Originally Posted by madslug (Post 34587550)

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Wildie (Post 34587572)

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

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34587595)

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

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel (Post 34587695)

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

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

[Moderator Edit]

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

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

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


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

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel (Post 34587695)

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

Originally Posted by jtechs (Post 34587705)

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

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

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587741)

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

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

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

Also the link for Wiki:

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

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

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

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34587602)

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

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

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

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

see:

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


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

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

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

remember, thats PER offence, not per trial conviction

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

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



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

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

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

Originally Posted by warescouse (Post 34587766)

I feel concerned also. Function creep?

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587741)

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

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

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

Also the link for Wiki:

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

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

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

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

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

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

[Moderator Edit]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34587772)

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

Anyone in the know?

Link to help:

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

Originally Posted by jelv

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

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

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