Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

With the greatest respect, Simon, the world exists above the Watford Gap. Not everyone can easily travel to London for a 6:30pm meeting on a weekday with such short notice. I know I cant. That doesnt mean that we are all talk and no action. I have spent hours writing to my MPs, MEPs, Liberty etc.

In the spirit of being constructive, as has been mentioned before, a meeting on IRC or similar would be a good idea. Maybe on a network such as undernet or efnet. That way people from all over the country could more easily attend.

Failing that a meeting somewhere central such as Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield or on a weekend may have been wiser if you genuinely wanted a true consultation.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Dead right! :) If you incur travel costs, drop me a PM, I'll help out.

The more I think about it, the more Kent Ersdfsdf opens his mouth the better it is (based on his past ramblings).

Telling the truth is easy, and certainly doesn't need 4 PR firms and one misguided 'privacy' consultancy pulling strings.

So, relax, be calm... Remember you've got thousands and thousands of people supporting you tonight. Dephormation has been downloaded over 20,000 times already... and that's just Firefox users.

Pete

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Alexander:

Good luck for the meeting tonight. Give them hell and know that we are 100% behind you. Your dissertation paper is excellent and if you haven't managed to finish it before embarking for London then try and get contact details for any media people that are there and either email or post them a copy once its finished. Best of luck.

EDIT: The new petition link is working again today after the fun of yesterday.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'd just like to echo the other posts in wishing Alexander all the best for tonight, the work he's put in on the subject has been amazing.:clap:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Same here. :handshake

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I've only been reading bits of this thread and not posting, but I'd like to echo the sentiments. Good luck! :clap:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Yes, congratulations Alexander, and good luck.

We know the meeting will be recorded for later broadcast on the web, but do we know how long it will take for the video to be put on the web, and secondly, does this mean there will no longer be a live webcast?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

The fact that its being professionally filmed gives me the impression that the webcast wont be happening although I have seen nothing to explicitly state that. I remember Simon Davies saying there were bandwidth issues to be resolved so my guess is that they decided on the professional filming instead.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

forgive my Simon, but i m confused.... i take it you said the above about RIPA with your PI hat "ON" ?

it is also true that you said you cant deal with 80/20Thinking RIPA matters in regard the PIA tonight, is that right?

SO.... can we ask you tonight to put your PI Hat "ON" and then you CAN answer any RIPA questions put to you....

THEN... we can ask you to take your PI hat "OFF" and put your
80/20Thinking hat "ON" and we then stop expecting you to answer these RIPA questions... is that right?


OK...,so what do we do if you have your PI hat "ON" we ask a question and you answer, you swap hats then realise you didnt quite finish your PI response, do we have to wait until you have switched hats again ;)


to us reading this CF thread, it might seem OK and understandable, but the same cant be said for the other people there :angel:

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

sorry i couldnt find any Monty Python - The Spanish Inquisition about hats to make it clearer ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1iBbBL1040&NR=1

3 questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMxWL...eature=related

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

According to the 80/20 thinking website it looks like Alexander is going to be speaking after Simon Davies.

http://www.8020thinking.com/events.html

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

OK, just a quick post to say I am leaving Lancaster now, hope to see some of you there.

Alexander Hanff

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

farewell traveler and beware those
(Monty Python) Knights who say Ni, you have good hats though ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvzL56iSPH4

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Alexander, I'd like to contribute to your travel costs.

How about you set up something like an Amazon wish list, total value equivalent to your train fares/hotel bills/costs.

I'm willing to buy a book or two for your course, and I hope others might do likewise.

Pete.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I have had a reply to my email saent to Simon Watkin he was informed this would be posted here so here goes.

I am about to reply to him just ned to decide which is most important... any suggestioins.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

It seems that a number of government departments are stepping on each others toes here. The reply from Simon Watkin with relation to the "illegal"(?) tests seems to make more of a point about the DPA than RIPA, but by all accounts the DPA is regulated by ICO. I think I would pressure him on the unconsented interception as opposed to the DPA implications as they are a question for ICO. Even if consent could be argued to have been implied, it certainly wasn't informed consent. I think the government needs to work out who should be saying what about which bits of the issue.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Congratulations Florence, getting something out of the Home Office. They've ignored everything I've sent them.

I think the key to unravelling this is the RIPA... according to the Police and ICO it is the Home Office who have responsibility for enforcing RIPA.

The BT trial involved tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. That's not a small scale trial (and I don't recall reading anything in RIPA that says 'as long as its a small scale trial that doesn't reveal anything publically').

BT and Phorm directors must be prosecuted by the Home Office.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I would go on illegal interception plus BT statements cannot be relied upon (BT previously denied everything about the trials). ICO has stated opt-in but I presume on the basis that the interception is legal. You could also go on Phorm impersonating the target website to set a cookie.

Mike

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I think the key point to hammer home is the "small scale technical trial" should still be investigated as possible breach of RIPA.

Regardless of the scale or the technicality of their actions, if there was no user consent by one or both parties then an illegal interception may have occurred.

There is an implicit duty for the home office to investigate a possible 10,000 + criminal breaches of RIPA.

That would be the approach I would take anyway.

Where did you get his email from Florence, is it something you can reasonably put up on the forum?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

i too would love to be there but as a disabled dad of two its impossible on a weekday with out wife taking time of work rather hard at this short notice


i will have to stick to sending letters that the nice people here are providing templates for ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Thanks for posting the reply Florence,

Phorm say the home office report says their system is legal.

Yet the home office says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully..

Somebody has been spinning the truth again.

It may be worth asking the Home office if it considers over 100,000 people involved in the 2007 tests of the system by BT to be small scale.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Thing is though the device they have in place intercepts your data and profiles it BEFORE you get the chance to opt in or not even if you opt out it still has to go through there Box at the headend or local exchange constantly - No Escape ;(.
They think putting a user interface tacked on to a microshuttle pc with 2x 2tb harddrives which beams info back to phorms offices based in another country is legal sorry its not.

And as for there laughable targetted ads how can they know what adds your interested in without matching the randomly generated number they give you on the way in to your ip address, just serving random ads on everybody isnt targeted, therfore for that reason it has to give xx ip address a profile so they do know who userx is so how is the information unidentifiable, its not = pr bull.

Everyone who has comented on the matter in hand so far has been paid by phorm to produce these reports hence there sitting on the pr 80/20 meeting, where is the TRUE independent analysis be it by an unlinked highly qualified individual or unlinked government appointed individual (I Know alexander is sitting in tonight and good luck to him but as part of the pr tactics of said B-M already linked with 80/20 thinking in strategy i cant reiterate there tactics enough see below).

"One of the most effective PR tools is the “third party” technique, where a firm will hire an “expert” to speak on behalf of a company <-- this time they commisioned 2 experts. People don’t generally trust corporate executives who say a product is harmless (say cigarettes, Teflon cookware or household insecticides), but are more likely to believe the same words from a scientist. And sometimes even more effective than hiring experts is getting average citizens to do the same. PR firms have time and again managed to create the illusion of public support for corporate causes through front groups"

Who has seen the source code for the software that the device will drive?
Answer - nobody
Probably just the same jank that 121 media invented all that time ago but got beaten by ad/spyware removers and anti virus companies except this time its at the isp end crammed into a tiny box with tacked on profiling software and a front end which is anonyomous as what they mis-tell people
over and over.

Stand up and defeat this bogus and shamfull company now just imagine more privacy invasion and junk which you cant bypass to contend with i know i have and the thought stinks :(.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I have sent this reply to Simon.

As for Simon's Email address I spotted it on the document he had sent to phorm that is online if you would like his email addy it is there or pm me :) for the quicker route I would rather not post it on the public forums.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

No simon, its clear with the "As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all depends on how they are offered and how they work."

you do remember this Simon Watkin is infact that very same 'Home Office view that we are legal' dont you.

thats ONE smoking gun, and you can be sure ElReg Chris will use it once he sees it, you are reading the thread arent you chris?...

it can now be reasonably assumed that this so called QCs Opinion will be along the same lines, and not really legal at all, once that name comes out, if infact it was for real and he exists...

well done florence, now keep in mind the law side in all matters...... he's the RIPA HO personel this comes from, and what they are basing 'we are legal' on so that the attack vector....

"There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual, and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user is considered to be interested in a category of advertising."

did you read alexanders PDF florence? it makes it clear all the above is only valid in any form IF THEY HAVE NOT broken the RIPA to get consent so they havent broken RIPA if you see what i mean ;)

so it seems the best action is,

is it true that without getting Explicit consent without Breaking RIPA, non of the above you state is valid or Lawful under RIPA?

is it true that if a users datastream is Deep Packet intercepted by the ISP for any purposes (other than to route the data packet to the recipient address, the post office looking at the adress but not the opening and looking at the private contents if you will) before the ISP has receaved Explicit Consent, that is unlawful Interception.

and so on, always looking to get confirmation of all the points we have made taking his emails responses as the lead.

and in such a way that the questions you put back to him are clear and simple, hence why i place the Post office bit there to clarify any answers later.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Arrrr, to quick florence......., now we will have to send another one perhaps before he gets fed up answering.

he knows its posted here and make it clear again thats going to be the case BTW.

so we might get away with 2 or perhaps 3 emails before he gets fedup answering....if we are lucky, dont waste them.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I would also like to make a contribution of some sorts, maybe the CF team could set somthing up to enable those who would like to make a Donation, to help with travel costs, or just to say thank you for all the effort that has been put in by a lot of people on this matter.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Greetings PhormUKPRteam how was the meeting with simon this morning good i hope, hope you guys were discussing how many overjoyed pr employee's will be spouting questions at tonights meeting (can anyone get a list of the 54 people turning up to tonights event) would be interesting to see how many are working or can be identified as working for phorm pr.

Any new information you can give us here about any new developments with this amazing peice of kit being developed? or you just here to sit around and spy on questions that might come and and go away and prepare answers if they ever arrived.

Can i also ask who is the real independent person apart from alexander who will be speaking?
Dr Richard Claytons report was edited and approved by phorm with a couple of leaks of info not everything people need to know.
80/20 have been commisioned to produce a workable report with a glowing reference by phorm and are in strategic patnership with Burson-Marsteller pr firm employed by phorm.
Where is the expert independent non-paid for by phorm in this meeting seems to be none present.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Another exploit found in phorm http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/show...3&postcount=21

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Popper,

Sorry I wasn't very clear. here's the last bit of Simon Watkin's reply
All the responses from government departments with regard to the previous tests concentrate on the "no personally identifiable information" part of the BT statement.

From what has been said by the same government departments this would be a matter for investigation under the data protection act - regulated and enforced by ICO.

When ICO were explicitly asked about contravention of RIPA they bounced to the Home Office. What I was trying to say is that the issue that the Home Office should be made to answer is with respect to the interception in those initial trials, whether or not any identifiable information was involved.

The interception and the processing of data are 2 separate issues and yet nobody from HMG has dealt with any questions regarding the interception.

This makes me (in my tin foil hat) a little suspicious, and think that a very direct question along the lines of "Allowing for the fact that no personally identifiable information was stored processed etc., is it possible that the initial interception of that data by BT in 2006/7 was illegal under the terms of RIPA given that no user consent (explicit or implicit) was ever requested? - if so should the police not be investigating?" is required to get a straight answer. Although even then it may be possible for civil servant speak to spin such a straight answer. If it *may* have been legal, then by definition it *may* also have been illegal and there may be grounds for investigation, but who does the investigation?

Communications with HMG are further clouded by the fact that we are trying both to set straight the record on the legality of the initial trials and also to confirm the legality of the upcoming services to be launched by Talk Talk and BT (and possibly VM). It seems that in order to avoid a direct straight answer to any points they are mixing all the points up, so they can refer to the processing of data.

Just a thought.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...acetoface.html

charles, you can thank florence on CF for this smoking gun if you like
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post3415.html
"Simon Watkin ...
'That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology.

There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual, and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user is considered to be interested in a category of advertising.

As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all depends on how they are offered and how they work.'
...
...
'It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully.'
...
'My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".

Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE
"

it was collected by the DPI kit though, and it was prosessed in the ram of the device, so it could be then passed along, it was obviously processing the 2006 datastreams as can be seen in those web messageboards that got all that Phorm junk deposited in plain view at the end of their posts.....

no need to guess, a clear case of DPI collecting and processing and a telltale visable trail back to these effected BT users.... case closed.
someone tell bobby and the guys down the yard quick.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Bonglet before you go attacking Dr Richard Clayton remember he was invited by phorm not commissioned as far as I am aware and he has gone on the record stating that he believes the Phorm system contravenes RIPA as has Nicholas Boehm of the FIPR.

I am open to being proved wrong but those are the facts as far as I am aware.

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

Just to add to what I said above:

"Overall, I learnt nothing about the Phorm system that caused me to change my view that the system performs illegal interception as defined by s1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000."

That is taken from paragraph 7 here:

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...ebwise-system/

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Dr Richard Claytons report was edited by phorm this means phorm let him in to analyse and scrutinise the project, then PHORM editied it sent him back a copy then said that ok , he looks change couple of things says that sounds better ok to you too they said yes and he published it.
Who knows what is ommited i dont do you? has anyone put the question to mr clayton as what got ommited he is on record as saying his report wasnt 100% but he was happy with it (i take it phorm were too) so published it, they will have let some details go out into mainstream as any company trickles information out.
Is dr richard clayton an expert software programmer? did he view the full source code of such software that will be implemented in the final revison software of the spy product
all tick the no box.
Do you not agree that projects where data interception arise that there has to be full undisclosed information with fully independant relevant companies experts putting every aspect of such derivces through every test before it is deployed on a public?.

What is to stop phorm updating the software,hardware,firmware on such devices which impacts the network or could have implications on privacy issues in the future, they with the help of isp's involved could change such software or hardware to make a more dynamic profilled association to the user by MINING MORE data hence update 2.3 of the Phorm Data Collection could be fine but then implementing 2.4 without anyone's knowledge a month or 2 after everyone forgot could collect more data about yourself or your habits.

Do you see the point yet?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Hmmmm. Just noticed on the 80/20 thinking events page that the running order has changed yet again and now Alexander will be speaking 4th instead of 2nd. In some ways the new running order makes more sense but still makes me a little concerned. Hopefully Alexander has had some input on that issue.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Bonglet, not that I want to get into an argument but care to back up the accusation that he was paid by Phorm? I have seen no evidence of that. If you have some please show it. My understanding, and everything that I have read, points to the fact that both Dr Richard Clayton and Nicholas Boehm of the FIPR were INVITED to discuss the Phorm system so they could give people a detailed technical analysis. Nowhere have I seen anything saying they were paid or commissioned. If you have anything to back that up then put it on the table so we can see it please.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'm pleased for Alexander to speak last before the q&a. It gives him the opportunity to make amendment after listening to the others and stops the others rewording their speeches with respect to any tripwires Alex comes up with during his comments.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...et-with-phorm/

Note nowhere does it say that they were paid or commissioned.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

My bad then ignore everything i said about him im sure i read that he was commisoned for the project somewhere :( sincere apologies to Mr Clayton ill edit accordingly.
Phorm still had a spin on this with a bit editing and is still not a 100% overview as was edited and didnt examine any source code.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

By all means Bonglet, hate Phorm, what they stand for, what they plan to do, what they did in the past, I know I hate them for all those reasons too, but lets not cloud the issue by being over-paranoid. I fully expect Dr Richard Clayton to give them hell today as hes been very critical of them regards Ripa up to now.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

This is how I understand it happened and makes perfect sense as Phorm have such an arrogance that their system is legal it beggars belief. Regardless whether they try and put the interception mechanism in the control of the ISP or not it is still breaking the law and they are complicit.

Just to comment on Simon Watkin's reply - he clarified that the HO believe a system could be made that is within the law which is something I've said before. Unfortunately they do not seem to know how Phorm's system works and also seem a little reluctant to find out, why? We know it doesn't work within the law and that no system that did would be commercially viable - Phorm need lots of users which a truly informed opt-in system would not get them.

HO need to investigate this issue, they cannot take Phorm's or BT's word for it.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I too would like to make a contribution to help those who have done so much for this cause. :)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I am just now heavily editing and rewriting one of the letters someone else put up here (Sorry cant remember who wrote it originally, so many have been posted here) so that I can write a follow up letter to my MP. He failed to respond to my first letter and its now been almost 4 weeks since I first wrote. He is a labour MP so I aren't overly hopeful but I intend to write the closing paragraph in a way he will find more difficult to ignore.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Like Florence, I have now heard from Simon Watkin, a well-measured, professional reply, all be it one with which I have deep concerns. However, as it does not tell us much more than his reply to Florence, as I have some supplementary questions and as he hasn't given express permission for me to publish it here, I'll summarise the correspondence after I've heard from him again providing of course he gives his permission.

The same cannot be said for the reply I received from the Home Office. Here therefore is the entire correspondence so far. Please draw your own conclusions.





By the way, this is as livid as I get.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Greetings Bonglet
You seem to have the wrong end of a few sticks here. For the record, I think at present about three members of the Phorm UK PR effort will be present tonight. Personally speaking I won't be and neither will other team members I know.
Secondly, if you take a look at the intro to Dr Clayton's report at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf he himself covers the process by which Phorm checked his report. We did not edit it or indeed censor what he saw - check the ORG site and even they refer to thier access as "the real deal".
We did not pay for or commission the report either. We invited Richard Clayton and the ORG to look at our system. Not out of arrogance but a simple desire to be as transparent as possible. And as for your suspicion that he is not an expert take a look at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ - the man's CV is outstanding.
As always, if you want any more information, check out http://www.webwise.com or http://www.phorm.com

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

As you've climbed down on impugning Richard's independence, could I trouble you to examine your next (and probably libelous) claim against Simon and 80/20:
Simon has a fearsome track record in defending public privacy rights; has explained and specified how the 80/20 PIA is independent of Phorm; and his interim report was hardly a "glowing reference".

Your on-going campaign of unsubstantiated innuendo and hysterical attacks on Simon's character does not further the discussion and denigrates the efforts of Alex and the rest of the forum's investigations of Phorm.

I'd invite you in future to provide sources for any claims against individuals who are demonstrably independent and, as far as I'm currently aware, beyond reproach.


In that post you also ask:
If you'd like to put up some cash then I'm sure your independent expert would be welcome to attend. But then he'd be *your* expert and therefore not independent, wouldn't he?

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

@Phorm PR
Still not managed to find the time to moderate my posts to the Phorm blog or respond to my question, I see?

So much for making it your priority...
:td:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Welcome back PhormPRTeam and if I may be so bold may I thank you for cutting out the spin. Your last post was both accurate and clear for once. Hopefully this bodes well for the future.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I have just seen this post on the BT Forum, which looks interesting.

Re: BT Webwise Discussion Thread
Posted: Apr 15, 2008 4:44 PM in response to: Mark W Reply

Mark W wrote:
The hosting for the http://www.bt.com/webwise/ site is currently suffering from some issues, I'm told it should be back up later today.

Mark W - If your post is an answer to Sean, then are you saying his general browsing problems are due to a Webwise server problem? That his general browsing traffic is somehow being routed through the webwise server? Can we quote you on that? Something along the lines of:

"In answer to a BT customer's (Sean Thorpe's) question about problems he has been having recently connecting to many websites, while blocking cookies from webwise, BT staff member Mark W replied in the BT official Beta forums, that the BT Webwise site was currently suffering from some issues and should be back up later in the day."

Until this post, users had understood that their normal browsing traffic did not pass through Webwise servers (which are hosted at an IP address whose lookup gives an address in Houston, Texas).

Could you clarify before we copy your post across the various Webwise related sites on the internet and send it to the Register? Let's say within the next 24 hours? Or perhaps we should just forward it for answer at the 80/20 meeting tonight?

And while we're at it - there are one or two other unanswered questions on the various Phorm/Webwise discussion threads as well as the locked Q&A threads. Will anyone be answering those?

Don't forget the public 80/20 meeting about Phorm tonight in London.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ad-page-3.html

Mark W has just added this.

Apologies about that I misunderstood Sean's question, I thought he was having issues connecting to the Webwise FAQ site. That site was having some issues with it's hosting earlier today, it's not connected with any of the systems that the Webwise trial will be using and the trial has not yet started.

As I've already stated the next time BT will be updating the FAQ pages will be when we release information about the trial, when that happens I'll post an update here.

Also I've had to delete a number of posts from this thread referring to various moderator actions as this against our rules and guidelines.

Respect the moderators
Please do not 'call out' or argue with moderator decisions on the community. If you have any comments or questions about the actions of the moderation team you can contact them via email at forum dot moderation dot team at bt dot com.

If you want to discuss any posts of yours that have been moderated please use that above address.

Thanks
Mark Wilkin
Support Community Coordinator

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I dont want to touch phorm websites or webwise with a barge pole hence the information from there missing, did you give full source code of the software going to be deployed to mr clayton when he visited?

Apologies for any mistaken persons involved with my misinformation maybe im just to paranoid after having next to no sleep last night ill sit back and watch from now on.

p.s phormpr can you answer questions instead of deflecting to people's misjudged judgment of charcter today?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Could I ask you to consider posing the question the other way round?
Something like:
"Please tell me how you believe BT's interception did not amount to a criminal offence under RIPA."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Hi Portly_Giraffe

It is a shame that the home office are unable to read. they have stated before that RIPA is primarily about how state
bodies; such as the police, local councils the security and intelligence agencies, conduct some of their
investigatory functions.

However chapter 1 section 1. of the act says that the act also applies to "a person" intercepting postal and telecomunication systems.

------------------------------------
Part I Communications
Chapter I Interception
Unlawful and authorised interception
1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) intentionally and without lawful authority, and

(b) otherwise than in circumstances in which his conduct is excluded by subsection (6) from criminal liability under this subsection,

to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.
-------------------------------------------------

So it is clear that the act applies to a public telephone system, so when Bt intercepted the traffic, BT broke the Law.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000..._20000023_en_2

What the heck are the home office up to by misleading you on this.

Many thanks for contacting them and posting the reply.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

It's not Phorm who are due the apology but Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.
I'm not sure but I don't think that using lack of sleep to explain your poor judgement calls would work as a defence against allegations of libel.

That's simple, mate: just STOP MAKING THEM!
Then they (and I) won't feel the need to correct them...
:)

Obviously if you can back up each of your claims, then go right ahead.
I'll be one of the first to check your sources!

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Hi Portly-Giraffe

I think the key to dealing with the Civil servants is not to ask them to make any kind of judgement or offer an opinion.

My response to him would be something along the lines of:

Dear XXXXX,

I believe I have been the victim of an illegal interception as defined by RIPA.

The Information Commissioner in his statement [insert reference to the revised ICO statement] indicated that investigation of possible breaches of RIPA is the responsibility of the Home Office.

Please could you tell me which agency, branch or department of the Home Office I should make my complaint to in the first instance.

Regards ....

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

To PhormUKPRteam

Simple question. PLEASE ANSWER.

As I posted above section chaper1 section 1 of RIPA states

Chapter 1 states the following:-

------------------------------------
Part I Communications
Chapter I Interception
Unlawful and authorised interception
1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of�

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person�

(a) intentionally and without lawful authority, and

(b) otherwise than in circumstances in which his conduct is excluded by subsection (6) from criminal liability under this subsection,

to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.
-------------------------------------------------

As PHORM intercepted a (b) a public telecommunication system. And Interception is illegal under the act, In what way to you think Phorm is legal.

Please note this question is not about personal data. So please dont post the usual ..."we donet keep bla bla bla"....

You Intercepted , as stated by BT. So why do you think the intercept is legal.

Which QC provided you with legal advice.?

Thank you

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Ok here ceedee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm thats where i got the information from

"The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."

I actually thought a commissioned report was were some party got paid correct me if im wrong.

so i took bbc's report out of context apologies again to Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.

Satisified ?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Thats referring to 80/20 thinking who are conducting the PIA and as far as I am aware neither Richard Clayton nor Nicholas Boehm (the two who were invited for the technical analysis meeting and produced the 10 page report) are members of 80/20 thinking.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

You have to be careful about accepting anything reported on any site as fact unless substantiated by references and citations. All comments should be taken as an opinion of the author and it is far safer to accept them as just that.
It is better to offer counter opinions based on informed knowledge than to continue to attack individuals with spurious allegations of misconduct or misdeed.

I don't doubt you are any more angry than many of us here but we have to offer intelligent and precise counter-argument rather than offer what surely amounts to abuse?

We need to be better than that. Like it or not you have to accept that Phorm Inc. have every right to try and enter this market with their business model and I don't doubt that on some level they will succeed. This is possibly the largest global market that there will ever have been and Phorm will not be the only players. The only thing we can hope to do is to ensure that they do it within the parameters of every applicable law and that we ensure that people operating such systems give non-consensual users every opportunity to be apart and distinct from the technology.


I look forward to the account of tonight's meeting for it will only be afterwards that we are better informed and in a position to discuss where our efforts might be best directed.

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

You are of course, correct. Richard and Nicholas were there purely by invitation and in an independent role. I'm of the understanding that areas of their report were amended to correct inaccuracies about the technology and those amendments were agreed by both parties.
That is to be expected and anyone would insist that in such a high stake area nothing is said that is misleading. There must be fairness adopted throughout the whole debate.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I think this is the key problem I have with the technology. It is so obviously skating thin ice as far as the law is concerned. The problem seems to be which laws should apply. We see Phorm and BT playing one set of laws against another, one department against another. The one thing this debate has illustrated is that the (new?) law needs to be much clearer.

There will be a host of companies waiting in the wings once Phorm is in general use and you can bet that their proposals will be way beyond anything currently proposed by Phorm.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

The London Meeting

Quick!

Live updates! :hyper:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ate_londo.html

(Spotted by Frank Rizzo on BadPhorm)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Thanks. Gotta love Simon Davies trying to make the (il)legality issue irrelevant. I have no doubt Alexander will not let him get away with that.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Indeed. We are the thin edge of the wedge and Phorm are doing their utmost to convince the FTC in the US that they comply with all their rules on behavioural targeted advertising. What's more worrying is that I understand that the FTC are looking to legitimise behavioural targeting as an acceptable medium.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080414/20080414006002.html?.v=1

My main issue with the whole process has always been this.

I still fail to see how the proposed technology allows for a user to truly 'switch off' Phorm's service as there seems no way as of yet to be a proposed system to allow Virgin users to avoid the DPI system regardless of the fact we will not be served the adverts. I think this is where any legal challenge must be levelled however we simply can not begin to prepare such a challenge until the technology is in operation and we understand how Virgin are implementing it because as yet it is just conjecture.

I also think it is time to move away from the 'personally identifiable information' point as Phorm quite possibly do comply within the law on this and it is why all of their statements continue to roll out the spin. Far less clear is the 'interception of communications' point and I feel this is where a battle can be fought unless of course the law lords change the goalposts on us. I don't doubt that the government will see this as a technology that should be implemented and not for any surreptitious snooping activity they can tap in to ( I don't believe they need to, they will have that already covered IMO ) but purely because of the huge tax revenue to be had from this market.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

i also posted that in the other official PIA thread #46

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Posted on the blog comments in the hope that Darren can get to read it.




Edit. It looks like he won't see it as once again comments on BBC blogs are borked.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Not sure about 'the only reason the public have issues with it - legality'. I'd have issues with it whether or not it is legal

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

This is the sort of misdirection and spin that really makes my blood boil. Surely his point is irrelevant to the issue. How does the fact that they may have questioned RIPA make them any less able to question legality under RIPA given that RIPA exists and the law is written?

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

I understand but once a legality is proven ( should it turn out that way ) then your issues can only be dissatisfaction with your ISP for using the system and at that point all we can do is vote with our feet until we have no refuge left.
If the worst comes to the worst you live near me and I'll take you for a beer and we can bemoan our fate in one of the establishments on Washway Road ;)

edit:/ go on Richard, give them hell ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

:clap:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I've just tried posting the following, but I get a 502 service not available error.
Anyone else getting this?
----------------------
Thanks for doing this Darren. So many of us had no chance to get there given the fairly short notice and the early start time. (No real chance if you work outside London).

"But unless there are senior legal counsel here to reflect we will end up with a bunfight."

So why didn't 80/20 or Phorm arrange one, to go on public record, rather than dismiss one of the key issues?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

mmm...:beer:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Sorry popper for not replying to this sooner, been out all day only got back an hour ago - I do want to get a news item up on recent developments. But this thread sure moves fast ... :angel:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

...Alexander has good support -

Dr Clayton wraps up saying: "It has to be informed opt in. I don't think it improves the stability of the internet. I think it's downright ilegal in the UK."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Please ask if there are any points you need pointing out to make things easier for you considering some of us are addicts here. I've not been to work for 2 weeks after spending most of my time reading this thread.


Ok, I've not been to work more than a few days in the last two months but still........ ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Just keeping up with Darrens blog on the bbc site...

Is there anything this morning - afternoon that I have missed that I can quickly be fed uptodate on? I've have to trail back 80 or so posts and my eyes are tired ... :tired:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Hi Mick a reply from an Email sent to Simon Watkin HO http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post3415.html

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Nice quote from Alexander

He says: "What Phorm is trying to do is to turn people into products.; a global warehouse selling pieces of us to highest bidders."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

looks like Alexander made it in time...

EDIT...D'oh, John beat me to it

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Latest quote from Alexander..

Mr Hanff says: "Phorm has to be opt in. You can't take implied consent on a human right."
Mr Hanff argued that privacy is a human right.
He added: "I'm concern about the potential for use of the technology and the potential for creep."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Not only did Alexander make it but from the little tidbits on the blog it sounds like hes doing rather well. I knew he would. Get 'em Alexander.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I cannot even begin to think of a big enough way to thank Alexander for what he has done, by reading this thread (and it has taken a longtime, and not much has really sunk in due to all this information) it is clear that Alexander was and IS the best person to attend tonight, and even if he was the only member of public there, I know he'd shine more brightly than the opposition!

Alexander, if you are ever around CAMBS, I would love to buy you a few drinks, I know it aint much for all the effort you have put into this, but it'd be a firm way of showing my appreciation for all the effort & hard work you have put into this over the last few months!

Alexander for PM!!!

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I think that the main development from today has been that some people are starting to get replies from the home office as highlighted by Florence's post above. The home office are not giving a legal backing as it is beyond their remit but they do seem to be stuck on the issue of personally identifiable information as opposed to the legal issues of interception. They also make the ludicrous suggestion that RIPA exists as a tool to cover government and police bodies with regard to interception on a security level when this clearly is not the case as I read the parts relating to interception of telecommunications.

PhormUKPR returned after a layoff to spout the same, tired spin
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post3441.html

I highlighted that phorm are working hard to convince the FTC that they have a viable and legal model and it's worrying that the FTC may agree that they will see behaviour target advertising as an acceptable model for business.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080414/20080414006002.html?.v=1

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

That still seems awfully high.

And I'm not sure what he means by this: is it 1% of pages I visit, or 1% of http requests? The first case is bad enough, but in the second case that's going to be highly noticable if he means the problem can occur with any element on a page. Considering that some pages only render their main content *after* they have displayed all of the other fluff on the page, that could quickly become very tiresome.

On another issue, I would also like to thank all those who have given time to the cause and would be happy to contribute to an expenses/fighting fund if it became available.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Well, the most important thing I noted was that a flamewar was averted with the minimal of moderator interaction - whilst not being on topic I think it is noteworthy for this forum ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

There are now 6 OIX advertisers now listed on BadPhorm which I have already added to my blocked sites.

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...ewforum.php?21

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Good point.

I do think that a forum which is mostly populated by intelligent and level-headed users will by the very nature of the users become mostly self moderating.

What I am doing here I'll never know ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

This taken fom the VM feedback group...(thanks to Oar Wellin)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

it seems darren's not updating much, is it because of no notewerthy quotes?, not likely, also i wonder if he will blog any Q&A....that must be happening right now.

Mick the main one i'd go for is as outlined in my reply to Florences HO email , #3429 (BTW this is easy, left click and drag highlight the No., right click and copy, then paste into your reply)

I.e Simon Watkin at HO got duped (better for the story and keeping on side for later feedback that way) into a general RIPA what-if chat, and Phorm apparently turned it into a massive PR spin favouring a legal rather than illegal PHorm , totally mis-representing the good name of Simon.... :spin works both ways and it seems perfectly true.

and that contrary to the Phorm line, it seems clear now that those 2006 trials were, as outlined by Simon in general terms, infact unlawful and a undenyable collecting and processing is clearly visable even to the untrained eye.

need to search for those Phormed web messes in the boards again and include them in any CF stories and use a big stick to point this trail out ,clear as day, the DPI kit breaks HO Simon Watkin's most basic outlined chat..

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Blog's been wrapped up, no coverage of Q&As... :mad:

Unable to post a comment asking why, 502 error. Seems they need a bigger server... :D

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Eagerly awaiting a full debrief on events; but in the mean time a hearty well done to Alexander Hanff and Dr Richard Clayton
:clap:

Also well done and thankyou to Simon Davies for getting them up there on the speakers list.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

DOes anyone know when there will be an online video of the event please as I am anxious to find out what really happened

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Just been re-reading what I posted in #3481 on the last page as being quoted from the EU.

If that is an indication of their stance on the subject, it's a big kick in the goolies for Kent.
Have I read it correctly?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

It's a kick in the goolies for the Home Office. This could be the way to go.

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Hear, hear. Alexander done good.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Where did it come from - can I send it to my MP?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I will echo that. Alexander did great. Round of applause :clap: and major thanks to him for attending.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I have read through the post you made Dev, regarding the EU statement several times, and although i have no legal experience whatsoever, I'd day that that reads that Phorm is illegal in the EU under the articles outlined.

Also I must express thanks to Dr. Richard Clayton and our own Alexander for the great work they've put in tonight at the meeting.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'd like to reiterate the sentiments thanking Alexander for attending and also add my backing to previous suggestions that we might be allowed to set something up so that we might contribute collectively in some measure to cover his expenses and buy him a beer. Perhaps the CF team might consider managing a paypal donations page in order to allow us to contribute with the confidence it is above board?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I agree Alexander has been the champion for this fight for our rights all along without him we would have been lost. :clap:

Mick could the forums start a fund to allow some members who wanted to donate money. This could be for Alexander to buy books he needs from Amazon to further his education for the benefit of the human race.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Links to the eprivacy directive

http://mineco.fgov.be/internet_obser...2002_58_en.pdf

and CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
(2000/C 364/01)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

for reference.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I totally agree with you 100%, they did a great job for us all. :clap:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I agree with all the sentiments above. A BIG thank you and :clap: to Alexander for his efforts on our behalf this evening. Would be more than happy to contribute to a donations page for a :beer:

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'd just like to add my thanks to Alexander and many others here who have worked extremely hard to get and keep this issue in the public eye. I believe we have right on our side (though that's no guarantee of success) and I hope that some of that "national media" that was present at the meeting this evening really goes to town over this now.

Alexander summed-up my personal feelings about Phorm's technology perfectly when he said "[what it is] trying to do is to turn people into products; a global warehouse selling pieces of us to highest bidders." It is immoral, it is unfair, it is inequitable and it is almost certainly illegal.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Now I wouldnt normally agree to sending people I have never seen money, but in this case I agree, nice thinking Florence, that man deserves all the thanks possible AND more besides and I would love to donate some currency to this hero! :D:D:D

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Apparently it's from this lady...http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barro...g/index_en.htm
and appears to be from an email. Until there is an external, verified source it's too good to be true (sorry Oar Wellin, have to be careful when quoting on t'internet. Sure you understand)

EDIT...Of course, huge thanks to Alexander. Stirling effort, that man. Above and beyond.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

as are we all.....
(for the benefit of Mick incase he missed it)

what we know is Alexander couldnt do a video obviously, he may have took the campus video kit anyways and had someone run it, so there might be footage there.

there was apparently, some professional video footage aranged by Simon Davies and he said its unedited and will be put up asap, that might mean tonight if they really are unedited , depends on the format i suppose, and thats aside from the TV crews filming, we might see or not on C4 news sometime inthe next 3 days (that seems to be the turn around point for most news24 type footage unless it high profile...)

and i assume BBC TV video perhaps if they were there also...

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'm not sure what this document is, but it looks as though the Commissioner is saying that if the UK does not have a law that guarantees citizens' freedom from interception, the the UK government is in breach of EU law.

So if what "Andrew" at the Home Office is saying is true, then the government is breaking EU law.

So, either the Home Office has to admit that BT broke the law, or it has to admit that by failing to make BT's conduct illegal, the government had broken the law.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Sadly, then, we can't quote it as something the Commissioner definitely said?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

This too is my understanding given Simon's comments and would be happy to receive any such video and re-encode it to place on my somewhat unused youtube page.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

It'll be interesting to see how Phorm's share price reacts to tonight's events tomorrow morning (I notice it was unchanged today).

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

best I have is from 80/20 thinking home page

http://www.8020thinking.com/