Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
As I stated before, but obviously I was not clear enough, could you provide a existing case reference that backs up your premise regarding a criminal act (UK criminal law), specifically regarding speed?
The reason I ask is that one of your links states -
"Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
Section 1b of the Act defines “trespass to goods” as ” wrongful interference of goods”. (TA 1977) To this author’s knowledge there is presently no case law in the UK with regards to altering the behaviour of a computer without the consent of the owner. However, the issue of Cyber-Trespass is a debate which has grown over recent years with the biggest break throughs being in the US."
And that is in reference to Phorm, not STM. |
I am not, for very obvious legal and strategic reasons, going to lay out chapter and verse any actual authorities in law. They will become clear after judgement. Whilst it's true that the tiny snippet of law you produced has not
in itself been put to civil test it has great relevance when taken with other legal authorities. One must always address legal authority in combination applicable to a particular case - and I shall not expose my position in that regard to anyone until closing submissions in court. Apologies, but you must surely understand precisely why.
---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Again everything to do with PHORM is to do with DPI - which Virgin do not use for their cable STM!!!!!!!
|
Ben, PHORM is only one aspect of DPI, and DPI is only one aspect of data interception. Virgin must intercept data to throttle. Incidentally, Virgin had and were playing about with PHORM during the period to which my dispute relates.