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

[OF1975]

I have just checked the downing street petition site again and still my third petition isnt showing up as being rejected which I find curious. Maybe they are just ignoring it after the snooty email I sent them pointing out that I thought they were protecting BT because of the Patricia Hewitt issue?

Keep up the good work guys.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It would seem like it is the convention behind RIPA but I don't think it is. If I remember correctly, Jack Straw started work on RIPA back in 1998/99 and that convention is from the end of 2001. RIPA was passed in 2000.

As regards Interception of Communications Commissioner, looks like another useful person to add to the list of those we write to.

Alexander Hanff

Time to start the draft of my letter to the Interceptions of Communications Commissioner then

[popper]

to highlight that UK rises to number two in cyber-crime chart
as mentioned here #2377

Richard's posted more on this subject matter
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...-into-the-cni/

"
Adding webwise.net into the CNI

April 5th, 2008 at 14:13 UTC by Richard Clayton
The way in which the Phorm system works (see yesterday’s blog post) creates an interesting, and possibly unexpected, risk for the ISPs that decide to go ahead and deploy the system.


Quite clearly, web browsing from within these ISPs now depends on the correct functioning of the “Layer 7 switch” and Phorm’s “Anonymiser” machine....
"
and Radha / Marc (remember them PRteam) are non to pleased with it ....

[OF1975]

On looking further on the Interception Tribunal site I found this on the "Limitations" page:

"The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about private individuals or companies unless you believe they are acting on behalf of an intelligence agency, law enforcement body or other public authority covered by RIPA."

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[manxminx]

The way the ICO and the Pm's petition website are behaving over all this, it wouldn't surprise me if Phorm are a CIA/MI5 front company. . . .

[popper]

Originally Posted by OF1975

On looking further on the Interception Tribunal site I found this on the "Limitations" page:

"The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about private individuals or companies unless you believe they are acting on behalf of an intelligence agency, law enforcement body or other public authority covered by RIPA."

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

lol, you could as Cobby #2389 said, Break out the tin foil hats... in response to my post , and punt one off on the off chance it hits somewere near the mark

[amateria]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

"Internet Trespass :

Alexander Hanff

I'm persuaded by that argument. Subverting my computer's operation to consume CPU cycles and slow it down sounds like both a trespass and some damage,

[JackSon]

From the comments section of Richard Clayton's new blog entry linked above:

-> http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...-into-the-cni/

A small criticism/winge from phorm

Originally Posted by Phrom

And on a wider matter of protocol, if you have security concerns, could you follow the current Internet convention of reporting them to the vendor prior to publication?

Richard answered with

Originally Posted by Richard Clayton

This isn’t a deployed system at present, but a paper design that will be beta-tested some time in the future. The convention is designed to protect users of fielded systems.

Trying to hide behind conevention that doesnt actually apply. Is that intentional or accidental? Is that the only instance of claiming compliance with inappropriate legislation? Am believeing it is not.

Well done on digging a deeper hole, Phorm!

[amateria]

Originally Posted by OF1975

On looking further on the Interception Tribunal site I found this on the "Limitations" page:

"The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about private individuals or companies unless you believe they are acting on behalf of an intelligence agency, law enforcement body or other public authority covered by RIPA."

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Hmmm, can they accept complaints about ICO not investigating the RIPA violations. Or the Home Office deciding that, regardless of what RIPA actually says, RIPA isn't really there to stop surveillance as long as it's for "legitimate" commercial purposes.

[mark777]

Back in the stone age, the internet was composed of national academic networks joined together. At some point, commercial providers joined in.

Were any covenent's or similar agreements made with, in the case of the UK, JANET, over acceptable commercial use?

My thanks to you all who are spending a lot of time exploring the legal issues. It's way beyond me.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by amateria

Hmmm, can they accept complaints about ICO not investigating the RIPA violations. Or the Home Office deciding that, regardless of what RIPA actually says, RIPA isn't really there to stop surveillance as long as it's for "legitimate" commercial purposes.

I assumed that is their purpose. As you suggest, you wouldn't complain about Phorm to the Tribunal, you would complain about the IC not enforcing Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and also about the Home Office extending the authority of its office by issuing a statement of legal opinion (the job of the courts). Their statement (despite their disclaimer), could be interpreted by the public as a statement of fact, since they are a government "agency". Maybe I shouldn''t get into that too much at the moment a guest just arrived.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I assumed that is their purpose. As you suggest, you wouldn't complain about Phorm to the Tribunal, you would complain about the IC not enforcing Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and also about the Home Office extending the authority of its office by issuing a statement of legal opinion (the job of the courts). Their statement (despite their disclaimer), could be interpreted by the public as a statement of fact, since they are a government "agency". Maybe I shouldn''t get into that too much at the moment a guest just arrived.

Alexander Hanff

Sorry, my bad. I completely misread the intention. Similarly to mark777, some of the legal stuff goes right over my head although thankfully not all. I reckon you are right and that we can complain to them about the ICO/home office.

[manxminx]

Richard Clayton said:

So the webwise.net domain has suddenly been promoted to become part of the Critical National Infrastructure (CNI).

So, there IS a possible link between MI5 and Phorm.

And I thought I was cracking a joke!

[Ravenheart]

I'd like to express my thanks to those working on the legal stuff, goes way over my head..

Thank You

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Hey peeps, get your teeth into this little gem

The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime

Alexander Hanff

this bit looks good : Article 7 – Computer-related forgery

and : Article 8 – Computer-related fraud

[dav]

Originally Posted by popper

to highlight that UK rises to number two in cyber-crime chart
as mentioned here #2377

Richard's posted more on this subject matter
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...-into-the-cni/

"
Adding webwise.net into the CNI

April 5th, 2008 at 14:13 UTC by Richard Clayton
The way in which the Phorm system works (see yesterday’s blog post) creates an interesting, and possibly unexpected, risk for the ISPs that decide to go ahead and deploy the system.


Quite clearly, web browsing from within these ISPs now depends on the correct functioning of the “Layer 7 switch� and Phorm’s “Anonymiser� machine....
"
and Radha / Marc (remember them PRteam) are non to pleased with it ....

Just read that and the reply from Phorm.
Had to have a little chuckle as I imagined the lights on late somewhere in Moscow as the Phorm scammers, sorry, programmers, burn the midnight oil muttering something along the lines of, "Crapski! I can't believe nobody thought of this before. Quick, plug those holes in the code and get someone to stall Clayton...what?...I don't know, Radha, Marc, anyone...you said nobody would notice this and now we have to look as if we had it covered all along...it was never like this with rootkits...you know where you are with rootkits..."