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

As opposed to what? The illegality of BTs covert trials has not been tested in a court of law yet. If Alex, or anyone else for that matter, didn't use the word 'belief' or 'alleged', then they might be liable to be sued under libel laws.

Does this change the fact that in many people's opinion, including IT professionals and specialists, and government bodies that BTs conduct was illegal and unethical? No, it certainly doesn't.

btw: Do you have any personal interest in seeing Phorm succeed?

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

Thanks, but no thanks Robert. Suffice to say that because of 'my arguments' in that other place, it became a lot quieter and more relevant to it's purpose.

You have a right to consider it unproductive .. but I don't. You do things your way, I do things my way. I think it's called democracy.

By 'baiting' do you mean provocation? .. if so, I agree with you. If provocation makes people think out of the box (I hate that expression, but it applies), or makes people reconsider their attitudes, then it is not a bad thing.

As to moving on .. that's your choice - it's not mine.

D_A

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

You can only be guilty of libel or defamation if what you say is knowingly untrue. In order for me to be sued the comments I have made would need to be proved to be untrue and it would also need to be proved that I made the statements knowing they were untrue. This means the court would need to make a judgement as to whether or not BT did break the law in order to determine whether or not my comments were true.

I hope you can see where I am going here?

BT and Phorm already rattled their sabres at me and threatened to sue me if I did not remove certain comments from the NoDPI web site, I refused to do so and told them I would welcome the opportunity to defend my claims in court and that I would expect a letter from their lawyers to initiate that. They didn't take me up on my offer.

If BT and Phorm believed beyond a doubt that their trials of the technology were legal I am sure they would have sued me long before now.

Alexander Hanff

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

As to moving on .. that's your choice - it's not mine.

D_A[/QUOTE]

I think that comment could only be classed as provocative!

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

Fantastic. :clap: :clap: :clap:

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

That's all true, but you're still liable to get sued if they decide to prosecute. Whether the libel charge would hold up in court is another issue. Some people/corporations do, in fact, sue people in order to silence them on the basis that they think the person being sued will back down.

Hence, unless you positively wish to go to court, it is wise to use the phrases 'I believe' or 'I alleged', IMO.

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

Can I submit the suggestion that those who wish to discuss the advantages (as they see them) of Webwise, do so on www.iwantkenttoknowmyinsidelegmeasurement.com ;)

Seriously though, if the general perception of this system is right up there with the idea of sliced bread, where are all the pro-dpi and pro-phorm websites?
If people really do want targeted advertising shouldn't there be thousands of people begging BT to get the damn trials launched?

Where are they?
Who are they?

:erm:

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

The people with a strong view on the legality of intra-ISP profiling fall into two categories: those who have thoroughly read and understood RIP Act and those who haven't.

I'll leave the rest to the reader's imagination.

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

Exactly - because unsubstantiated accusations are libellous. If Alex or anyone else has proof, then there would be no case for libel action. If there was proof, I wouldn't argue the point.

"that in many people's opinion" - yes, opinion. Opinion doesn't stand up in a Court of Law.

I have a personal interest in enjoying my experience on the web/internet. Anything that improves that experience will be welcomed. Anything that doesn't will not be. If Webwise contributes to a better experience without detriment to my browsing/access, and doesn't impinge upon my basic rights, then I will welcome it.

D_A

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

I raised this point months ago, suggesting directly to a Phorm PR clown that they go and start a PM petition promoting intra-ISP profiling.

A bit like my call for a test case. Bring it on, I say. If BT truly believe something then they have the resources to make it happen in court.

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

I am not afraid of going to court and I have nothing to lose if a judgement went against me as I have no assets and no earning (so an attachment to earnings would be fruitless). Also I should remind people that in the UK penalties in civil court judgements are means assessed and are not permitted to impact your normal quality of life (in other words they must only take into account "disposable income") including leisure, clothing, bills, food etc.

I certainly have no intention of backing down; I have been advised by members of the House of Lords that BT's trials were illegal, there is no higher authority so therefore my statements are suitably qualified. I even have an audio recording to support this (as you all know) and the statements by Baroness Miller in the zdnet article and of course the letter from the ICO admitting that the trials breached PECR as well as statements from HO and ICO stating that such technology would require consent (clearly lacking in the trials). Oh and lets not forget the European Commission whilst we are at it.

So in fairness, I can't be accused of not carrying out due dilligence.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------

I do have proof, I made that proof publicly available and I have submitted it to the police as evidence which they are currently officially investigating.

Using your logic, you are guilty of libel yourself by claiming I am making libelous comments without there being any "proof" as no court has ruled I am being libelous.

Alexander Hanff

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

Why should I move on ? .. I haven't finished what I want to achieve where I am. Why is that provocative ?

.. and in any context - what is wrong with 'provocative' ? It can be very stimulating to those who are able and willing to be challenged.

D_A

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

Back in Post 9575, Oblonsky summarised the argument:

Beyond the question of what may or may not have been or be lawful, D_Advocate's position, and Oblonsky's (which I would imagine is shared by most of the posters here) will no doubt be evaluated by BT Retail's users should the trials or full deployment go ahead.

All published surveys so far indicate that most people will take an anti-Phorm/Webwise position once they know what is going on. The burden of the argument is therefore on those supporting Webwise and similar schemes to show that people will welcome them. So far no evidence has been presented to support this. Perhaps that evidence should be presented before this dialogue continues.

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

It will be up to the police and/or the courts to decide if you have proof.


Then sue me. I'm sure you can afford to, despite your protestations to the contrary.

D_A

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

If BT are not worried over the legality of the system, where are the trials? Why have they and phorm constantly been tweaking the way the system works, the interstitial page, the robots.txt fairy tale, and the cookie mangling? Why do they still seek the protection of the worthless anti-phishing figleaf? And if it is so good for the customer, why did they feel the need to attempt to keep the trials secret, even to the extent of lying to impacted customers and their own helpdesk staff? Why have Virgin and Talk talk fled to the hills? And why are they still paying the legendary 'phorm PR team' if the system is only opposed by a few cranks?

The fact is we are all waiting with baited breath for BT to start the trials. We know that once they commit to a particular approach we will be able to take it apart and expose it for what it really is, however smart they think they are. We will have something concrete to expose, rather than the present make it up as they go along PR spin.

It will be the same old spyware story all over again. Eventually people will catch on, phorm will slip off to their next scam and BT will be left holding the (very ugly) baby.

So bring it on, we are ready.