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

[Florence]

Not sure if this has been posted but how can we trust this government to look after the publics best interest when they can't even keep hold of files about the terrorists security and more...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7455084.stm

[phormwatch]

I was wondering what you people though about inviting a few SWP members along to the demo. I ask because of two reasons: a) I have a few contacts within the SWP, and b) Because I know the SWP are a fairly controversial group and not to everyone's liking.

On the plus side, they could conceivably help organise at least a dozen or two more people to show up at the demo. On the negative side, they may show up with SWP banners and try to sell papers and recruit members.

I'm open to all opinions on the matter.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I was wondering what you people though about inviting a few SWP members along to the demo. I ask because of two reasons: a) I have a few contacts within the SWP, and b) Because I know the SWP are a fairly controversial group and not to everyone's liking.

On the plus side, they could conceivably help organise at least a dozen or two more people to show up at the demo. On the negative side, they may show up with SWP banners and try to sell papers and recruit members.

I'm open to all opinions on the matter.

If these people or similar turn up, I will go home.

Surely this has to be seen as a protest by concerned IT professionals?

[basa]

May I ask a question?

I am not too well up on networking, especially on the national scale, but it is my understanding that ALL internet traffic in the UK at some point uses BT owned backbone cables and by inference must also pass through BT owned switchgear or servers (even VM).

Is it not therefore conceivable that the Phorm/BT system could be made to intercept traffic from/to ALL and ANY ISP (not just BT/VM/Talk Talk)?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by basa

May I ask a question?

I am not too well up on networking, especially on the national scale, but it is my understanding that ALL internet traffic in the UK at some point uses BT owned backbone cables and by inference must also pass through BT owned switchgear or servers (even VM).

Is it not therefore conceivable that the Phorm/BT system could be made to intercept traffic from/to ALL and ANY ISP (not just BT/VM/Talk Talk)?

No, it does not. Cable uses Virgin's own network and switches. Non LLU (Local Loop Unbundled) ADSL ISPs use BT's network, so may be subject to Phorm. VM ADSL uses BT's network.

LLU ISPs (such as Be, Sky, bulldog etc) use their own switch gear and their own network, only using BT for the line from the exchange (they have their own switch gear in the exchange) to the customer.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by mark777

cut...

Surely this has to be seen as a protest by concerned IT professionals?

IMHO: Concerned IT specialists who hopefully get a message across that this is not specifically an IT professional related problem but a national outrage that affects nearly everybody who has a website in the world and consumers who join ISP's who have Phorm spyware equipment contained within its servers.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

No, it does not. Cable uses Virgin's own network and switches. Non LLU (Local Loop Unbundled) ADSL ISPs use BT's network, so may be subject to Phorm. VM ADSL uses BT's network.

LLU ISPs (such as Be, Sky, bulldog etc) use their own switch gear and their own network, only using BT for the line from the exchange (they have their own switch gear in the exchange) to the customer.

Phew !! Thanks Stuart for clearing that up for me.

I recently migrated from VM to Sky BB.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by basa

Phew !! Thanks Stuart for clearing that up for me.

I recently migrated from VM to Sky BB.

Basa, be aware thay SKY BB and Orange have both shown an interest in phorm, basically i think if bt etc get it in and working they will probably follow suit

peter

[wecpc]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

No, it does not. Cable uses Virgin's own network and switches. Non LLU (Local Loop Unbundled) ADSL ISPs use BT's network, so may be subject to Phorm. VM ADSL uses BT's network.

LLU ISPs (such as Be, Sky, bulldog etc) use their own switch gear and their own network, only using BT for the line from the exchange (they have their own switch gear in the exchange) to the customer.

I disagree that "Non LLU ADSL ISPs may be subject to PHORM" because they use BT Wholesale whereas the PHORM equipment will be in BT RETAIL hands, which is totally seperate as they are seperate companies. If the PHORM equipment was to be be installed in BT Wholesale, then that would be a major concern as every ISP apart from VM Cable would be affected.

Colin

[mark777]

Originally Posted by warescouse

IMHO: Concerned IT specialists who hopefully get a message across that this is not specifically an IT professional related problem but a national outrage that affects nearly everybody who has a website in the world and consumers who join ISP's who have Phorm spyware equipment contained within its servers.

I agree 100% with what you say.

What we need like a hole in the head is to be classed as 'geeks' or the 'looney left'.

Boffins are good. People trust boffins. We need people to trust our message more than they do the guff from BT or Phorm.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by mark777

cut...
Looking at the Downing Street petitions (not available at the moment), what gets the votes?

Saving money (Fuel duty and costs).
Patriotism (Ghurkers and Red Arrows).

...cut

To be fair these things are in the news and fuel costs have immediate sympathy. But if Joe Public shouted loud enough about nearly anything, the newspapers would pick up on it because they know it would then help them sell more papers. People like to read about things that interest them.

Newspapers are ultimately only interested in making money and if they think a story has enough interest they will make it run! If the interest is perceived by the mainstream daily papers to be only from IT professionals they will leave it to the likes of IT Weekly to report.

---------- Post added at 23:40 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------

Originally Posted by mark777

I agree 100% with what you say.

What we need like a hole in the head is to be classed as 'geeks' or the 'looney left'.

Boffins are good. People trust boffins. We need people to trust our message more than they do the guff from BT or Phorm.

Totally agree. I would guess anybody who has had dealings with BT fault complaints will come on board fairly easy. They already know how bad their guff is. The problem is getting people to mistrust Phorm. Again 121Media would be a good starter for 10.

[Dephormation]

You're going to find some of this hard to believe...

To summarise a Freedom of Information Response from the Home Office;

• Home Office had one meeting with Phorm in August 2007 (after the 2007 trials in the summer perhaps?)
  
• Home Office did not consult with any external bodies (including UK Intellectual Property Office), did not consult with any independent IT or Communications industry expertise, did not consult with any external legal advice before preparing their "Is it legal?" advice document
  
• Home Office did not discuss with BT/Phorm the proposition that Phorm would enable compliance with proposed UK and European Data Retention laws
  
• Regarding an assertion that the Home Office might expect "to stand with Industry on any human rights challenge" to Phorm as a possible way forward to a "code of practice for voluntary data retention"*, the Home Office consider the quotes to which I referred were taken out of context from "part of a presentation encouraging the communications industry to retain data under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Target Online Advertising is a commercial activity that the industry is undertaking for its own interests. The two issues are not and never have been linked."

* See slide 13 in this presentation; http://www.fipr.org/sfs6/watkin.ppt

[XBNM]

Originally Posted by wecpc

I disagree that "Non LLU ADSL ISPs may be subject to PHORM" because they use BT Wholesale whereas the PHORM equipment will be in BT RETAIL hands, which is totally seperate as they are seperate companies.

Colin

This is factually incorrect they are seperate divisions of the same company the barrier is artifical and created by ofcom.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Florence

Not sure if this has been posted but how can we trust this government to look after the publics best interest when they can't even keep hold of files about the terrorists security and more...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7455084.stm

Hey Alex, You didn't find those BT illegal trial reports on a train to London did you?

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

*Update, got a grip now, THE CLASH: I FOUGHT THE LAW now ringing in my ears, BT Directors would like it

Just had: The Wedding Present - Brassneck. Interesting lyrics when applied to this whole sorry debacle.

Obviously copyright the weddoes :-

No, I sent you that letter
To ask you if the end was worth the means
Was there really no in between?
And I still don't feel better
I just wondered if it could be like before
And I think you just made me sure!
But then that's typically you
And I might have been a bit rude
But I wrote it in a bad mood
I'm not being funny with you
But it's hard to be engaging
When the things you love keep changing
Brassneck, Brassneck
I just decided I don't trust you anymore
I just decided I don't trust you anymore