Cable Forum
Page 837 of 948 « First 337737787827833834835836 837 838839840841847887937 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33628733)

vicz 23-07-2008 10:21
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rryles
I have looked at the RIPA explanatory notes and I'm afraid I still see a problem. I think phorm will argue the following:

Code:
The data is not made available to any person.
The data is processed by an automated system which produces some other data.
This other data is made available to another automated system and potentially certain people.
This other data does not represent any part of the communication.
I really would love to be shown the error of my thinking. I want phorm and BT to be held legally accountable for the trials and I want the whole idea of dpi for advertising to be litigated into oblivion.
still catching up.

on thing you miss, the data is available to the system admins in the form of the diagnostic logs, which we are told are kept for upto 14 days but not told what happens after that

peter
In phorm's case won't this 'other data' consist of keywords that originally were 'part of the communication' ?

icsys 23-07-2008 10:22
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34606162)
Not sure there is a lot of point as BT being a commercial company and not a public body, won't be required to disclose commercial legal advice. AFAIK
The request is to disclose the information in the posession of the ICO
(assuming BT has provided it as requested by the ICO).

I would consider it to be in the public interest to disclose. Failure to disclose (by the ICO) could cause people to assume the advice was flawed.

rryles 23-07-2008 10:29
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicz (Post 34606237)
In phorm's case won't this 'other data' consist of keywords that originally were 'part of the communication' ?
I could offer my opinion of weather that counts as communication data, but this really is something that a court must decide.

icsys 23-07-2008 10:36
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34606168)
my bold / UL so is this say that the HO should only give advice regarding interception under warrant? if so does that mean that phorm spoke to the wrong dept and got duff info?

and that BERR are the ones they should be checking with and so should we? anyone done an FoI request to DBERR?

note the important point "provision of value add service" AKA anti phishing

could it not be argued that to be a value add service it would need to be a service users required not duplicate one they already have? if this were so then webwise would lose its immunity from pecr as it would no longer be a value add service?

peter
There are no current FoI requests regarding BT/Phorm lodged with BERR
I know that BERR, along with the ICO, have been in discussions with BT over the webwise technology.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/berr

Dephormation 23-07-2008 10:40
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34606168)
not sure if below is relevant

***************
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, the Home Office provides guidance about lawful interception conducted under warrant for law-enforcement purposes. This is separate from advice provided by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the relevant business facing legislation. ISPs may, with the consent of the consumer, use information about consumers’ internet use for the provision of value-added services. The Information Commissioner provides information to the public on privacy issues.
***************


my bold / UL so is this say that the HO should only give advice regarding interception under warrant? if so does that mean that phorm spoke to the wrong dept and got duff info?

and that DBERR are the ones they should be checking with and so should we? anyone done an FoI request to DBERR?
Conversely if the Home Office remit is providing guidance about lawful interception conducted under warrant for law-enforcement purposes... separate from... business facing legislation...

Why did they spend over 6 months advising BT/Phorm?

I haven't done an FoI to BERR, but I understand the HoL have some questions pending, which may reveal more.

An FoI request to BERR would be a good idea, usual sort of questions;
  • When were BERR first contacted by BT/Phorm to discuss internet advertising?
  • What correspondence has been exchanged concerning internet advertising between BERR and BT/Phorm since 2006?
  • When have BERR met with BT/Phorm to discuss internet advertising, what were the minutes and agenda of those meetings?
  • When were BERR first made aware of the trials of Phorm systems in 2006/2007?
  • What evidence have BERR sought concerning the secret trials in 2006/7?
  • When were Shriti Vadera, Tom McNulty, Jacqui Smith first advised that covert trails of Phorm/121Media systems had been conducted in 2006/7?
  • Have the Insolvency Service Companies Investigation Branch opened an investigation into the secret trials in 2006/7?
  • What evidence have the CIB sought concerning the secret trials in 2006/7?

bluecar1 23-07-2008 11:32
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch (Post 34604635)
Don't forget to leave a review of BT Broadband here:

http://www.broadband-help.com/providers/provider/3
just ran a speed test from here and got the following results

Download speed 209 Kbps (socket test)
Upload speed 185 Kbps (socket test)
Quality of service 5 %
Maximum pause 1348 ms
Round trip time 8 ms

proves what i thought a poor service

wonder if the quality of service has anything to do with the 2 additional hops BT put in my route this last week in prep( i assume) for PHORM / BT Webwise

peter

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

why have BT have put so many extra hops in my route to the net? 18 hops to get to google, used to be 14 a few months ago and only 12 on my ZEN line.

as you can see below i start in the 217.47.66 subnet, up to 217.41.159 subnet, then upto 217.41.171 subnet, turn round then all the way back???

i fail to see the logic of that route? and think it looks on face value as poor network design, and before you say off topic the only reason i can see for this is that they are preparing to put the phorm / BT WebWise kit on the 217.41.171.x subnet and having to route my traffic halfway round the country to get to it. if that is the case there is not way that route when combined with the 307 redirect delays will not affect the performance of my broadband when browsing, i am alreeady seeming delays

or is BT Retail already trialing phorm / BT Webwise covertly again??

and as hop 2 says kingston5.broadband.bt.net i assume i am on the kingston RAS and will be affected by the trial !!!!

please note BT and PHORM we are still watching you watching us watching you, with great interest when you make network changes ;)

Peter

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [216.239.59.147]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 77 ms 99 ms 99 ms api.home [192.168.X.X]
2 16 ms 17 ms 17 ms esr11.kingston5.broadband.bt.net [217.47.66.142]
3 18 ms 16 ms 17 ms 217.47.66.13
4 17 ms 18 ms 17 ms 217.47.159.170
5 16 ms 17 ms 18 ms 217.41.217.9
6 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 217.41.171.66
7 18 ms 18 ms 16 ms 217.41.171.134
8 16 ms 17 ms 17 ms 217.41.217.38
9 18 ms 18 ms 16 ms 217.47.66.99
10 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms core1-pos3-0.kingston.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.40.106]
11 18 ms 18 ms 19 ms core1-pos0-7-0-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.201.109]
12 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms core1-pos6-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.198]
13 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms 195.99.125.110
14 19 ms 20 ms 19 ms 209.85.255.175
15 33 ms 33 ms 34 ms 209.85.250.216
16 32 ms 32 ms 30 ms 66.249.95.169
17 34 ms 35 ms 34 ms 216.239.49.126
18 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms gv-in-f147.google.com [216.239.59.147]

Trace complete.

Wildie 23-07-2008 11:40
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Well for i had 19 hops last week and this week it`s 18 but sadly my speed has dropped from 7.6 to 6.2 in the same time line, yes I am that close to the exchange and would expect after years of 7.6 it I would still get that but nope.

thebarron 23-07-2008 11:43
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Mine seems totaly different!

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.*.*
2 11 ms 9 ms 28 ms 10.247.120.1
3 7 ms 7 ms 9 ms lutn-t2cam1-a-v128.network.virginmedia.net [80.4.119.181]
4 8 ms 7 ms 45 ms lutn-t3core-1a-ge-011-0.network.virginmedia.net[62.252.64.85]
5 9 ms 7 ms 11 ms pop-bb-a-so-220-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.175.149]
6 8 ms 30 ms 9 ms pop-bb-b-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.174.230]
7 12 ms 18 ms 27 ms tele-ic-2-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.184.6]
8 13 ms 15 ms 8 ms 212.250.14.138
9 10 ms 9 ms 30 ms 209.85.255.175
10 23 ms 25 ms 19 ms 209.85.251.190
11 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms 64.233.174.187
12 29 ms 49 ms 56 ms 64.233.174.18
13 32 ms 21 ms 22 ms lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]

Trace complete.

bluecar1 23-07-2008 11:49
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebarron (Post 34606322)
Mine seems totaly different!

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
13 32 ms 21 ms 22 ms lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]

Trace complete.
your does not do a round trip to visit a friend to tell them where you are going and what you are doing (phorm ) who is not in yet (we assume), then come back before going where it should, as VM do not seem to be playing these games yet

peter

Wildie 23-07-2008 11:58
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
1 92 ms 99 ms 99 ms xxxxxx xxxxxx 192.168.x.xxx]
2 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms esr5.sheffield3.broadband.bt.net [217.47.73.144]

3 23 ms 23 ms 22 ms 217.47.73.13
4 25 ms 24 ms 23 ms 217.47.110.6
5 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms 217.41.176.25
6 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms 217.41.176.146
7 23 ms 24 ms 23 ms 217.41.176.50
8 23 ms 22 ms 23 ms 217.47.73.50
9 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms 217.32.171.241
10 26 ms 25 ms 25 ms core1-pos8-0.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.
146]
11 32 ms 30 ms 31 ms core1-pos0-6-4-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.
58]
12 30 ms 29 ms 29 ms core1-pos6-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.1
98]
13 29 ms 29 ms 30 ms 194.74.65.38
14 29 ms 30 ms 30 ms 209.85.255.175
15 44 ms 45 ms 45 ms 209.85.250.216
16 40 ms 41 ms 43 ms 72.14.232.237
17 42 ms 52 ms 42 ms 64.233.174.18
18 42 ms 39 ms 40 ms lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]

Trace complete.
i have posted other way back
like the way i go up north then south past where i started from

BetBlowWhistler 23-07-2008 12:22
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebarron (Post 34606322)
Mine seems totaly different!

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
.
Perhaps because you are going to a different IP address?

Also, when looking at these traceroutes bear in mind that when your packet traverses a (layer 2) switched network (MPLS/Frame Relay) etc. that you won't see a 'hop' as these are only registered at layer 3(IP).

It's possible to head into an mpls node in London and Pop out in San Francisco with it looking like 1 hop (although it's probably closer to 20)

Tarquin L-Smythe 23-07-2008 12:28
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34606290)
just ran a speed test from here and got the following results

Download speed 209 Kbps (socket test)
Upload speed 185 Kbps (socket test)
Quality of service 5 %
Maximum pause 1348 ms
Round trip time 8 ms

proves what i thought a poor service

wonder if the quality of service has anything to do with the 2 additional hops BT put in my route this last week in prep( i assume) for PHORM / BT Webwise

peter

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

why have BT have put so many extra hops in my route to the net? 18 hops to get to google, used to be 14 a few months ago and only 12 on my ZEN line.

as you can see below i start in the 217.47.66 subnet, up to 217.41.159 subnet, then upto 217.41.171 subnet, turn round then all the way back???

i fail to see the logic of that route? and think it looks on face value as poor network design, and before you say off topic the only reason i can see for this is that they are preparing to put the phorm / BT WebWise kit on the 217.41.171.x subnet and having to route my traffic halfway round the country to get to it. if that is the case there is not way that route when combined with the 307 redirect delays will not affect the performance of my broadband when browsing, i am alreeady seeming delays

or is BT Retail already trialing phorm / BT Webwise covertly again??

and as hop 2 says kingston5.broadband.bt.net i assume i am on the kingston RAS and will be affected by the trial !!!!

please note BT and PHORM we are still watching you watching us watching you, with great interest when you make network changes ;)

Peter



I have had the same happen to me full circle then off to google

1 40 ms 99 ms 99 ms api.home [192.168.xxx.xxx]
2 30 ms 34 ms 30 ms esr6.birmingham5.broadband.bt.net [217
]
3 48 ms 30 ms 47 ms 217.32.86.30
4 31 ms 31 ms 32 ms 217.41.221.174
5 29 ms 30 ms 30 ms 217.41.216.13
6 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms 217.41.172.65
7 33 ms 30 ms 32 ms 217.41.172.138
8 31 ms 31 ms 30 ms 217.41.216.34
9 34 ms 29 ms 29 ms 217.32.86.42
10 31 ms 36 ms 34 ms core1-pos9-5.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net
0.49]
11 34 ms 33 ms 32 ms core1-pos0-6-4-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net
58]
12 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms core1-pos6-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [1
98]
13 34 ms 34 ms 35 ms 194.74.65.38
14 33 ms 32 ms 34 ms 209.85.255.175
15 103 ms 101 ms 105 ms 72.14.236.216
16 118 ms 150 ms 118 ms 66.249.94.235
17 122 ms 121 ms * 209.85.248.221
18 126 ms 147 ms 128 ms 72.14.232.74
19 127 ms 130 ms 138 ms 72.14.232.70
20 133 ms 129 ms 130 ms py-in-f99.google.com [64.233.167.99]

Hop #11 alternates from Ilford to Ealing

Rchivist 23-07-2008 13:11
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34606238)
The request is to disclose the information in the posession of the ICO
(assuming BT has provided it as requested by the ICO).

I would consider it to be in the public interest to disclose. Failure to disclose (by the ICO) could cause people to assume the advice was flawed.
Okay. good point and agreed.

Florence 23-07-2008 13:19
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
I completed two tracerts one using google.com and the second the IP addres you had .

Quote:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.



Tracing route to www.l.google.com [216.239.59.147]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 16 ms 14 ms 14 ms b.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.67]
3 16 ms 14 ms 14 ms vlan4001.global-switch.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.6
5]
4 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms te1-1.telehouse-east2.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.57
]
5 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms te5-4.telehouse-east2.core.enta.net [62.249.192.
125]
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms te4-1.telehouse-north.core.enta.net [87.127.236.
38]
7 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms te5-1.telehouse-north0.core.enta.net [87.127.246
.122]
8 15 ms 14 ms 16 ms 72.14.198.46
9 15 ms 17 ms 16 ms 209.85.252.40
10 26 ms 26 ms 47 ms 209.85.251.190
11 26 ms 25 ms 60 ms 66.249.95.169
12 28 ms 31 ms 32 ms 216.239.49.114
13 26 ms 28 ms 28 ms gv-in-f147.google.com [216.239.59.147]

Trace complete.



Tracing route to lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router
2 17 ms 15 ms 14 ms b.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.67]
3 16 ms 14 ms 14 ms vlan4001.global-switch.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.6
5]
4 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms te1-2.telehouse-east.dsl.enta.net [84.45.242.50]

5 15 ms 17 ms 15 ms te5-2.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [62.249.192.1
21]
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms te5-4.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
7 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms te5-3.telehouse-north0.core.enta.net [87.127.236
.41]
8 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 72.14.198.46
9 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms 209.85.252.40
10 27 ms 121 ms 28 ms 209.85.251.190
11 26 ms 28 ms 28 ms 72.14.232.235
12 28 ms 36 ms 35 ms 64.233.174.14
13 28 ms 26 ms 26 ms lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]

Trace complete.

Rchivist 23-07-2008 13:20
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe (Post 34606365)
I have had the same happen to me full circle then off to google

1 40 ms 99 ms 99 ms api.home [192.168.xxx.xxx]
2 30 ms 34 ms 30 ms esr6.birmingham5.broadband.bt.net [217
]
3 48 ms 30 ms 47 ms 217.32.86.30
4 31 ms 31 ms 32 ms 217.41.221.174
5 29 ms 30 ms 30 ms 217.41.216.13
6 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms 217.41.172.65
7 33 ms 30 ms 32 ms 217.41.172.138
8 31 ms 31 ms 30 ms 217.41.216.34
9 34 ms 29 ms 29 ms 217.32.86.42
10 31 ms 36 ms 34 ms core1-pos9-5.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net
0.49]
11 34 ms 33 ms 32 ms core1-pos0-6-4-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net
58]
12 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms core1-pos6-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [1
98]
13 34 ms 34 ms 35 ms 194.74.65.38
14 33 ms 32 ms 34 ms 209.85.255.175
15 103 ms 101 ms 105 ms 72.14.236.216
16 118 ms 150 ms 118 ms 66.249.94.235
17 122 ms 121 ms * 209.85.248.221
18 126 ms 147 ms 128 ms 72.14.232.74
19 127 ms 130 ms 138 ms 72.14.232.70
20 133 ms 129 ms 130 ms py-in-f99.google.com [64.233.167.99]

Hop #11 alternates from Ilford to Ealing
Exactly the same here - up the hill from 217.32.99.186 on hop 2 and down again back to 217.32.99.50 on hop 9 having spent hops 3-8 skipping around the hill enjoying the rock phormations.

Tracing route to google.com [64.233.187.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 44 ms 101 ms 97 ms api.home [192.***.*.***]
2 49 ms 48 ms 47 ms 217.32.99.186
3 48 ms 268 ms 84 ms 213.123.109.161
4 48 ms 50 ms 48 ms 213.123.109.6
5 49 ms 48 ms 47 ms 217.41.169.17
6 51 ms 48 ms 48 ms 217.41.169.66
7 48 ms 48 ms 49 ms 217.41.169.118
8 49 ms 48 ms 54 ms 217.41.169.54
9 49 ms 49 ms 47 ms 217.32.99.50
10 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms core1-pos9-2.reading.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.0.245]
11 50 ms 52 ms 49 ms core1-pos0-8-0-3.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.185]
12 53 ms 49 ms 50 ms core1-pos10-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.254]
13 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms 195.99.125.110
14 50 ms 55 ms 51 ms 209.85.252.76
15 121 ms 122 ms 122 ms 64.233.175.213
16 134 ms 134 ms 132 ms 209.85.248.216
17 148 ms 152 ms 149 ms 216.239.48.69
18 148 ms 152 ms 152 ms 216.239.47.1
19 152 ms 162 ms 161 ms 216.239.43.249
20 148 ms 149 ms 148 ms jc-in-f99.google.com [64.233.187.99]


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07.
Page 837 of 948 « First 337737787827833834835836 837 838839840841847887937 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum