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

Phorm's market capital is now 18.3M GBP slimmer than it was at closing yesterday :)

I wish I could earn as much as they lose every day, I would be minted.

Alexander Hanff

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

Just because content is provided to someone else free, does not imply that you have an unconditional right to access it, or that the owner of that content has given you consent to use that content for any and all purposes... including commercial gain without due royalty payments.

That is what copyright is all about. You'll find most sites make that explicit in the copyright/terms of use ('private and personal non-commercial use only' ).

Try taking articles from the Daily Mail, and use them to promote the Guardian. Without paying the Daily Mail. Then see what happens. It won't be pretty.

Organisations which exist to protect copyright holders include;

Society of Authors
http://www.societyofauthors.org/
Performing Rights Society
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/
F.A.C.T.
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

I think we need to make them aware.

Pete.

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

Taint it in the US or here?

I doubt that a privacy storm over here would damage their customer base much in the US (after all, they're a chain of retail stores, not an ISP, and the majority of the US public don't seem too bothered about their corporations behaving badly outside the US) and over here most people have never heard of them, and certainly wouldn't associate a retail store with their ISP (Maybe that's where we come in - educate the general public to the connection between the two?)

Unlike the Virgin brand - which has "Virgin" and the red logo in the name of each business, people aren't going to know that "BestBuy", "TalkTalk" and "Carphone Warehouse" are the same company....

Okay - I'm playing devil's advocate a bit this morning... I realise that we need to explore every and any avenue for publicity against Phorm-Webwise including relatively minor ones...so keep up the good work and the best of luck with your dissertation/finals :)

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

The press are stating that whereas existing shops will remain under the CPW brand, new retail outlets will come under the BestBuy brand (here in the UK and I presume the other 8 countries CPW does business in).

Given the publicity the BestBuy <> CPW deal is going to receive from the press (and already are doing) it is fair to assume that at least a reasonable percentage of the population will know about the relationship and of that percentage some will know about Phorm <> TalkTalk and therefore associate the BestBuy brand in a negative fashion.

I agree it is not a -huge- move contacting BestBuy but still a valid and important one all the same.

Alexander Hanff

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

OMG.

In the last 30 minutes Phorm shares dropped from 1,275.00 to 1,225.00

http://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=PHRM

:cool:

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

Indeed but the law tends to deal more often than not on tangible concepts rather than minutiae of transmission mechanisms. It’s a contentious point but the majority of experienced lawyers I have talked to regarding Phorm tend to say that for published content then RIPA specifically does not require the consent of the remote (website) party because the communication is that of published content and not of private communications. It is similar to the difference between sending a magazine or video by Royal Mail parcel service against sending a letter by letter post, and I am assured that RIPA applies differently in these two cases.

However as we all know, a lot of web content is interactive, and as another very good and experienced friend explained to me it will be very difficult for an automated process to distinguish between e.g. a Facebook style private messaging thread and published content because of all the bespoke authentication methods out there.

In fact the process of classifying the communication of one that should not be intercepted may require interception so there is a catch-22.

So it seems the only way content owners can fight against intra-ISP spyware/profiling is under copyright legislation and that is doomed to certain failure because Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt, an established mechanism granting a machine the rights to scan and classify the content.

IANAL (but I know a few very good ones).

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

I've been watching it all day. It reminds me of the old pre-internet days when I used to "watch" rugby matches on Ceefax when the match wasn't live on TV!

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

Every time this has happened in the past has preceded either an exclusive in El Reg or an announcement from the Regulators.

Although I noticed on iii that for the first time last year's results were charted, so I wonder whether this has spooked a few of the imbecile home investors who's idea of research is to look at the graphs.

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

Ditto with the cricket. Ahhh the old pleasures with a new twist :)

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

I know some very good ones too and have come to know even more since the scandal started. There is nothing in RIPA which supports your comment on web sites and published data, so I am not sure who told you that but it simply isn't true. RIPA states public telecommunications network with regards to which types of networks apply (as opposed to private which you seem to be saying in your post) but then extends itself to private networks (such as business networks) which has already seen a conviction in the UK and a failed appeal.

Furthermore, Phorm do not state they will abide by robots.txt at all, they have stated if Google appear in a robots.txt with permission to access, they will assume the same right. In fact they have gone even further and refused to issue a user-agent so that robots.txt configurations can choose to allow or deny Phorm access.

Now with respect, the -law- states consent is required and that it must be informed consent from -all- parties, it is very clear and freely available in black and white to anyone who would care to read it. You seem to be missing a few laws as well such as Fraud Act 2006, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, Torts (Inteference with Goods) Act, Data Protection Act (which irrespective of what Phorm or ICO may have said, very clearly defines any operation on data (which includes anonymising it) even if it is by an automated system must first have the consent of the subscriber. Lets not forget the Computer Misuse Act either. Again, all of the above are freely available for anyone to read.

So I am afraid I don't agree with your analysis or that of your legal experts.

Alexander Hanff

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

David Evans, BCS blog article
InPhormed consent not given
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlogEntry.425

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

At the moment Bt & Phorm are "between a rock & a hard place..."

Phorm must test the System to prove viability & if they do without proper legal approval then they are wide open to litigation!

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

In your opinion. Don't let all the TV interviews and requests for comment go to your head.

Do you think the Home Office advice was drawn up by a dimwitted low-grade civil servant? In fact it was drawn up by a legal team who just didn't understand enough about the way HTTP was used today.

Irrelevant.

You're rapidly losing credibility here.

You don't have to agree. But if you stick to the clear facts of the case you will have a greater chance of gaining support and credibility with your arguments.

The fact is you will find a lot of lawyers who agree with the implied consent argument for published works. So why bother even discussing it when you have a rock-solid example of how RIPA is breached with private messaging and email services.

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

Just popping in to post this little quickie.

Chaps, one of the Mods over at the Moneysavers site has decided to merge the thread we were posting on with an old one. here's the link: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=903715

btw. Alexander, you write the most super letters, mate (and so quickly, too); so much better than I could... so.... I was thinking... maybe someone with your detailed knowledge of this whole shebang could pop a letter off to 'consumer's champion' Martin Lewis at the Moneysavers site. (Okay, I'll admit it, my last effort was ignored.)

My wife gets his weekly email newsletter and according to his site this email goes to 2,064,774 people. Just imagine that many people, or more likely a very small percentage of that number, getting involved in this. He could also be the man to get this on mainstream TV.

Worth a try?

While I'm here, another 'consumer champion' to get onto this could be Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/). Marc has done an immense amount of work helping the 'little guy' beat the banks, and in fighting the big companies.

Also worth a try?

OB

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

You think personal attacks and insults are going to make people more aligned with your position?

I don't need to think, the Home Office have stated categorically that their statement is neither a legal analysis -nor- a technical analysis and have reiterated they are not in a position to even make such a legal analysis if they wanted to.



How is it irrelevant? You claimed that because the communications are over a public network they don't fall under RIPA whereas in fact RIPA places more restrictions on public networks than it does on private, go and read it and see for yourself.


More personal attacks?


I am sticking to the facts, I am correctly referencing the relevant laws on the issue and as such have a great deal of support and credibility. I have actually read all the laws as well, which appears to be something you haven't done.

Really? You mean according to you surely? I have found very few lawyers who are agreeing with the implied consent argument and I suspect the reason for that is because the law clearly states informed consent.

Still, thanks for the chat, I need some sleep now though so I won't be able to respond to your inevitable reply until this evening. Have a pleasant day.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

I am a member at CAG so I will talk to some people there next week once I have this huge workload out of the way. Not sure if Martin would be interested (MSE) to be honest but I will certainly give him a try next week also.

Alexander Hanff