Cable Forum - View Single Post - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

CaptJamieHunter · 18-04-2008, 15:46

Damn, the financial stuff happened just after I'd sent this e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk... And grateful thanks to the folk who keep this discussion thread going - you've helped word this and my earlier e-mails.

"Dear Lord Northesk,

Thank you for replying even though you are overseas. I and others appreciate your response. There are many others who share my confusion over why the Home Office has not acted to initiate investigative proceedings into the BT secret trials which could now have involved some 108,000 customers.

It has been suggested that the Home Office is not an investigatory body and that it is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception. This suggestion may well be true but the Home Office has an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them.

Given that the Metropolitan Police refused to issue a crime number when Alexander Hanff attempted to report the tests as a crime, the full details being at http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html, there is now at least one example of the Police being obstructive and failing to do their duty. That surely comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Chris Williams of The Register has also highlighted the Home Office's failure to act in a report at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/ some of which I quote for your reference:

"The government has refused to investigate BT's covert wiretapping of thousands of its customers in 2006 and 2007, despite its own expert's view that without consent Phorm's advertising targeting technology is a breach of criminal law.

Whitehall's willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people were spied on by big business in order to serve up targeted marketing has angered web users. "I'm absolutely sickened and appalled," Pete John, who has tried to interest authorities, told The Register this week.

BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission."

A number of CableForum users and The Register readers have used government online chat forums to put questions to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary but our questions have been ignored.

A public meeting was held in London on Tuesday as a forum to discuss many of the issues surrounding Phorm. Organised by 80/20 Thinking, attendees were publicly invited via CableForum to bring cameras. I was able to attend some of the meeting and filmed the presentations of Simon Davies (80/20 Thinking), Kent Ertegrul (Phorm CEO), Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University and FIPR) and Alexander Hanff who has worked extensively towards the campaign against Phorm. I saw nothing at that meeting to dissuade me from my beliefs that Phorm is illegal under RIPA, it offers nothing in the way of value to me as a customer and that if this business model is allowed to go live as it is now it threatens privacy and lacks any kind of audit trail and accountability.

In the interests of keeping the discussions open and honest these videos are now posted unedited at http://tobymeres.net for people to see, as the professionally filmed versions are not yet online. By posting these unedited versions there is a record of what was actually said in the presentations, the intention being to prevent Phorm's PR from attempting to spin them.

I and others yesterday received an e-mail response from the Information Commissioner's Office informing us that the complaints we had made dated the last week of February had finally been allocated case numbers. The ICO claims that they are "currently dealing with large volumes of work", hence the nearly seven week delay in responding.

I sincerely hope that your question to the Home Office gets a substantial and meaningful response. There are many people who are very interested in what the Home Office has to say about what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of action.

Thank you again for your reply. If I can be of further assistance please contact me and I will endeavour to be of service.

I remain sincerely yours,"

18-04-2008, 15:46	#4022
CaptJamieHunter Inactive Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 234	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] Damn, the financial stuff happened just after I'd sent this e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk... And grateful thanks to the folk who keep this discussion thread going - you've helped word this and my earlier e-mails. "Dear Lord Northesk, Thank you for replying even though you are overseas. I and others appreciate your response. There are many others who share my confusion over why the Home Office has not acted to initiate investigative proceedings into the BT secret trials which could now have involved some 108,000 customers. It has been suggested that the Home Office is not an investigatory body and that it is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception. This suggestion may well be true but the Home Office has an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them. Given that the Metropolitan Police refused to issue a crime number when Alexander Hanff attempted to report the tests as a crime, the full details being at http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html, there is now at least one example of the Police being obstructive and failing to do their duty. That surely comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. Chris Williams of The Register has also highlighted the Home Office's failure to act in a report at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/ some of which I quote for your reference: "The government has refused to investigate BT's covert wiretapping of thousands of its customers in 2006 and 2007, despite its own expert's view that without consent Phorm's advertising targeting technology is a breach of criminal law. Whitehall's willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people were spied on by big business in order to serve up targeted marketing has angered web users. "I'm absolutely sickened and appalled," Pete John, who has tried to interest authorities, told The Register this week. BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission." A number of CableForum users and The Register readers have used government online chat forums to put questions to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary but our questions have been ignored. A public meeting was held in London on Tuesday as a forum to discuss many of the issues surrounding Phorm. Organised by 80/20 Thinking, attendees were publicly invited via CableForum to bring cameras. I was able to attend some of the meeting and filmed the presentations of Simon Davies (80/20 Thinking), Kent Ertegrul (Phorm CEO), Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University and FIPR) and Alexander Hanff who has worked extensively towards the campaign against Phorm. I saw nothing at that meeting to dissuade me from my beliefs that Phorm is illegal under RIPA, it offers nothing in the way of value to me as a customer and that if this business model is allowed to go live as it is now it threatens privacy and lacks any kind of audit trail and accountability. In the interests of keeping the discussions open and honest these videos are now posted unedited at http://tobymeres.net for people to see, as the professionally filmed versions are not yet online. By posting these unedited versions there is a record of what was actually said in the presentations, the intention being to prevent Phorm's PR from attempting to spin them. I and others yesterday received an e-mail response from the Information Commissioner's Office informing us that the complaints we had made dated the last week of February had finally been allocated case numbers. The ICO claims that they are "currently dealing with large volumes of work", hence the nearly seven week delay in responding. I sincerely hope that your question to the Home Office gets a substantial and meaningful response. There are many people who are very interested in what the Home Office has to say about what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of action. Thank you again for your reply. If I can be of further assistance please contact me and I will endeavour to be of service. I remain sincerely yours,"