Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_A
The debate remains robust, with pro-VM probes coming in different directions!
You presumably read my previous posts about legal activity - I'd appreciate your not getting personal by asking about or making any inference to training or qualifications. I find it offensive and designed to undermine my credibility in such a way that those who suffer the results of Virgin Media restrictions will somehow lose interest.
I should also point out that, in the event of my success, such comments could be used by the media to undermine VM as an organisation willing to stoop to underhand tactics, directly or indirectly, rather than simply fulfil customer contracts.
Policing operations have been held to account many times in Parliament, public committee and courts. Whilst there are statutes such as the Official Secrets Act which offers some protection, GCHQ staff are subject to legal constraints within the UK jurisdiction (bearing in mind they are generally "listeners"). Sometimes they can intercept, sometimes they cannot - the courts decide in each relevant case.
---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:36 ----------
To be fair to Ben, I doubt VM would have exposed that they were working on such a potentially explosive subject to all but their inner cadre. Then again, Ben could be/ may have been part of the inner cadre. Either way, Ben's feedback has no relevance now, it's his justifiable opinion.
I would say this, though. STM did not appear out of nowhere. Experiments, trialling and partnered investigation of suppliers would have taken place before any management decision to follow a particular path of policy. Normal R&D but it profoundly counteracts any argument VM have in relation to whether they ever interfered with communications. Even archaeologists can prove the nature of an ancient road by subjecting a few stones to forensic analysis.
Oh, and I'd love a copy of that email  |
You are mistaken.
I am not "pro-VM" - I am pro-evidence and fact-based arguments.
It does not help your case when your reaction to someone asking for evidence is to call them a VM shill - tin-foil hattism helps no-one's credibility.
I believe my questions about training, qualifications, and experience are valid, as they would be if someone was making a case on knowledge in other areas (IT, building, medicine, etc) - for you to dismiss as an attack on your credibility does more, imho, to lessen your credibility than a factual answer would have. For instance, if we were discussing IT matters, my 30 years experience would have a bearing on my credibility (imho).
Remember the old saying "a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".
Who exactly "suffers" from VM's restrictions? People suffer from medical malpractice, assault upon their person, but to call a variation in bandwidth "suffering" does seem to be over-egging the pudding somewhat.
Regarding GCHQ, I think you will find that your statements are a sub-optimal interpretation of the facts - GCHQ actively "access data without prior agreement" (your term) both in this country and others; this is a fact, not a supposition (been there, done that
).