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

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by NewsreadeR

How about a redirect for all BT IP's that visit the website in question. Is there anyway we could forward that ISP's IP range to a Webwise information page, with links for the Petition, AGM Protest etc.

Done already... http://www.dephormation.org.uk/web_masters.html

Scroll down to Apache htaccess deny directives.

Set a custom ErrorDocument 403 /spywareblocked.htm (which could be a php forwarding page, or a redirect to your preferred message).

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by icsys

Even though I was not directly suggesting that people should use the ignore feature, if it should be misinterpreted by a moderator then any infraction or moderation because of it would be overzealous seeing that a moderator has already directly suggested that the ignore feature should be used if you do not wish to see posts by particular members.

#9946

It depends on whether it is interpreted that you are telling members to do so against a particular member. I personally see nothing wrong with the post you reference by a mod. Anyhow we digress and for that I apologise.

[3x2]

You need to adopt the new Parasites.txt

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by 3x2

http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/

How Internet copyright legislation affects you

What you need to know

Intellectual Property.gov.uk sums up UK Internet copyright law as: "material sent over the Internet or stored on web servers will generally be protected in the same way as material in other media", and that one must have the owner's permission to use it.

Therefore, any material that you own the copyright for and put on the Internet is protected from others using it without permission. And the reverse applies as well - if you come across something on the Internet, you cannot use it without observing the owner's copyright terms.

Argh! did you get a screenshot? or capture that? its vanished! That would have been a priceless keepsake.

Ahh Gottit! Its here http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/ar...ht-legisla.php

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by icsys

Even though I was not directly suggesting that people should use the ignore feature, if it should be misinterpreted by a moderator then any infraction or moderation because of it would be overzealous seeing that a moderator has already directly suggested that the ignore feature should be used if you do not wish to see posts by particular members.

#9946

Yes highly irregular maybe if this post was quoted in future under similar cicumstances.http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post9946.html

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Argh! did you get a screenshot? or capture that? its vanished! That would have been a priceless keepsake.

Ahh Gottit! Its here http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/ar...ht-legisla.php

How apt that BT should quote legislation that they themselves are about to breach.

Perhaps BT should be directed here... http://www.ipo.gov.uk/crime.htm

[isf]

Originally Posted by rryles

With regards to user agents and robots.txt it is important to note that there are 3 user agent strings involved!

And this is where BT/HO idea of implied consent for web sites breaks down.

1. The user agent string sent in headers for normal page requests (likely to be unaltered from the users)

In which case there's no implied consent for cookie authenticated sessions and no way for web masters without access to the robots.txt to opt out of Phorms profiler.

2. The user agent string sent in the headers for the request of robots.txt (no idea what this will be)

And until we're told what this will be, there's effectively no opt-out for site operators most of whom want publicly accessible pages to be indexed by google. Few want a 3rd party performing unauthorized interception.

3. The user agent (if any) used to match lines in the robots.txt file. (Maybe googlebot but who knows??)

I'm pretty sure Google would action that.

BT's hand waving about opting out is exactly that, those already in contact should start pressing them on it

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by isf

BT's hand waving about opting out is exactly that, those already in contact should start pressing them on it

Opt out bollards!

It must be opt in.

That's what RIPA says. That's what Copyright requires by default.

Web masters are not obliged to help BT comply with the law. Complying with the law is BT's problem!

And what a challenging problem that seems to be.

[isf]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

And what a challenging problem that seems to be.

My thoughts exactly, but no reason not to put BT on the back foot with their own opt-out nonsense

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by icsys

How apt that BT should quote legislation that they themselves are about to breach.

Perhaps BT should be directed here... http://www.ipo.gov.uk/crime.htm

Or here

Copyright applies to…computing and the internet

Love it. Maybe the ICO and HO should be pointed there as well

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by R Jones

No - that's on my list of "significant unanswered questions". Tried - finally given up.

I didn't think she would have an answer for that one.

Still, the replies she has given you over the months, AND her constant unwillingness to address certain issues you raised, just show how dodgy this whole scheme is. So much for transparency.

Thanks for a brilliant effort, Robert.

OB

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Done already... http://www.dephormation.org.uk/web_masters.html

Scroll down to Apache htaccess deny directives.

Set a custom ErrorDocument 403 /spywareblocked.htm (which could be a php forwarding page, or a redirect to your preferred message).

is there any equiv for IIS 6.0?

peter

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

is there any equiv for IIS 6.0?

peter

I have looked into it. There is a way to block individual IPs (if I recall correctly) but not a whole IP range... without writing a bit of ASP code.

There must be an MS guru out there who might chip in with something more insightful/accurate. If so, I'd be interested too.

Otherwise if you have a up market hardware router/firewall you might be able to lock BT out with a set of firewall rules, or you might be able to configure rules in a software firewall on your wintel box.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

All they did was change their name. Still the same shares and the same company......cue comments about spyware and 121 !!!

hammy to be absolutely correct

04-05-07
"Online advertising firm 121Media Inc has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of newly-formed holding company Phorm Inc following a reorganisation, Phorm said."

that is create a new umbrela company, absorb the failing company whose public image and how it is perceived by the public means it cannot continue to trade (oh and don't forget the various legal agencies in the US taking a close interest in 121media due to peopleonpage and the root kit )

all this to try and get away from a tainted image, unfortunately this has been rumble and all the money spent rebranded has been for nothing

shame that, how is your mate kent feeling due to the low share price

din't he take out loans to buy them? or was it used them as security for loans?

with the current credit crisis would be a shame if the loan was called in O:-)


peter

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Opt out bollards!

It must be opt in.

That's what RIPA says. That's what Copyright requires by default.

Web masters are not obliged to help BT comply with the law. Complying with the law is BT's problem!

And what a challenging problem that seems to be.

I guess it's a challenging problem for BT because trying to gain compliance via an illegal act is something well worded and well designed laws attempt to prevent. There lies the rub.