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

The answer to that is no.

As for your comments to my previous remarks I just think you are agreeing with me. Even if you are not I am certainly agreeing with you.

I think I'm in danger of annoying the regulars again just because I try to have a reasonable point of view.

Again, please don't think I welcome Phorm, please don't think I'll accept it and please don't think I am not behind people here. I merely try to have a more factual based discussion on any of the issues raised in this thread than I prefer to just allow people to spout nonsense because they can.

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

I dont annoy easy :) jumping between two challenges on two different forums life could get hectic from here for me.

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

As I dislike all online advertising, whether adverts are targeted or not, I dislike them all and will never respond to them. How relevant they are is actually immaterial to me. That is fact.

Getting back on subject, Phorm, under the guise of 121 Media infected PC's of friends of mine and also PC's of their children with their targeted adverts of the day via their hidden software bombs. It was a nightmare to fix and leads me to say factually, I will never trust them and I will never remain with an ISP who is 'in bed' with them illegally intercepting my data. I will knowingly never have any of their adverts on my PC screen whether targeted or not!

There .... back on track!

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

You've not been to dinner with me where I drink too much wine and when we get home I choose to crash out rather than fulfil those obligations you might have expected ;)
She tells me I can be annoying from time to time ;)

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

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

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

This is yesterday's out-law link. Is that what you are after Florence?
---
Sorry, I can see now it's the same.

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

That's the only one I have seen but it is interesting to see it has been updated and in the author's opinion the covert trials did breach RIPA.

I find it highly contentious that he merely lays this off to one side as an isolated breach though. I don't call 128000 people spread over 2 years isolated. Neither do I expect that if I went out and stole a car or mugged someone it would be ignored as an isolated incident. Or if I was to break into BT's HQ and steal some kit and documents, I doubt that would be ignored as an isolated incident either.

Using his argument is basically putting corporations above the law.


Alexander Hanff

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

I suspect the PR team is also in action on this thread, obfuscating the discussions.

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

sorry Alexander just quoted this by you on ISPr :D

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/show...90&postcount=7

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

Alexander, perhaps you need to break in 128000 times. :p:

Please note I am not inciting you to do this. :dunce:

Interestingly, Kent Ertugrul might say that even 128000 times would only be a handful, quite literally a handful only, of break ins. So between him and the legal experts on that site, I think you'd still be a free man :D

Hank

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

Anyone know how much I can shoplift from Tesco's before it becomes serious?

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

128,001 ?

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

Good grief you lot should get out more, it's Friday night. Oh wait, erm, hang on :dozey:

Anyhoo, all this morose pessimism about how advertising will make the net a worse experience (I have to use that word, sullied as it has recently become, since I can not bring myself to call a communications medium a 'place') is making me all misty eyed and nostalgic for the early nineties, a time frame which contained, amongst other harbingers of allegedly certain net.doom, the year september never ended (1993), the first banner ads (same year) which caused untold controvesy and Canter and Siegel's mass "Green Card" usenet spam (1994). Truly it was the dawn of mass adoption of the web, and of the web based advertising model that we know and love.

(the younger, or more recent netizens, amongst you may need to pause to look some of that up :D )

Wired raved about the "New Economy" (an economy of eyeballs, which is a pretty creepy kind of economy, eyyeew!), and used lots of great sounding phrases like "Paradigm shift". Wired's readers complained to their opticians about eyestrain headaches, and the internet's user communities filled emails, usenet postings, web pages and magazine articles by the thousands with their vocal cries of horror that the net would never be the same again, that it would be awful, would become useless and unusable. That it would be broken :( To them it seemed as though the sky was falling.

I know this, I was there, I was one of those voices, I remember it as though it were yesterday, possibly because I have spent so much of the intervening period in various states of intoxication :erm:

And you know what, the net is still here, the web is bigger, brighter, better, faster and far far more useful than it was.

We were right, the net was never the same (it was stupid of us to think that it would be, change is truly one of the only two really universal constants)

But we were wrong about the sky. ;)

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

I was with you for that period and I was there for much, much earlier in the advent of whet is now the web.
Of course it all changes and mostly it changes for the better if only the user can become educated to look after their browsers.

As for Friday night? My wife works in London Mon-Fri and we live 212 miles away from our London residence so I'm not allowed to go out on a Friday when she gets home to see our boy ( and one would hope, me ), I'm lucky to be allowed on the net after being allowed to make dinner ;)

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

it seems its more him being slippery when wet ;) and he does twist the truth (as we know it..., any updates on the Home Office letters BTW?)to try and take the mick,and misslead the readers...

"
UPDATE, 02/05/2008: Some readers have asked for my opinion on BT's trial of Phorm, a trial that ran without user consent.

Did it breach RIPA? Personally, I think that it probably did.

But I doubt the question will ever come before a court.

The Home Office has already indicated that it does not intend to take action.

I expect that is because it views the trial as an isolated incident.

It would only take action if it believed that Phorm would normally operate without consent.

Some have compared BT's trial to the actions that led to the conviction under RIPA of Demon and Redbus founder Cliff Stanford. I think a court would consider the circumstances quite different, though.

Three readers have also noted that Pinsent Masons is one of the firms on BT's legal panel and asked me to disclose that relationship on this page. The firm is on BT's legal panel though we didn't advise on Phorm. As a large commercial law firm we are on lots of companies' legal panels.
"
its a very interesting response once you read between the lines and , he's clearly trying to underplay the real facts....

he's saying in effect, although a crime took place, it only happened once, so thats ok, the courts wount get the chance to rule on a punishment (even if that were to amount to a mear fine and suspended imprisonment)as no ones willing to bring it to court.....

that theres clear case law ;) in the stanford case, but seeing as its BT and not a smaller firm with lower cashflow, and it involves far more than a single person's data being unlawfully intercepted then its fine...

just like for instance, other BIG business loan practices can slide and be written off,but you better not miss your morgage loan paymant or loose your house being small fry.....

you might get the impression he's under a lot of stress to try and deflect the real facts that the BT executive and involved employees are under real threat of criminal conviction ....

on the averages, as per the stanford RIPA case, its seems to be on the cards for next year or the year after, before we might see the people involved in the dock... perhaps. :angel:

is what your after Florence in this lot
http://www.google.co.uk/search?oe=ut...Search+the+Web