![]() |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I was going through these last night and my reading of that section was that data volumes and/or data types could be examined - but not the data itself... This is implicitly linked with the traffic management section although, I suspect, it is therefore not limited to it, and so the inference i'm getting is that this is to enable to do packet type profiling and say "oh - you've received 823MB of x-binary data today" rather than examine the packet contents. It does not seem to me to be allowing examination, storage or manipulation of the data sent between me and another party... however IANAL:) Any knowledgable insight into the Ts & Cs would be well received by all here I suspect. Cheers Tim |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
To be honest it doesn't really matter, any terms which effect your statutory rights are unlawful (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) and since this is a clear violation of RIPA and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 they would be void.
I am not a lawyer either, but the bods at FIPR are lawyers and furthermore government policy advisers. I share the same interpretation (the logical one) of the law as they do on this issue and I am reasonably confident that they know what they are talking about. Furthermore if BT thought their terms and conditions covered them already then why did the Home Office advice mention new terms and conditions and why have BT stated they intend to try to circumvent this law by changing their current terms? Let us also not forget that the ISP need the consent of the web site/content owners as well as the consent of their customers. The Home Office statement claimed that implied consent (having a publicly accessible web site) -might- give the ISP an escape route but also stated it was not a definitive legal article and that it would be up to the courts to decide. FIPR (and myself) believe that implied consent is -not- valid and that consent must be given explicitly (informed consent) under RIPA. Given that it also falls under Human Rights law it is fair to assume that explicit consent is required. However, even if (and it is a big if) a Judge allows the implied consent angle, there are -many- very popular websites which have explicit terms already in place which deny consent for such activity, so they cannot be seen to be giving implied consent. Furthermore, many webpages are -not- publicly accessible (not linked to from anywhere in the public domain) but do not use HTTPS either. As they are not published in the public domain they are not relevant under the implied consent argument either. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
I'd say they're on dodgy ground if they try to use that: "data volume and/or types of traffic transmitted" does not equate to reading the full content of every single webpage viewed by a user.
To me, the most telling thing is that BT (and, I think, Virgin, although I can't find the statement right now) have already said that they would have to change their T&C in order to comply with the law. If they have to change this, then that says to me that their current ones are not enough. As far as I can see, BT have committed a clear criminal breach of RIPA, and have not provided any clear reasons why they believe this not to be the case. Just stating "we don't think it's illegal" over and over is not good enough - they need to point out exactly where in the provisions of the RIPA they think covers their actions. Just to recap the RIPA thing as far as I see it: There are a few things which are clear, taking into account all of the advice we've seen from the Home Office, FIPR and others: 1. The Phorm system does legally constitute an interception under RIPA. There are no dissenting legal opinions to this that I've seen. 2. This interception is not necessary to provide the contracted service of providing an internet connection, so the ISPs cannot claim immunity under RIPA due to necessity. I haven't seen anyone arguing against this either. 3. That being the case, in order for the ISPs to legally implement this system, they require "explicit consent" from both the customers and the website owners. Even the Home Office advice makes the point that consent from both parties is absolutely required under the act. As far as I see it, the above 3 points are not in dispute (although if anyone thinks otherwise, please reply pointing out where I've gone wrong). The only argument is around what exactly constitutes "explicit consent". I can see that a properly worded set of Terms and Conditions would provide this on behalf of the customer (although note that in my opinion, and inferring from their actions, also BT's opinion, their current Terms and Conditions do not give sufficient consent under the law). So the question remains whether this concept of "implied consent" for webpages is worth anything or not. Personally, I don't think the Act allows you to assume consent - BT/Phorm obviously feel differently. Even if you can assume a general consent, I think BT/Phorm would have a very hard time in court when coming up against some of the Terms of Service for many websites (Amazon and the BBC site have been mentioned), which would appear to explicity deny the right for third parties to use their content for commercial exploitation without further agreement: I can't see that they can argue that an assumed implied consent can trump an explicit statement denying that consent on the part of website owners. I'd be very interested to hear a detailed explanation of how they expect to be able to comply with the RIPA given all of the above. Unfortunately we don't hear any detail, just blanket statements of "we disagree". I think they need to do a lot better than this in public statements, as all the PR is doing is winding people up, and they definitely would need to do a lot better than this in court. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Hi Thanks for the info Ravenheart. Very interesting reading. I hope VM realise what raised privacy and legal issues means.........hmmm indeed! ---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ---------- Quote:
It really strikes me that Phorm must be very ignorant to peoples concerns and according to the above quote are in blatant breach of the law. They clearly don't give a monkeys about anyone's privacy or rights. Now where is that petition???;) |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
We suspect that our data will still pass through the profiler even if we've opted-out, but they promise not to record that profile information anywhere, transmit it to anyone, or use or for anything (remember people, this is an ex-spyware company...) so they haven't breached the law as you've outlined it above. :( I think we need to concentrate on the consent aspect, as this is necessary before they can even pass any data through the profiler. I personally don't want any data of mine to go anywhere near a profiler, whether I'm opted in or out. ---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Under DPA they may have a get-out under "no personally identifiable material" is recorded, transmitted or used. However one of the lawyers on the Channel 4 piece yesterday pointed out that the very act of "anonymising" the datastream was processing personal information. You can't remove personal information from a stream without looking at it and ignoring it, which can be (and will be) argued as processing. It's important to keep the distinctions between the DPA and the RIPA in mind. As far as I can see, Phorm is illegal under RIPA, and only arguably legal under DPA. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Good Morning to the PhormUKPRteam.
What news have you for us today, or are you simply browsing? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Welcome back to the forums PhormUKPRTeam
While you are here care to answer a question I asked you about over a week ago? What precisely is stored in the "research and debug logs" that are stored for 14 days? As I said last time I asked this question, it is the word "research" which has me most concerned. What data will be stored in these logs and precisely what type of "research" will be done with that data? This is important because you often claim that no data is stored. Care to answer the question? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Hi PhormUKPRteam,
Could you pleas comment on the news yesterday about BT and the secret trial of your bosses illegal interception of data. What has been done with the data? what was the criteria of the trials? can you publish an assessment of the outcome? I am also a little worried about your lack of posting around the web. Is the stress making you ill. thank you and looking forward to your next cut and paste non-reply |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I imagine those who seek to remove "objectionable" content from the networks will not have missed the implications of universal profiling. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Phorm PR arent showing as viewing the thread anymore. Did we frighten them off? :D
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Hi all. I just joined. I'm a BT customer. My first post on this forum is a technical question:
Over on the BT forums they've issued a new FAQ. http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64 No 57 reads: "Does Webwise runs its own Javascript software on the users' machines? (relates to a Phorm patent where it claims it can do this) No, Webwise operates at the network level and will not download, install or run any software on users' machine." However, at http://www.experts-exchange.com/Prog..._22012205.html we see "On a website I look after (http://www.bluesnights.co.uk/) I've noticed a strange piece of javascript that has embedded itself on the site after the closing html tags. Eg: </html> <script type="text/javascript">var PSpc="I.287303.1",PSsize="none";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://ntp.sysip.net/tag/2.js"></script> How it got there, I've no idea. Can only think I've been "infected" via my Firefox browser when visiting Google and the like (who all seem to have the same script on their web pages when I viewed page "Source"!) and then inadvertently uploaded via my FTP when making site changes. This doesn't show up on my computer as a virus/malware, etc. Google reference to "sysip" is very sparse (seems to be a proxy) and I can only assume that the script is some sort of "spyware" or harvester? Does anybody know what this is? And what does it do? And how do I get rid of it - permanently! Is their a counter script I can add to my web pages to stop these scripts "attaching" themselves incognito? Can anybody help? Many thanks, Richard" If it was not on the user's machine, then where was it? What do you think BT means by "at the network level"? Another horror story with more examples of the Phorm/Webwise software injection HTML or javascript is at: http://www.spikelab.org/blog/btProxyHorror.html gnilddif |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
thankyou for all those people that have posted alot of information on this site its been an interesting read
i have also been in touch with a few forums about this phorm business myself and brought it to light with them about secureing there website against phorm and past it around the joe public around the parents and schools but i can tell you now the schools system was shocked about this system and was doing enquires within there system and was thanked for the mention has anybody found that channel 4 update yet where phorm was grilled alot more at the night news as i missed that myself its looking more like phorm pr are unwilling to answer our ? anymore as they are seen viewing the site but are unwilling to answer the ? that have been put to them only giveing the usual drivel that is copy and pasted form site to site |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:15. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.