :angel:)

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34587854)

Yes but we don't have access totheir findings plus we all know the way questions are asked can bring different answers had they said they were monitoring your every click, website looking at all the information to gather keywords then target you with adverts from this, might give a different response to the question about protecting you from phishing websites and relevent adverts. Notice the economic use of the truth to get the reply you want to be an excuse to implement the spy in the network.

Originally Posted by R Jones

Ah but the BT research document "Premium Browsing: Research Findings" proves that we all are just aching to experience the "premium browsing" that Phorm can provide, along with the two revolutionary privacy concepts that they are introducing, to replace old fashioned ideas like opt-in and informed consent - "Clear and transparent notice" and "recurring notice" - you're just not keeping up with the current PR!!!

Originally Posted by R Jones

If anyone knows where we can get hold of a copy of "Premium Browsing: Research Findings" I'm sure a leak would be covered by the whistleblower regulations.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Rapidly approaching 10 000 unique visitors to NoDPI in just 2.5 weeks of running stats. Over 30 000 page views in the same time period, 740 people subscribed to the rss feeds and the site has been spidered almost 8500 times. So word is getting out, the torrentfreak article from yesterday has pushed a lot of traffic through in the last 12 hours too.

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34587828)

That is good news Alex..

I will be working on posters in lcal shopping center this week was also considering trying an shopping center campaign with printouts of the BT informed consent form. Asking shoppers if they use the internet and what if they saw that page displayed on their screen they thought they would be accepting..

I know what it wil be but need to gather some proof used to work for NOP so know how to do market research thinking of that wonder what they charge to do a servey on it :D

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587874)

Something along the same lines, but possible more sinister in todays Daily Mail:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...salaries-.html

Nice to see the EU and UK have some backbone.

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34587854)

Yes but we don't have access totheir findings plus we all know the way questions are asked can bring different answers had they said they were monitoring your every click, website looking at all the information to gather keywords then target you with adverts from this, might give a different response to the question about protecting you from phishing websites and relevent adverts. Notice the economic use of the truth to get the reply you want to be an excuse to implement the spy in the network.

Originally Posted by Deko (Post 34587922)

@ Alex

where is this news you talked about that was under NDA ?????

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34587947)

Still not finalised so not able to discuss it. If I don't hear back before the end of the week I will assume it is a no go, which will be a shame because it would have helped considerably.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

More evidence of the size of the internet advertising market, and it's ever-increasing nature.
Phorm is just a way of ensuring that Telegraph readers get to see relevant advertising, and not the sort of stuff that would be seen on sale in The Mirror.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...bcntrin130.xml

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587981)

More likely decreasing is the ad market, i do not buy a newspaper to read the ads, i do not look at the ads, newspaper and phorm spyware are too different things, hamsterwheel how does phorm enhance my privacy, please do tell.

Originally Posted by bluecar1

perhaps hamster would also like to enlighten us on the contents of the diagnostic logs on the profiler and ad servers which are kept for upto 14 days and shipped?

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587995)

Yes indeed, what happens to our profile after 14 days(or 21,28 or whatever it maybe in the future)hamster, where does it go, how is our data disposed of, please enlighten us.

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587995)

Yes indeed, what happens to our profile after 14 days(or 21,28 or whatever it maybe in the future)hamster, where does it go, how is our data disposed of, please enlighten us.

Lets watch hamsterwheel rush around the internet looking for the answers :D

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel (Post 34587949)

Phorm is just a way of ensuring that Telegraph readers get to see relevant advertising, and not the sort of stuff that would be seen on sale in The Mirror.
[/url]

Originally Posted by TheBruce1 (Post 34587981)

More likely decreasing is the ad market, i do not buy a newspaper to read the ads, i do not look at the ads, newspaper and phorm spyware are two different things, ******** how does phorm enhance my privacy, please do tell.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34587947)

It was a very promising discussion I was having with a company regarding some sponsorship for the protest event but everything seemed to go quiet towards the end of last week. If I don't hear back before the end of this week I will assume it is a no go, which will be a shame because it would have helped considerably.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34587854)

Yes but we don't have access totheir findings plus we all know the way questions are asked can bring different answers had they said they were monitoring your every click, website looking at all the information to gather keywords then target you with adverts from this, might give a different response to the question about protecting you from phishing websites and relevent adverts. Notice the economic use of the truth to get the reply you want to be an excuse to implement the spy in the network.

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

What is contained in the debug and research logs, where it is processed and what happens to them after 14 days has, as far as I am aware, never been answered to any ones satisfaction.

Originally Posted by bluecar1

i might have found some info on the missing market research see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07...lies_and_bofh/

Originally Posted by Dephormation

And if it hadn't been for us meddling kids Phorm might have gotten away with it too.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

No doubt the company spent the money on internet advertising instead - it's a growing market you know

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Share Price: 1,125.00

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp...re=phorm_reg_s

Originally Posted by jtechs (Post 34588086)

even if you invest in SSL, if the page is public then they can just follow your URL, unless this is encapsulated in the SSL tunnel... if you goto https://www.somesite.org/secret/location.php they can see the GET (or am i wrong on this?)
J

Originally Posted by Deko (Post 34588105)

Why are a.webwise and b.webwise running "F5 Big-IP" are these boxes doing some kind of proxying to the boxes hosted in the states.

Why are DPI machines facing the internet. Maybe i'm missing something here.

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588092)

I'd love to know the name of the person who interpreted that survey as being supportive of Phorm. They could get a great job in politics.

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34588101)

If they did eventually decide it was permissible to use that data (noting they currently claim not to, I'm so reassured I left Virgin) .

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34588139)

Incidentally, it struck me this morning, Phorm might want to use the 'opted out' data to create aggregate statistics for advertisers (which might explain their reluctance to provide a real opt in model). For example, they might not create a personal profile, but they might accumulate aggregate data about Virgin Media subscribers opted in or not... and if it is truly opt in they can't do that.

And its one of the reasons it must be truly opt in, I don't want to be profiled as an individual or participate in group profiling either.

[nb; I've seen nothing to indicate this is the case, yet]

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34588139)

Incidentally, it struck me this morning, Phorm might want to use the 'opted out' data to create aggregate statistics for advertisers (which might explain their reluctance to provide a real opt in model). For example, they might not create a personal profile, but they might accumulate aggregate data about Virgin Media subscribers opted in or not... and if it is truly opt in they can't do that.

And its one of the reasons it must be truly opt in, I don't want to be profiled as an individual or participate in group profiling either.

[nb; I've seen nothing to indicate this is the case, yet]

Originally Posted by bigsanta11 (Post 34588155)

"We do ask that our customers adhere to our terms and conditions, which state that they must comply with all relevant laws and not infringe the rights of others," BT said.

:gpoint: :td:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=13547

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34588149)

on going saga with dear emma

sent today as not heard from here regarding my questions,
peter

******************
Emma,

I have been waiting for a reply from you explaining to me why BT think they do not have to check credentials online before changing the terms and conditions of a customers contract to ensure it is the account holder who is authorising this change?

the approach as regards WebWise seems in total contrast to all other dealings I have with BT,

to check my children's browsing history in parental controls, I have to authenticate
to talk to someone at BT I have to passed DPA question to ensure I am the account holder
to pay my bill online I have to create an account and authenticate
to change my contract and sign away my privacy and to accept WebWise and provide BT with a new revenue stream, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE I AM THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OR AUTHENTICATE MY CREDENTIALS
just a tad inconsistent

I await your answer with interest, and it will be published on the BT forum and cable forum

regards

Peter

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588176)

I've just reminded her of those issues today as well. She also mentioned in her reply to me that the interstitial page in the ICO/FOI bundle was a draft and that she was confident that the final one would meet requirements of the legislation. So I have reminded her that she was confident that the 2006/2007 trials were legal but the ICO differs, and that no one had mentioned the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in respect of the interstitial/invitation page.

My email included the following:

IMHO - in order to be remotely legal the "interstitial page" will need to

a) only be offered to customers while they are logged in to and visit a bt.com or BTYahoo page, and only while the customer is logged in as the primary account holder. (not offered to minors, not offered to sub account holders). If the page pops up during ordinary browsing of non BT sites it will constitute an illegal interception - effectively a browser hijack.

If it is offered to minors, then the change in the T&C's of the primary account holder that their acceptance will involve, is UNenforceable, and if it is offered to sub account holders, then the change in T&C's that their acceptance will involve is unenforceable.

You will also need to address the issue of targeting of adverts to minors and explain that in the invitation page so that the primary account holder can fully evaluate that particular issue.

b) contain adequate information about Webwise technology which the copy sent to the ICO certainly does NOT, in order to conform to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Representing Webwise simply as a means of reducing irrelevant adverts, or antiphishing protection, will be a breach of these regulations.

c) only be offered if the informed consent of website owners that the customer might visit while participating in the trials, can be obtained and verified BEFORE their unique data exchange with their customers is profiled, before the content of their websites is copied and exploited, before derivative copies of their websites are made for commercial gain (a CRIMINAL offence) and before forged cookies are made incorporating their domain name. You should be aware that there are many websites out there waiting for Webwise customers to visit their sites, at which point they will commence reporting BT for criminal (yes - criminal) breaches of the copyright laws.

d) the trials can only proceed if there is absolutely NO way that ANY traffic from non-opted in customers goes anywhere near the Phorm software. I am unable at present to see ANY way in which you can legally intercept traffic of all customers to find out whether they are opted in to the trial without access to BT Wholesale equipment or by illegally intercepting the traffic of non-opted in customers.

Hopefully that will give ES something to think about, and at the very least, they can't say they weren't warned.

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588176)

I've just reminded her of those issues today as well. She also mentioned in her reply to me that the interstitial page in the ICO/FOI bundle was a draft and that she was confident that the final one would meet requirements of the legislation. So I have reminded her that she was confident that the 2006/2007 trials were legal but the ICO differs, and that no one had mentioned the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in respect of the interstitial/invitation page.

My email included the following:

IMHO - in order to be remotely legal the "interstitial page" will need to

a) only be offered to customers while they are logged in to and visit a bt.com or BTYahoo page, and only while the customer is logged in as the primary account holder. (not offered to minors, not offered to sub account holders). If the page pops up during ordinary browsing of non BT sites it will constitute an illegal interception - effectively a browser hijack.

If it is offered to minors, then the change in the T&C's of the primary account holder that their acceptance will involve, is UNenforceable, and if it is offered to sub account holders, then the change in T&C's that their acceptance will involve is unenforceable.

You will also need to address the issue of targeting of adverts to minors and explain that in the invitation page so that the primary account holder can fully evaluate that particular issue.

b) contain adequate information about Webwise technology which the copy sent to the ICO certainly does NOT, in order to conform to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Representing Webwise simply as a means of reducing irrelevant adverts, or antiphishing protection, will be a breach of these regulations.

c) only be offered if the informed consent of website owners that the customer might visit while participating in the trials, can be obtained and verified BEFORE their unique data exchange with their customers is profiled, before the content of their websites is copied and exploited, before derivative copies of their websites are made for commercial gain (a CRIMINAL offence) and before forged cookies are made incorporating their domain name. You should be aware that there are many websites out there waiting for Webwise customers to visit their sites, at which point they will commence reporting BT for criminal (yes - criminal) breaches of the copyright laws.

d) the trials can only proceed if there is absolutely NO way that ANY traffic from non-opted in customers goes anywhere near the Phorm software. I am unable at present to see ANY way in which you can legally intercept traffic of all customers to find out whether they are opted in to the trial without access to BT Wholesale equipment or by illegally intercepting the traffic of non-opted in customers.

Hopefully that will give ES something to think about, and at the very least, they can't say they weren't warned.

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34588101)

I believe the only things they will get from SSL is the destination IP address/domain, date & time of your request, and a block of random garbage on which to run their profiling engine.

That could still be valuable, for example it would allow them to know which bank you use, when you use it, how often, how long, whether you visit after or before making a purchase, but not much else.

If they did eventually decide it was permissible to use that data (noting they currently claim not to, I'm so reassured I left Virgin) then you might see loan ads, savings ads, or competitive banking ads shortly after doing your normal online banking for example. Or ads for ASDA, after completing an SSL checkout at Sainsbury. Or ads for Dabs, after completing an SSL checkout at Maplin.

You get the picture I'm sure.

Once you pawn the privacy of your connection to Phorm, you may be suprised how much they learn about you and/or your customers even from snooping on encrypted traffic.

Phorm has to be stopped. You can't operate an economy with parasites snooping on private communication traffic.

Originally Posted by Ravenheart (Post 34588174)

I've just had a reply from Liz Lynne one of my MEP's who was very quick to raise questions in the EU about Phorm.

Her latest update is as follows

Dear Ms ***************

I am writing to you further to my previous letter regarding your concerns over Phorm advertising software. I have recently received a reply from Baroness Shriti Vadera of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform regarding a letter I sent to her outlining your fears.

Baroness Vadera informs me that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is currently examining the proposed use of Phorm to ensure that any use of the technology is compatible with the current legislation relating to privacy. The ICO has published its preliminary view on Phorm, which can be found at

http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_...e_and_oie.aspx.

Baroness Vadera also states that the Home Office has been in contact with ISPs to discuss how the use of Phorm relates to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. However, she notes that not all applications of Phorm will necessarily contravene this act.

Finally, I am assured by Baroness Vadera that both she and the ICO have been in contact with those ISP’s hoping to run trials involving Phorm to discuss their plans and will be maintaining close contact with ISPs and Phrom throughout any subsequent trials.

Yours sincerely

Liz Lynne MEP

Which doesn't really tell us any more than what we don't already know, but my respect goes to her for at least keeping me informed on developments, and the fact she's still asking questions on the issue.

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588203)

What bothers me is that none of these oversight bodies seem to want to talk to anyone other than BT or Phorm. It's a bit like the Metropolitan police holding a press conference in November 1967 and saying "we have been involved in extensive discussions with the Kray family, and we are assured by them that the incident involving Jack the Hat McVitie did not involve anything other than a slight technical breach of the laws on homicide and we are accordingly letting the matter rest."

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588203)

What bothers me is that none of these oversight bodies seem to want to talk to anyone other than BT or Phorm. It's a bit like the Metropolitan police holding a press conference in November 1967 and saying "we have been involved in extensive discussions with the Kray family, and we are assured by them that the incident involving Jack the Hat McVitie did not involve anything other than a slight technical breach of the laws on homicide and we are accordingly letting the matter rest."

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34588208)

they could always ask their favourite IT partner "EDS" and be charge a fortune to look over the system, but then the project to look at the system will be underspeced, over budget and delayed until dropped and EDS compensated, ooops sorry just thinking of gov IT in general there

he he

peter

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

peter

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34588201)

OK I have added a new post to NoDPI so everyone can keep track of how much money we still need to raise for the event and what it is going to be spent on.

Are the people who have offered to contribute to the printing of fliers going to bring them to the event or are they sending them directly to me? Please let me know via PM as time is running out so I need to make sure everything is organised by the end of this week.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by SelfProtection (Post 34588200)

So what we really need if this sort of System becomes active is SSL or VPN proxy systems which incorporate DNS lookups at the proxy Server through an encrypted tunnel.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34588249)

Alexader, i dont know if its just the files or the server is down but
http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm_paper.pdf

and...
if anyone is interested I am currently writing a new article summarising the last 4 months. The first 5 pages are available as a pdf here:
http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm.pdf

dont work anymore.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Factsheet.pdf missing too

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

interesting that the mirror was mentioned in the CF thread above by a helpful new member as a reminder, it seems someone finally bumped that Phorm thread there and filled in some missing information ;)
http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic...257448#1257448

Originally Posted by warescouse (Post 34588293)

Oddly enough I just noticed VM main website down and ftp to home pages on ntlworld are not working either.

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34588283)

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Simply move to a Phorm free ISP like Aquiss.

I left Virgin shortly after they published details of their partnership with Phorm on their customer zone.

I think anyone else at risk of Phorm should do likewise. So does Tim Berners-Lee. So does Professor Ross Anderson.

"Sir Tim Berners-Lee told BBC News he would change his internet provider if it introduced such a system", BBC News.

"The message has to be this: if you care about your privacy, do not use BT, Virgin or Talk-Talk as your internet provider", Professor Ross Anderson, Cambridge University, UK.

... cut
Pete.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34588249)

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Factsheet.pdf missing too

Originally Posted by Ravenheart (Post 34588467)

I see the the torrentfreak article on DPI has made the front page on Digg :eek:

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23 (Post 34588391)

I have been noticing a lot of ads that i can not get rid of, i removed spyware bla bla etc. It reduce it a bit, so i decide to reinstall to remove it completely. But i am still get ads, so i went nto internet explroer and firefox and blocked webwise.com and weirdly the ads have stopped so i am speculating just now tha tmaybe virign are contucting trials of some sort.

[Mod Edit - Merged with the Phorm thread]

Originally Posted by Wildie (Post 34588476)

think that was the expected result

Originally Posted by Wildie (Post 34588476)

think that was the expected result

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------



can anyone confirm what they are claiming?

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34588484)

I wouldn't be too excited unless the ads seem to reflect your browsing "profile" - it could just mean that some oix sites/ads are being served up on sites you visit. It doesn't mean that webwise is live necessarily. Do you have all the various phorm/webwise sites blocked for cookie setting?

But we have been encouraged towards suspicion by the actions of both Phorm and BT so be suspicious - I would be!

Originally Posted by Wildie (Post 34588487)

Thats a point check your cookies for webwise.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34588249)

Alexader, i dont know if its just the files or the server is down but
http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm_paper.pdf

and...
if anyone is interested I am currently writing a new article summarising the last 4 months. The first 5 pages are available as a pdf here:
http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm.pdf

dont work anymore.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Factsheet.pdf missing too

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

interesting that the mirror was mentioned in the CF thread above by a helpful new member as a reminder, it seems someone finally bumped that Phorm thread there and filled in some missing information ;)
http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic...257448#1257448

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34588549)

URGENT: Can someone please post a cookie that refers to 'digg' - I need to campare.

Preferably a VM Customer - or just any ISP

Ok in fact any cookie from any of the following sites:

pcadvisor.co.uk
csmonitor.com
independent.co.uk
pcpro.co.uk
telewest.co.uk
iii.co.uk
thesun.co.uk
bskyb.com
digg.com

If you prefer - please PM me.

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34588549)

URGENT: Can someone please post a cookie that refers to 'digg' - I need to campare.

Preferably a VM Customer - or just any ISP

Ok in fact any cookie from any of the following sites:

pcadvisor.co.uk
csmonitor.com
independent.co.uk
pcpro.co.uk
telewest.co.uk
iii.co.uk
thesun.co.uk
bskyb.com
digg.com

If you prefer - please PM me.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34588585)

Well what a wonderful day. The busiest day for NoDPI yet with over 1500 unique visitors and over 5000 page views. Also the front page article on Digg, amazing success with the fundraising and now another company freezes out NebuAD.

I only went to bed for a few hours and I come back to all this.

Thanks EVERYONE!

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe (Post 34588580)

And another one bites the dust ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...s_nebuad_plan/

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34588595)

Hey Guys

Some of you will be wondering why I've been asking for cookies - well firstly to make sure I'm not going mad!!!!

I found a pattern with Cookies - namely alot of my cookies have the name WSS_GW or starting with DM..... . Also to note, the domains, ie y.digg.com is not part of digg etc. Also the Expiry dates are ALL from the 20th June to 30th June 2009. The domains affected will show on your PC as [letter].domain.prefix

I've found where these cookies resolve to - ns-vip3.hitbox.com which is part of the Omniture Network.

Why am I getting their Cookies - and now why are YOU (now confirmed) getting their Cookies?