Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 18-05-2008, 22:14   #6798
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 Toto View Post
Indeed, its a staggerng amount of data, but I noticed this comment.



Now, IP allocation is not Internet activity as such. I always leave my router on, but turn off my PC's, so no browsing activity is going on. Does the above mean that this new law will require ISP's to also collect what URL's were visited in the last 12 months, and what email communications were made?

I hope not, but if it is true, Phorm will be a minor inconvenience compared to this little nugget.

I have looked at the actual directive itself, you can get a PDF of it from here and it isn't that clear if I am honest. At the very least it would seem to indicate, as was mentioned in The Register article, that most ISP's are already doing this, the article therefore just appears to give a maximum time frame for the retention of such data. Whether it requires the storage of sites visited is not clear, that's one for the legal boffins here to decide.
Again this is not new. This directive became public knowledge way back in 2004/2005 era and yes, as I stated in my first response they are required to log all web sites you visit and the headers of all emails. But, and I reiterate this despite what some people seems to believe to the contrary, the public authorities must obtain a warrant to access this information and it doesn't contain any contents.

Quite how you think this is worse than Phorm who don't obtain a warrant and who read all the content as well as just the headers, is beyond my comprehension.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chroma View Post
I regularly email people in the Middle east, China, Korea, the US and Russia.

How long do i have before my door kets kicked in and im detained as a terrorist?
Or do i need to become a Muslim before this will take place?

I mean if there are logs of this im certain it would look like i was part of a terror cell rather than just an average citizen.
If you were a risk you would have already been picked up by Echelon. The new data retention laws (although bad) are not an open book, warrants are required and they can only used in the prevention/detection of real suspected crimes not just some random search "in case" there might be a crime in there somewhere.

Now don't get me wrong I have been speaking out against the EU Data Retention Directive since its inception several years ago but the public are the ones responsible for this legislation being passed. If people had been more concerned for privacy back then as they are now, then the correct procedures could have been followed to try and block it in the first place.

But to compare this to Phorm is ludicrous, Phorm is far far more sinister.

Also this logging is easy to avoid. First you just need to run your own email (or use a 3rd party email outside of the EU as opposed to your ISP email). That deals with the email logging issue. Secondly web logging can be avoided by using a VPN. Not ideal solutions, but at least options.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline