Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 14-06-2008, 18:37   #8902
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 popper View Post
another uninformed blogger putting the Pro Phorm case....
http://blackbeak.conversionchronicle...rns-around-bt/
I just posted this comment, posting it here in case he doesn't publish it:

Quote:
There is so much to fault in your blog that it is impossible to do it in a comment; so I will make only these points:

1. Using Deep Packet Inspection technology for the purpose of behavioural advertising in the EU is illegal. There are no if's or but's, it is clear legal fact and is based around consent issues. It is impossible to get the consent of all parties as required given that the Internet consists of billions of web sites. There is currently no way Phorm can be legal using DPI and in fact since the EU decided to emphasise informed consent even more in recent regulations, it is unlikely this situation is going to change.

2. There are plenty of methods available for collecting the same data without requiring the use of such intrusive technology. If Phorm are so confident that people want this product they should develop LEGAL client side software (as in -not rootkits- as they did in their previous incarnation as 121Media). That way people would have a clear understanding and a clear choice. Building an entire 21st century network topology based on interception of communications is a ridiculously dangerous path to go down (which is why it is illegal).

3. You may not value your privacy. You may be happy for 3rd party equipment to sit in the network between yourself and the Internet and read every single piece of unencrypted data you access/send over the web, that is fine and you are entitled to that position. Many of the rest of us however value our rights and frankly we find it offensive that a former spyware (or any other) company feel they have the right to steal what the police and law enforcement authorities must obtain a warrant for.

4. Privacy is an inalienable and fundamental Human Right covered in Article's 7 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Human Rights Act 1998, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, Data Protection Act 1998. Furthermore, the covert trials in 2006/2007 and the planned deployment of the current model are in violation of Fraud Act 2006, Computer Misuse Act 1990, Torts (Interferance with Goods) Act 1977 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998.

In conclusion, whether you think it is OK or not is wholly irrelevant, it is in violation of both criminal and common law and as such BT should be prosecuted for their covert trials in full and Phorm should be be prosecuted for conspiracy under the same. Also, Phorm's "services" should be banned in their current form as they are in violation of criminal and common law; and believe me, once we manage to initiate a case in the courts an injunction to prevent Phorm from deploying in the UK will be filed for.
Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline