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

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by fidbod

Bonsoir everyone,

I am one of the relatively quiet posters affliated to the antiphorm movement.

A plea!!

Devils Advocate please continue posting your opinion - everyone else please challenge his views

BUT no ad hominem attacks from either side or "playground style" gainsaying of each other please!

For me the logical end goal is to legislate Phorm and companies with similar intentions out of existence. However we will only achieve that through reasoned debate. Lets get some practice in with DA - who knows, we may even convert him/her.

I haven't had any previous experience of DA's posts (unlike some others apparently) but I am of the opinion that DA does not need converting. After reading every post on here and on iii etc. there is a certain element of woolley thinking in some posts, most likely due to this being a very emotive topic once you have fully engaged.

So far, I welcome DA's posts as they help us to focus our thoughts, sharpen our claws and remain fit for the fight, and I fully agree with you about the 'ad hominem' attacks. Although in a way that's pretty much what Kent has been doing whenever he is confronted with someone new to slag off Alex to.

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Yes, of course, I should have realised that it's an orderbook process and not one based on market makers. So I assume that deals may happen outside spread when liquidity is low (inevitable in somewhere like AIM) and the share price is moving fast.

I suppose the question I would ask is whether the share price was moving fast enough to justify a premium of 25p/share over the Ask Price on a block of 500 shares (so £125). Or similarly on other Buys above the Ask Price. Do other AIM-listed companies' share prices exhibit similar behaviour?

I am most concerned by the market price. Seems that kent's backers think he is still viable just significantly less cash generative.

That's my reading of the stock price anyhow's.

from a legal perspective you can argue Phorm in many ways. In principle I think it is wrong! ans should be defeated on as many perspectives as possible.

we need to remove the viabilty of the business model. What happened to the idea of caller deposit receipts and charging for copywright usage. Was the idea proved unfeasible?

[rryles]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I disagree, you are entitled to your interpretation of the Act but in this case I lean towards the analysis of experts and people who actually were involved in putting the Act into statute. All the experts who have spoken about the system have claimed this is interception, including legal experts, technical experts, Peers in the House of Lords and Commissioners of Europe. I don't for one minute think they would make comments "on the record" without making very certain that they were intrepeting the law accurately.

Alexander Hanff

Whilst I have a fair amount of technical knowledge, I am certainly not a legal expert. Therefore I expect that probably the legal experts have got it right and I have got it wrong. However, I'd like to understand why I've got it wrong. It's part of my personality that I prefer to understand than just know.

[BetBlowWhistler]

crap post removed

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

Although in a way that's pretty much what Kent has been doing whenever he is confronted with someone new to slag off Alex to.

Yes I found it a little strange to find out that Kent has basically been going around the Houses of Parliament "slagging me off". I would have hoped he would be above school yard tactics and actually have the decency to answer the questions being asked of him as opposed to simply insulting me at every opportunity even if the questions are nothing to do with me.

That is at least the impression I have been given from at least 1 Peer and several members of the press.

Kent seems to think I am some dangerous fanatical cult leader and you are all my followers; Baroness Miller seemed quite surprised to find me dressed in a suit and well spoken as opposed to being some crazed savage frothing at the mouth.


Alexander hanff

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by rryles

Whilst I have a fair amount of technical knowledge, I am certainly not a legal expert. Therefore I expect that probably the legal experts have got it right and I have got it wrong. However, I'd like to understand why I've got it wrong. It's part of my personality that I prefer to understand than just know.

The data is looked at (machine or human it does not matter) & processed, then passed to third party for use of such processed data.
The third party should not have had any contact with the data anonymized or not.

Does that help!

[Tharrick]

It's a shame you can't get legal aid for offences like slander - I'd quite like to see him in some trouble over his ad hominem arguments

[rryles]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

The data is looked at (machine or human it does not matter) & processed, then passed to third party for use of such processed data.
The third party should not have had any contact with the data anonymized or not.

Does that help!

Well there are two possible way's I can think I might be wrong:

1) The processed data counts as communication data
2) The unprocessed data is made available

I think you're suggesting the former?

[dav]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Yes I found it a little strange to find out that Kent has basically been going around the Houses of Parliament "slagging me off". I would have hoped he would be above school yard tactics and actually have the decency to answer the questions being asked of him as opposed to simply insulting me at every opportunity even if the questions are nothing to do with me.

That is at least the impression I have been given from at least 1 Peer and several members of the press.

Kent seems to think I am some dangerous fanatical cult leader and you are all my followers; Baroness Miller seemed quite surprised to find me dressed in a suit and well spoken as opposed to being some crazed savage frothing at the mouth.


Alexander hanff

That's a badge of honour I'd be proud to wear.

Lets face it, if he has resorted to that kind of childish behaviour, he's running scared and is fighting to save the life of his ill-conceived mongrel of a company.

The way I see it, if he can't win over the support of a few vociferous net nerds and bloggers with considered, reasoned debate then Webwise had no merit to start with and should have been consigned to the slop-bucket from the start.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by rryles

Well there are two possible way's I can think I might be wrong:

1) The processed data counts as communication data
2) The unprocessed data is made available

I think you're suggesting the former?

It could be both if the profiler itself was also deemed to be an interception of the data stream.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

It could be both if the profiler itself was also deemed to be an interception of the data stream.

I think the tricky bit is the use of the word interception. I'm not using it in any dictionary sense. I'm using it in the context of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. So to convince me that the profiler is intercepting the data stream you'll have to refer to parts of the act and state how each bit relates to phorm.

Perhaps I've missed some important clause. Or maybe I've failed to see how it could be applied in a particular way to a particular part of the phorm system. Please do enlighten me

[tarka]

Sorry for being a bit behind in the thread but it's been a busy day. A couple of important things to remember...

On the subject of peoples legal opinions it's important to note that the various parties mentioned in this thread that have given a legal opinion have gone to great lengths to detail which laws they think this system violates and why they violate them. BT/Phorm simply say "it's legal, our advisors said so". They give no basis for this legal opinion or explanation why they think that others detailed opinion is incorrect.

On the subject of Polls and Surveys, the various polls that have been released and show that the public is NOT in favour of behavioural advertising, specify the number of people polled and give details of the responses to specific questions. BT/Phorm simply say "our survey says that the public want it overwhelmingly" without providing any details of the questions asked or the numbers polled.

It all comes back to transparency (not BT's definition) and honesty.

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by tarka

Sorry for being a bit behind in the thread but it's been a busy day. A couple of important things to remember...

On the subject of peoples legal opinions it's important to note that the various parties mentioned in this thread that have given a legal opinion have gone to great lengths to detail which laws they think this system violates and why they violate them. BT/Phorm simply say "it's legal, our advisors said so". They give no basis for this legal opinion or explanation why they think that others detailed opinion is incorrect.

On the subject of Polls and Surveys, the various polls that have been released and show that the public is NOT in favour of behavioural advertising, specify the number of people polled and give details of the responses to specific questions. BT/Phorm simply say "our survey says that the public want it overwhelmingly" without providing any details of the questions asked or the numbers polled.

It all comes back to transparency (not BT's definition) and honesty.

Absolutely, this campaign has always been fantastic, lets keep it going.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by rryles

I think the tricky bit is the use of the word interception. I'm not using it in any dictionary sense. I'm using it in the context of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. So to convince me that the profiler is intercepting the data stream you'll have to refer to parts of the act and state how each bit relates to phorm.

Perhaps I've missed some important clause. Or maybe I've failed to see how it could be applied in a particular way to a particular part of the phorm system. Please do enlighten me

The question is is the profiler needed in order to ensure communication between the two parties & whether the profiler is illegally gathering the information, but I am no expert & others with far more expert legal minds think it is more than likely illegal.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...1-ch1-pb1-l1g1

[icsys]

Originally Posted by R Jones

From the Lords questions session and Baroness Miller's questions in particular,<snip>

Internet Privacy
11.15 am
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What guidance they have issued to internet service providers on when and how they can intercept their customers’ website use; and what information they have made available to the public about the privacy issues involved.

<snip>

I have been catching up with the the previous 24 hours postings in the thread. I was reading the Lords questions session at the previously posted link :http://www.publications.parliament.u...ldtoday/02.htm however, I cannot find the section relating to internet privacy that a lot of posts were referring to and discussing. The transcript appears to jump from 11.12 to 11.19 Has it been removed?

Post with original link post11985