Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[BenMcr]

Again everything to do with PHORM is to do with DPI - which Virgin do not use for their cable STM!!!!!!!

[Mike_A]

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 ----------

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.

I understand that you made an unequivocal statement
" If anyone interferes or accesses a computer by accessing its data, including data in transit, or its operability, including speed, without express prior agreement, then that is a criminal matter."
and now refuse to provide evidence - sort of a "win-win" situation for you, isn't it?

A further question, then, and hopefully you will answer this one - do you have any formal legal training, qualifications, and experience?

btw, regarding data interception without the data owners' permission/authority, where does this leave GCHQ?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

IBen, PHORM is only one aspect of DPI, and DPI is only one aspect of data interception. Virgin must intercept data to throttle.

No they don't!

The only thing they do is use inbuilt functions of the CMTS equipment to monitor usage. It doesn't monitor what that data is, just how much is passing through.

It is like me standing on the side of the road and counting traffic. I don't know what is in the traffic, who the traffic belongs to, where it came from or where it is going, nor can I interfere with it. All I know is how much there is

Incidentally, Virgin had and were playing about with PHORM during the period to which my dispute relates.

And in that you are very very wrong. Virgin have not 'played about' with PHORM apart from on a seperate isolated test network. There has been 0% live testing of Phorm on the VM network - and will not be without consent from customers.

[Bonglet]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

[snip]

And in that you are very very wrong. Virgin have not played about with PHORM apart from on a seperate test network. There has been 0% live testing of Phorm on the VM network

I disagree with that above statement especially during 2007 when web pages wouldnt load everything online stopped to a crawl and a nice unable to resolve ntp.sysip.net in my browser (didnt know what it was back then).

[BenMcr]

And how does that prove that Virgin were testing Phorm?

Virgin have been quite clear about what they have and have not done with Phorm

http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php

Has Virgin Media ever deployed the Webwise system?
No. As part of an early evaluation of the system to understand how the technology works we have run a small technical lab test on a private internal network, not connected to the internet. We have never deployed the system, either as a trial or otherwise, and would never do so without informing our customers first

[Bonglet]

well go do a lookup on ntp.sysip.net for starters all leads back to phorm why do you think i joined this forum after a month of problems looking for an answer?.

virgin are as clear as mud when it comes to phorm do you want me to post my e-mail sent and response to a certain mr berkett which still hasnt been resolved?.

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I understand that you made an unequivocal statement
" If anyone interferes or accesses a computer by accessing its data, including data in transit, or its operability, including speed, without express prior agreement, then that is a criminal matter."
and now refuse to provide evidence - sort of a "win-win" situation for you, isn't it?

A further question, then, and hopefully you will answer this one - do you have any formal legal training, qualifications, and experience?

btw, regarding data interception without the data owners' permission/authority, where does this leave GCHQ?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Bonglet

I disagree with that above statement especially during 2007 when web pages wouldnt load everything online stopped to a crawl and a nice unable to resolve ntp.sysip.net in my browser (didnt know what it was back then).

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

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

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.

As is everyone else on this thread!

No-one is posting here under any authority other that 'I think that'

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.

As far as I can tell, STM is an inbuilt function on the CMTS i.e. the equipment that all cable customers connect to - and have done since cable broadband launched in the UK

And you seem to be completely ignoring that you can Traffic Manage without 'interfering' with the Traffic as you seem to think they do -see my earlier post with the Cisco manual

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And you seem to be completely ignoring that you can Traffic Manage without 'interfering' with the Traffic as you seem to think they do -see my earlier post with the Cisco manual

Depends on the definition of 'interfering' - STM is shaping of traffic through dropping it after a certain rate is exceeded. Something has to be done to traffic to manage its' flow.

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 ).

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Depends on the definition of 'interfering' - STM is shaping of traffic through dropping it after a certain rate is exceeded. Something has to be done to traffic to manage its' flow.

I accept that, which is why I clarified with 'as you seem to think they do'

From what Mike is saying he is under the impression the STM deployed on the VM Cable network uses DPI or other forms inspection to find out what is being transmitted - which is what is classed as 'interception' and is illegal without prior user consent.

From everything I have read the type of monitoring used by the STM is no different that what mobile companies use to find out how much data is being used, or how you find out how long someone has been on a phone call so you can charge them appropriately - both of which are completely legal

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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".

Okay, okay. I shall have to roll with the blows and not succumb to journo bait. Underlying what I responded is the need to protect my position in court and the ever-present possibility when taking on a corporate that they will use the services of PR agents whose role is to destroy credibility.

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 ).

Then they must remain suboptimal and silent on expansion. If you reached as far as Pendley Manor you will know why.

[jamiefrost]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

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.

Are you saying that Virign should no intercept data at all? If so how do you propose they route your traffic to the correct address. This goes for all the other points along route where internet traffic is routed.

JJ

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

From what Mike is saying he is under the impression the STM deployed on the VM Cable network uses DPI or other forms inspection to find out what is being transmitted - which is what is classed as 'interception' and is illegal without prior user consent.

Not really Ben. Expanding my knowledge in this regard but I have little difficulty with understanding traffic routing from modem, via CMTS [1] to destination, nor what can be done at the headend through to other ISP systems, for which refer to the difficulties faced by Comcast in the states and US statute on the subject.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMTS