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

[popper]

not found a direct link yet but i just found this

"the Uk statute law database" should be good for many things..

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResu...=1&SortAlpha=0

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Any use?

http://www.davros.org/legal/cma.html

Ahha yes davros has the relevant section, I can reference to that, thanks very much.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

They have twigged that you post on here. You shouldn't have gone in undercover using the neutral username of 'stazi phormistan'.

I never tried to hide that fact. Am I bovvered?

[Ravenheart]

Don't know if this is of any use, but while looking for the Scottish Computer Misuse I found this on the Strathclyde police site.

http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/ind...D=625&docID=-1

It gives 3 laws they use involving computer crime.

The three main Acts used by Scottish police to prosecute computer criminals are:

* Computer Misuse Act 1990
* Civic Government Scotland Act 1982
* Communications Act 2003

I'll keep digging for more info

Edit I've found that the Civic Government act is the Scottish alternative to the Obscene Publications Act

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by lucevans

Quote: "Use Safari to evade Phorm"

Yay!!

http://www.apple.com/safari/
Safari for windows is also an option

[popper]

a direct reference off that other "the Uk statute law database" url i posted above. alexander.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=5629

13.
Proceedings in Scotland.
— (1) A sheriff shall have jurisdiction in respect of an offence under section 1 or 2 above if—
...

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by popper

a direct reference off that other "the Uk statute law database" url i posted above. alexander.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=5629

13.
Proceedings in Scotland.
� (1) A sheriff shall have jurisdiction in respect of an offence under section 1 or 2 above if�
...

Yeah thats just the same info thats on OPSI.

The reference I am specifically looking for is the differences between s3 of the Scotland version and England version, but I have found the relevant legislation which made the ammendments I think. I will post it in a sec.

Alexander Hanff

[Ravenheart]

I know this isn't entirely related, but I found some info on the 3 strikes business that the BPI were trying to force UK ISP's to get involved with

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04...-three-strikes

Seems the EU have turned the tables just prior to the vote tomorrow.

On Wednesday, the Bono report goes to a final parliamentary vote. The pro-blocking amendments are gone, thanks to your calls and protests. In their place, a new amendment has been proposed by young Swedish MEP Christofer Fjellner and the former Prime Minister of France, Michel Rocard, condemning any measure taken by the EU or nation states that:

"[conflict] with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access".

Among the signatories to this strong statement are the original author of the report, Guy Bono, and representatives from all the political parties in the Swedish government.

I wonder if Phorm could be considered an interruption of internet service, and it certainly is a breach of civil liberties.

[AlexanderHanff]

Here we go, section 36 of the Police and Justice Act 2006

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006..._20060048_en_7

It changes section 3 of Computer Misuse Act (currently only updated in Scottish law)

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Oh another thing, I seem to be having a problem locating an "official" source to reference the Scottish version of the Computer Misuse Act. I have relied on the information from the UKCrypto mailing list for my citation but I would prefer to link to an official government source for the reference (which is why it is currently not referenced).

If anyone can find the Scottish version of the Act please link to it in this thread.

Alexander Hanff

Not sure but maybe this might help not had time to check all links http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...e-in-scotland/

http://www.england-legislation.hmso...._20070434_en_1

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Another reason for Mac users to be smug...

I wonder if Opera is out of the 'popular' category?

[edit]

Not according to this thread...

According to Richard Clayton, Phorm's intercept software contains a browser white-list, and Safari isn't on it (IE and Firefox are). Apparently, this is because Phorm have had problems getting Safari to return the hijacked UID-containing site cookie that is used to serve the targeted ad - due to Safari's default privacy policy regarding cookie handling. As a result, when the Phorm software reads the browser ID string, it abandons the intercept process and just forwards the request to the proper IP address (i.e. the site you're trying to visit). Result!!

I don't know whether Opera is on the white list or not. I suspect that list is closely-guarded...

Now what I'd like to know is: if I'm using Safari and Phorm's spyware goes live on the VM network, will I be presented with the opt-in/opt-out page before being allowed to continue browsing, or will it never rear it's ugly head on my system because they know they can't manipulate my browser?

If the answer is yes, how will it hope to store my choice (yes/no) in the form of a cookie on a browser that doesn't accept their cookies (and consequently, will I see the same damn opt-in/opt-out windows every time I launch by browser).

If the answer is no, how will I know that the system has gone live, and how will VM be able to claim that I have agreed to the new T&C's?

[popper]

Alexander,i like that

37 Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences
After section 3 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
“3A Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if he supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article with a view to its being supplied for use to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(4) In this section “article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.”

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Florence

Not sure but maybe this might help not had time to check all links http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...e-in-scotland/

http://www.england-legislation.hmso...._20070434_en_1

I have it now Florence (see previous post) but thanks anyway

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

Alexander,i like that

37 Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences
After section 3 of the 1990 Act there is inserted�
“3A Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if he supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article with a view to its being supplied for use to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.

(4) In this section “article� includes any program or data held in electronic form.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable�
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.�

I was going to include that in my analysis in order to illustrate Phorm as being complicit but in reality, it would be difficult to prove that they knew BT was going to use the equipment in a way which contravened British law.

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

hmm so all you need to include it,is a reasonable way to prove the fact...
needs more heads thinking about that, but im sure it could be done.. anyone?

---------- Post added at 21:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

hmm, in the case of a generic Deep packet inspection box, that seems perhaps right.

but given Phorm are loading this generic (assumed, because no ones said what the box make,model is and its reasonable to think its a cheap off the shelf box) kit with custom Phorm software, i wonder if they can get away with it then.

they are supposed have produced this patentable code from scratch and so they know full well what its capable of and phorm comissioned to do, and the phorm COO did say we can see all the web....

[mark777]

I thought I would put this in the record. The reason I do is because it involves a question about cookies that was raised to VM before the full extent of the cookie involvement was realised.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent 02/04/2008 to VM as a complaint

I have been keeping a dozen or so friends, family and collegues, up to date with the Phorm scandal.

Although most are in a position to go quickly to Sky/ADSL, a couple are
tied to contracts that will mean they are likely to have to stay with Virgin Media for a few months (I've explained to them about the small print getting changed).

One did, however, ask a good question. "Can I still trust PC-Guard when
Virgin Media becomes a spyware company". Now I did explain that Virgin
Media were not officially becoming a spyware company, just entering into
partnership with one, but the question is still valid.

Will PC-Guard protect, for example, from tampering with the webwise
opt-out cookie? I suspect you will apply commercial pressure on the
suppliers of PC-Guard to ignore this?

Anyway, if you could take the time to answer this, on a day when you could be mopping up BT customers instead of going down with them, I would be grateful.

BTW - worried about RIPA? Have you or haven't you?

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Received from VM Webteam 7/4/2008 am


Blah ...

Thank you for your e-mail dated 2 April 2008 regarding Phorm.

At the moment we are still only in the early stages of discussion, there
is still a lot of work to do in evaluating various aspects of any
possible deployment. This includes how PC Guard and other Anti Virus
programs will work. (my emphasis)
You can be assured that PC Guard will continue to provide the same level
of protection as before.

In regards to RIPA, we believe the home office have said it is legal,
providing the user consents to it.
Details of the memo can be found here: http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm

Before anything is released onto our network we will be making sure that
all our customers are informed, and how they can opt in or opt out,
whichever is decided and also that we are conforming to the Data
Protection Act, RIPA, OFCOM and our own strict guidelines are followed.

Thank you for contacting us.
If you have further queries regarding this matter or any other issue,
please use the link provided below:

www.virginmedia.com/contact

Blah ...