Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 20-04-2008, 22:23   #4239
AlexanderHanff
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,028
AlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful one
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
I hear your point Alexander but I think a "confused" situation probably benefits US more than it benefits the Phorm/Webwise/ISP end.

For example, my sites have a text statement banning Webwise. Because I've been making a nuisance of myself with my own ISP BT, and told them they did NOT have my consent to profile my data exchange with visitors, they have voluntarily added me to their blocklist.

But I haven't told VM or Talk Talk. And I don't expect BT to tell them, I haven't given them permission to do so. So VM and TalkTalk will have to work out their own way of noting my body text ban on Webwise as no one is providing robots.txt or meta-tag methods of banning Webwise and no one is actually thinking of how to ASK webmasters for consent. So I can still watch out for Webwise visits when the system goes live (which I hope it never will).

I'm choosing not to correspond with VM or TalkTalk which is my choice. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I actually don't think BT can honour that offer to individually add sites to their blocklist - they'd be swamped and they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it - I'd love them to discover that quickly - I'm anxious for them to have a really stressful "Webwise ISP management and feedback experience".

but if you think there are genuine legal reasons to avoid this approach then fine - I'm not a lawyer. And I'm still grateful for your advocacy on this!
I am not a lawyer either but BT would be foolish not to try and circumvent their responsibility by trying to show they have taken reasonable action by allowing sites to contact them to be added to a blacklist. Every site that does this simply adds weight to their argument that it is reasonable action (as the industry can be seen to be accepting it).

Furthermore, if you ask BT to exclude you but don't ask VM/TT to do the same and you do end up taking either of them to court, they can quite easily turn round and say that you should have asked them not to like you have with BT.

It is best to simply not give them even the slightest hint of an argument to use as part of a legal defence.

Remember, no matter how BT or Phorm try to spin it, they need to get your consent; it is their responsibility to obtain that consent, not your responsibility to deny it to them. The right to that privacy is already active under Human Rights law, RIPA and PECR so they cannot assume a default waiver of that right. Adding explicit terms which deny them consent on your web site merely clears up any doubt whatsoever, which is why I am suggesting people do that.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline