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

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by popper

47 now, what happened today to make them finally vote here!

so to you and i look forword to your POV

sorry for not welcomeing the 42-46 personally ,But your voting far to quickly to keep up , are you all from the same block of IPs by any chance (Mods can check if they like)

its a shame we cant seem to match these Pro-Interception for profit Advocate voters here, perhaps the other Anonymous readers would like to also make the time to register and add their vote to the total before it closes.....

[edit]
Doh! just read Micks #8606 to late as its closed.... shame .


still a 1000 votes is perfect for an industry standard extrapolation...

Heh

It's so nice to know that I pwn'd the lamer that voted 'no' xTimes. 1,000 is a good point to close the data set. Now we know that nearly 96% of the British population object to being manipulated by the parasite Phormscum, leaving about 4% losers. This 4% can be broken down into Phorm sycophants, nieve plonkers without a clue, mentals and tiny element of malicious Phorm hacker employee slurpers (Hi Hackeron & Scleparis).

Note to my pwn'd peon: Shares dropped again today and this thread is approaching half a million hits,. see if you can resist not posting here again and making yourself look like more of a tw~t (impossible) And remember everytime you come here to "get revenge" 'ROFL' you're adding to the hit counter and I 0wn you a lil more, it must be soul destroying

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Deko

@tdadyslexia.

not maening to be nasty but some of your word subsitutions and spellings make me grin sometimes.

Well that is watt hapens wen you are Dyslexic, you get the spelling wrong.

[Frank Rizzo]

According to this even the EU Commissioner doesn't really want to get involved.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9432962,00.htm

I think the EU Commissioner needs an avalanche of correctly worded letters pointing out that the trials were illegal.

It's plain and simple in black and white. Communications were intercepted WITHOUT consent. Customer data was processed WITHOUT consent.

[mark777]

985 !

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON:PHRM

EDIT : Gone back up now.

[OldBear]

Some serious crap going on with Philth's shares: at 15:46 they fell to 985.

Unfortunately, they've bounced back a bit.

OB

Edit: you beat me to it, Mark. I must have been staring at that 985 number for a good 10 minutes; sad, or what?

[icsys]

52Wk High: 3,725.00
52Wk Low: 985.00

There's still 12 mins of trading time left.......

[Florence]

Wonder if Kent is hawking his soul to shore it up....

On another note Life could be better if the kents of this world were ignored by those who hold responsibilities to others privacy

[icsys]

Ding... Ding... Ding...

closing bell.

And the closing price is.......

1025.00

[tarka]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

According to this even the EU Commissioner doesn't really want to get involved.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9432962,00.htm

I think the EU Commissioner needs an avalanche of correctly worded letters pointing out that the trials were illegal.

It's plain and simple in black and white. Communications were intercepted WITHOUT consent. Customer data was processed WITHOUT consent.

"Technically, over whether the technology breaches the law, the jury's still out," said Jay. "Because [Phorm] uses technology just to look at activity and deliver results based on that activity, it's difficult to say if that's an interception. We need another vocabulary, as the law doesn't address the complexities of the technology."

How can they keep missing the point?!?! Although note that it is Pinsent Masons again (legal advisors to BT, although they deny giving any advice to BT about phorm). The same people that said while phorm may be technically illegal, it complies with the "spirit of the law".

So... user1 sends an http request to www.website.com... resulting in a number of "packets" addressed the server the website is on. Instead of delivering the packets to their destination like they should, they instead "INTERCEPTED" the packets and read the contents!!!

It's not "just looking at activity", it is intercepting and collecting data that was addressed and intended for another recipient!! Even if you erase the data you have intercepted it doesn't change the fact that you INTERCEPTED and anaylsed data that was adressed to someone else!!!

Words cannot describe my anger at the ignorance of these people! I am starting to think that they are deliberately acting dumb!!

Originally Posted by Florence

Wonder if Kent is hawking his soul to shore it up....

More like selling his body to some Russian sailors...

Closed @ 1,025.000

Surely this campaign is a joke and couldn't possibly have caused Phorm's shares to nose dive...

Could it?

[Dephormation]

Sorry about this... this is a bit of a big post.

I haven't seen much mention of OFCOM on the various forums concerned with Phorm.

Under the Communications Act 2003 OFCOM have the following duties;

3(1) It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—
(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and
(b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition.

In particular I noted they must have regard to

3 (4) (h) the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to OFCOM to put them in need of special protection;

OFCOM are also given the following duty;

4 Duties for the purpose of fulfilling Community obligations
(2) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in carrying out any of those functions, to act in accordance with the six Community requirements (which give effect, amongst other things, to the requirements of Article 8 of the Framework Directive and are to be read accordingly).

So I understand this to mean OFCOM are also responsible for implementing article 8 of
"Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council"

Under Article 8 of that Directive

3. The national regulatory authorities shall contribute to the development of the internal market by inter alia:
(a) removing remaining obstacles to the provision of electronic communications networks, associated facilities and services and electronic communications services at European level;
(b) encouraging the establishment and development of trans-European networks and the interoperability of pan-European services, and end-to-end connectivity;
(c) ensuring that, in similar circumstances, there is no discrimination in the treatment of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services;
(d) cooperating with each other and with the Commission in a transparent manner to ensure the development of consistent regulatory practice and the consistent application of this Directive and the Specific Directives.

4. The national regulatory authorities shall promote the interests of the citizens of the European Union by inter alia:
(a) ensuring all citizens have access to a universal service specified in Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive);
(b) ensuring a high level of protection for consumers in their dealings with suppliers, in particular by ensuring the availability of simple and inexpensive dispute resolution procedures carried out by a body that is independent of the parties involved;
(c) contributing to ensuring a high level of protection of personal data and privacy;
(d) promoting the provision of clear information, in particular requiring transparency of tariffs and conditions for using publicly available electronic communications services;
(e) addressing the needs of specific social groups, in particular disabled users; and
(f) ensuring that the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained.

So back to the Commications Act 2003, some other provisions;

Did BT notify OFCOM that they were going to operate the PageSense/ProxySense trials? Did they notify OFCOM that they planned to launch Webwise?

33 Advance notification to OFCOM
(1) A person shall not—
(a) provide a designated electronic communications network,
(b) provide a designated electronic communications service, or
(c) make available a designated associated facility,
unless, before beginning to provide it or to make it available, he has given a notification to OFCOM of his intention to provide that network or service, or to make that facility available.

Also, if we assume they did breach s.33 above, then

35 Notification of contraventions of s. 33

(1) Where OFCOM determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has contravened section 33, they may give him a notification under this section

... which ultimately leads to a £10,000 fine.

S.128 might also apply, given BT have abused the network twice without customer consent;

128 Notification of misuse of networks and services

(1) Where OFCOM determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has persistently misused an electronic communications network or electronic communications services, they may give that person a notification under this section.

So Alex or anyone else cleverer than me (thats most of you btw) any thoughts?

Has anyone considered complaining to OFCOM yet? Am I the last person who hasn't complained to OFCOM?

Am I months behind everyone else, or have we missed a trick?

Pete.

PS Don't forget to write to Viviane Reding the European Commissioner
PPS. Richard Thomas must go. To Belgium. Preferably once he's left his job.

[icsys]

I fear that OFCON are like the rest of the regulatory bodies in this country and will most likely state...
"we cant see anything wrong with the webwise system, so we'll just stand well back and watch from a safe distance.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by icsys

I fear that OFCON are like the rest of the regulatory bodies in this country and will most likely state...
"we cant see anything wrong with the webwise system, so we'll just stand well back and watch from a safe distance.

Only thing that is certain is that if you don't write the complaint letters you get shafted anyway.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

More like selling his body to some Russian sailors...

Closed @ 1,025.000

Surely this campaign is a joke and couldn't possibly have caused Phorm's shares to nose dive...

Could it?

Shame it isn't Toilet Paper yet. Come on Kent open that big fat mouth, and whoch your shares drop.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by icsys

I fear that OFCON are like the rest of the regulatory bodies in this country and will most likely state...
"we cant see anything wrong with the webwise system, so we'll just stand well back and watch from a safe distance.

Until you try you can't be sure if nothing else loads of people who are fairly new to internet find there way to OFCOM for help so this would be a good place to hit with large number of complaints about webwise and BT,CPW and VM.

The last resort is those who dislike the idea of Phorm on their connections change ISP if people start to migrate away BT will start to think twice I know a lot moved from VM and they are further away from implementing phorm than BT were.