Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[popper]

lol, given your in your element, perhaps you can talk click! into leting you be a peoples co-host and do a few tech specials, and then be in a position to drop some more sound bites in the clips lol, if only....

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:43 ----------

Originally Posted by OF1975

One thing that has me stumped so far is from the register story where it says:

"BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission."

Now, with the caveat that law isn't my strong point, I fail to see anything in section 3 of RIPA that would get the ISPs of the hook on this one. Am I missing something or are the Home Office just using any old excuse to try avoid doing their duty on this issue?

arr the penny drops, thats were it came from, sounds like cotton-bull to me , that official wants to re-read the rules as set out, wrong and wrong is my opinion.....

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by popper

lol, given your in your element, perhaps you can talk click! into leting you be a peoples co-host and do a few tech specials, and then be in a position to drop some more sound bites in the clips lol, if only....

Unlikely lol.

It is rumoured that Kent didn't want me there as he feels I am not representing any specific group and so I am not relevant. So nice to know he looks on me with such high regard.

I should add that he was the only person on Tuesday who completely ignored me both at the meeting and the gathering afterwards. No gentleman's handshake, not even a hello.

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just the Home Office being utterly incompetent. They have obviously been ill-inphormed by their phormsultants.

Alexander Hanff

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Unlikely lol.

It is rumoured that Kent didn't want me there as he feels I am not representing any specific group and so I am not relevant. So nice to know he looks on me with such high regard.

I should add that he was the only person on Tuesday who completely ignored me both at the meeting and the gathering afterwards. No gentleman's handshake, not even a hello.

Alexander Hanff

What was I saying earlier about a lack of class....?

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just the Home Office being utterly incompetent. They have obviously been ill-inphormed by their phormsultants.

Alexander Hanff

I thought so. Just wanted it confirmed by your more knowledgeable self. With regards to the click interview I think its great.

One thing that has to be said about Phorm is that they are learning. They have stopped their PR people coming here with their copy and paste obfuscated answers which only served to stir the hornets nest. Then they invited Dr Richard Clayton to carry out the technical analysis report so we finally got some much needed answers. Now the hiring of a Chief Privacy Officer. Then there is the fact that Kent gave up on the old "anti-phishing as a benefit" line that was so easily refuted. I don't know whether to be thankful or worried by these changes.

Now they just need to learn that they aren't wanted, needed, useful, acceptable or legal. Then we can all get ready for the battle to kill off NebuAd LOL

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by popper

again , fine, good call, who slapped it down and why, it seems only logical..... so did you start it off and have something as a base.....

im busy with other related stuff but try my best to keep it in mind, no lists but its getting to long even for me to remember all key points ( im getting old and forget easyer these days ...)

Afraid I didn't even make a start on compiling a chronological highlights list -- it should be easier now with the benefit of hindsight.
But imho it would need to be a closed (or at least, very strictly moderated) thread which means the CF Team ought to do it themselves or nominate the participants.

Short-term memory, no never been a problem.
What's my name again?

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Unlikely lol.

It is rumoured that Kent didn't want me there as he feels I am not representing any specific group and so I am not relevant. So nice to know he looks on me with such high regard.

I should add that he was the only person on Tuesday who completely ignored me both at the meeting and the gathering afterwards. No gentleman's handshake, not even a hello.

Alexander Hanff

He has probably realized that you, as an eloquent spokesman for joe public, are far more likely to put nails in the coffin of phorm than the combined might of the home office, the media and privacy groups in general.

[GeoffW]

I'd ask Kent if he could divulge exactly how many ISPs have used his system on live users in trials or other guises in the UK. If he won't answer that, then have VM or Talk Talk carried out a trial prior to signing up his company.

I'd also ask how he expected to entice users to opt in to a true opt in system? What sort of things would they be told. After hearing his waffle, then point out all the things they would not be told.

[OF1975]

Ok its now fastly approaching 48 hours since the meeting took place and still no sight of the professionally filmed footage being made available. I am starting to get suspicious as to the reasons why. In the spirit of "transparency" which was mentioned at the meeting at the very least we should be given some information on when and where this footage will be made available.

[CWH]

Evening,
A long time lurker and now a member because of Phorm.
A thought; now that there are statements in the public domain from the Home Office regarding their non-involvement, does this not now mean that we could apply for a judicial review into their, (Home Office,) actions - or rather non-actions.
The fee for initial application is only £50, with a further £180 due on acceptance.
Maybe someone with more knowledge of the system would know.

Also, has anything come of the suggestion of the Amazon Wish List for Alexander?

Colin

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Ok its now fastly approaching 48 hours since the meeting took place and still no sight of the professionally filmed footage being made available. I am starting to get suspicious as to the reasons why. In the spirit of "transparency" which was mentioned at the meeting at the very least we should be given some information on when and where this footage will be made available.

My understanding is that 80/20T have been out of the country on other business since yesterday morning, which would explain the delays. That information is just based on some chat at the gathering on Tuesday night, so I don't know how accurate it is and therefore don't offer it as a statement of fact.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:14 ---------- Previous post was at 18:12 ----------

Originally Posted by CWH

Evening,
A long time lurker and now a member because of Phorm.
A thought; now that there are statements in the public domain from the Home Office regarding their non-involvement, does this not now mean that we could apply for a judicial review into their, (Home Office,) actions - or rather non-actions.
The fee for initial application is only £50, with a further £180 due on acceptance.
Maybe someone with more knowledge of the system would know.

Also, has anything come of the suggestion of the Amazon Wish List for Alexander?

Colin

I was too tired to set it up last night Colin and I have been incredibly busy today (literally non stop) with my academic commitments and organising this BBC "Click" interview.

I will try and get it done later on this evening when my son has gone to bed.

Alexander Hanff

[roadrunner69]

I think its also about time we had an answer to the 'debugging and research logs' question which completely contradict their 'we collect no data' line.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by JackSon

I think an important thing is to establish, right at the beginning that what both concerns the laws (that you have already explored in great depth) and the customers, is what happens to traffic/data prior to anonymisation. That will hopefully render any further speeches from Kent along the "we don't collect or store personal data" themes null and void; as of course, when the time comes for anonymising the data arrives, it is already too late for non consented data to be harvested. It really needs to be hammered home that his argument is in fact completely academic, irrelevant, useless etc. and he ought to move on.

I'd go even further.

Alexander, why not let Kent have specific *legal* questions, say 24 hours before, so that he can't use "not having a QC handy" as an excuse for not answering?

He'd look a right plonker if you can then ask him on camera: "You've had 24 hrs notice, is your legal team in Moscow too?"

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

I think its also about time we had an answer to the 'debugging and research logs' question which completely contradict their 'we collect no data' line.

That was answered in the meeting on Tuesday, but it might have been in the Q&A part at the end of the meeting which would explain why people may not be aware of it.

Allegedly the logging mechanism has now been changed and only errors and network messages are stored in the Debug logs now.

Alexander Hanff

[ceedee]

Welcome to CF, Colin.
As you can see by the size of the thread, we're a quiet and retiring bunch...

Originally Posted by CWH

Also, has anything come of the suggestion of the Amazon Wish List for Alexander?

Or just set up a secondary paypal account that we can throw pennies into?