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

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

If anyone other than the ex-BT Retail CEO had just taken over the company then there would have been heads rolling within BT (eventually) as this is perfect political assassination stuff.

Indeed. In Germany the response to illegal surveillance has been much more robust...

Wiping Deutsch Telecoms Board Clean

[warescouse]

Wouldn't it be a great tactic for the pro Phorm PR to post on this Forum with the desired intention of inflaming the anti-phorm members and then force the CFT to pick them off one by one.

This would be a good way for Phorm PR to quieten the anti-Phorm brigade. If certain members could realise that certain posters are maybe out to do this, why not hold back on that keyboard and not respond when inflamed. It takes two to make a daft debate.

If someone wants to put forward views for proper debate fine, but I have seen many comments on this forum of late that appear to be there possibly only to inflame others. Please let common sense prevail and not react when tested! I see fine comments by members subsequently lost pages back in time, only ten minutes after they are posted because of this.

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by warescouse

This would be a good way for Phorm PR to quieten the anti-Phorm brigade.

I would disagree - this wouldn't quiet us, this would make our resolve stronger. badphorm policies are clear, and they will warn if anything goes over the top - naturally, but to date they have only banned one member for attempting to provoke the campaigners.

I would suggest two things:

1/. Don't rise to the bait - however the posters in question have the right to be heard so your choice is to ignore or respond in a calm manner.

2/. If anyone has been excluded from the debate, they are welcome on badphorm, and all the other Forums following the Phorm debacle. (though it should be noted that the mods are doing a great job and don't want to go down this road)



EDIT: Oh and hey - past 11K posts

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

I would disagree - this wouldn't quiet us, this would make our resolve stronger. badphorm policies are clear, and they will warn if anything goes over the top - naturally, but to date they have only banned one member for attempting to provoke the campaigners.

I would suggest two things:

1/. Don't rise to the bait - however the posters in question have the right to be heard so your choice is to ignore or respond in a calm manner.

2/. If anyone has been excluded from the debate, they are welcome on badphorm, and all the other Forums following the Phorm debacle.



EDIT: Oh and hey - past 11K posts

" Originally Posted by warescouse
This would be a good way for Phorm PR to quieten the anti-Phorm brigade."

I meant specifically on this board. I agree this would make the anti-phorm resolve even stronger.

Originally Posted by warescouse

Wouldn't it be a great tactic for the pro Phorm PR to post on this Forum with the desired intention of inflaming the anti-phorm members and then force the CFT to pick them off one by one.

This would be a good way for Phorm PR to quieten the anti-Phorm brigade. If certain members could realise that certain posters are maybe out to do this, why not hold back on that keyboard and not respond when inflamed. It takes two to make a daft debate.

If someone wants to put forward views for proper debate fine, but I have seen many comments on this forum of late that appear to be there possibly only to inflame others. Please let common sense prevail and not react when tested! I see fine comments by members subsequently lost pages back in time, only ten minutes after they are posted because of this.

Agree wholeheartedly.

If members feel they are being baited - report it - don't rise to it or take on the poster as this will only lead yourselves into trouble. The team doesn't see everything that is said but if they happen to be seeing two people taking on each other, both those people will get infraction warnings.

The Forum has an ignore feature. Members should utilise it if they feel a poster is being annoying.

The bottom line is that if we can see that only person is causing a ruckus, that person will be dealt with accordingly.

I have to personally say though to that one poster, they know who they are, if your intention is to get this thread closed, you will fail. So if you are not here to have a sensible debate, I suggest you clear off before that decision is made for you.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Wouldn't it be a great tactic for the pro Phorm PR to post on this Forum with the desired intention of inflaming the anti-phorm members and then force the CFT to pick them off one by one.

This would be a good way for Phorm PR to quieten the anti-Phorm brigade. If certain members could realise that certain posters are maybe out to do this, why not hold back on that keyboard and not respond when inflamed. It takes two to make a daft debate.

If someone wants to put forward views for proper debate fine, but I have seen many comments on this forum of late that appear to be there possibly only to inflame others. Please let common sense prevail and not react when tested! I see fine comments by members subsequently lost pages back in time, only ten minutes after they are posted because of this.

totaly agree It's better to bring Debate up to your level rather than sink to the level of others !

[Phormic Acid]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It isn't going to happen, Google will find a way to appeal the order.

Yes, that’s one mightily strange ruling. Although, one often reads of US District Courts coming out with similar strangeness. It’s like asking to see everyone’s shopping habits, so you can compare the attractiveness of bought products against what gets shoplifted.

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have to personally say though to that one poster, they know who they are, if your intention is to get this thread closed, you will fail. So if you are not here to have a sensible debate, I suggest you clear off before that decision is made for you.

I assume that post is directed at me.
I also assume that since that is not in BOLD, it is a personal view rather than that of a moderator.

I have no intention of trying to get the thread closed and intend to post in an eminently sensible way, so stop provoking me !!! [JOKE]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

I assume that post is directed at me.
I also assume that since that is not in BOLD, it is a personal view rather than that of a moderator.

I have no intention of trying to get the thread closed and intend to post in an eminently sensible way, so stop provoking me !!! [JOKE]

I think you make far too many assumptions.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Phormic Acid

Yes, that’s one mightily strange ruling. Although, one often reads of US District Courts coming out with similar strangeness. It’s like asking to see everyone’s shopping habits, so you can compare the attractiveness of bought products against what gets shoplifted.

Remember it isn't all bad news. The other side of the coin on this item is a copyright issue which actually can be worked to our advantage. I wonder what BT's view is on whether there is copyright abuse when material gets copied from one part of the internet (like BBC iPlayer) and used elsewhere? After all some ISP's have been pretty big on copyright, although they appear to swing from side to side according to more sinister agendas.

It's a bit like the ISPA/DPI tomfoolery. If the authorities want the ISP's to be legally responsible for filesharing on their networks then the ISPA says - "DPI? can't be done - it's like the Royal Mail opening all the envelolpes - we could never manage it, and anyway it's illegal and we couldn't possibly do anything illegal"

If the ISP's then discover that they can make a shedload of money out of DPI, then suddenly DPI CAN be done, and Emma Sanderson is arguing that it isn't at ALL like opening the envelopes and of course it's legal because she says so and she's sought, er, obtained legal advice. And what do the ISPA do? Zilch. Suddenly gone three brass monkeys.

Likewise copyright. With respect to YouTube I am sure BT would say - you musn't copy videos to YouTube, (or your ISP webspace) it's a breach of copyright and we will have to close your account if you do it.
But when it comes to Webwise, then suddenly anything on the internet that is publicly available is ripe for commercial exploitation, and - you guessed it - it's legal, because Emma says so, and she's sought, er, obtained, legal advice.

According to Emma Sanderson there can't BE any copyright infringement going on.

The whole ISP position is farcical and changes every time the (commercial) wind blows.

And who cares which way the legal weathervane is pointing? They are above the law, they are an international blue chip company.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

I assume that post is directed at me.
I also assume that since that is not in BOLD, it is a personal view rather than that of a moderator.

Well I didn't mention any names but clearly the description must have been accurate to get your response.

Originally Posted by Hamsterwheel

I have no intention of trying to get the thread closed and intend to post in an eminently sensible way, so stop provoking me !!! [JOKE]

Personal view or not, in bold or not in bold - if you continue your crusade of ridiculous baiting against others, further action will be taken.

Now the centre of attention is on Phorm in this thread, not you. Back on topic.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have to personally say though to that one poster, they know who they are, if your intention is to get this thread closed, you will fail. So if you are not here to have a sensible debate, I suggest you clear off before that decision is made for you.

Thank you.

Saves me getting a telling off for saying it

[Wildie]

@ R Jones hey big chip company`s like money and if that money found somewhere better to get used who does it really hurt us or them if the numbers are big.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by Mick

Now the centre of attention is on Phorm in this thread, not you. Back on topic.

[warescouse]

I wondered if there are any BT shareholders going to the Anti-phorm protest at the BT AGM? I ask this because I was wondering what peoples views are regarding the BT shareholders themselves.

I personally take the view that the majority of BT shareholders, not to be confused with shareholding, are most probably unaware of Phorm/Webwise and the risks involved for the share price if BT are allowed to go down this illegal road.

That being the case I was wondering if a few "BT protect our share price" or similar banners would not go amiss in the same anti-phorm crowd. It could certainly grab the attention of a portion of the BT visitors to the centre and may provoke extra interest as to why this would be the case.