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

[jelv]

Has anyone requested the ICO write to the police clarifying their responsibilities?

[madslug]

When I spoke with Ms Plod, I was asked if I could provide evidence of a crime. BT have offered a very good catch 22 situation - they claim to not know who was profiled so are unable to provide IP address range data (possible DPA restrictions?). Everyone with access logs for that period could be sitting with all the proof that Plod requires to prove the case yet Plod is not prepared to initiate a case and require BT/Phorm/121Media to provide logged evidence unless there is a strong likelihood of success.

Is admission of a crime over a public media permissible evidence in Court?
What about the published opinion by out-law that it was only a 'technical breach' which did not cause harm to anyone?
When there is a 100% probability that content on my sites was used to target my visitors with an advert from my competition, even one advert, then my business has suffered potential harm from visitors being spied upon.

And, if any pro-phormers are reading this: this is not the same as a search engine displaying ads along with a link to my site. At that stage, they are not yet my visitor. They have a choice which ad to click on: a paid or free ad (natural listings are just a 'free' ad). With a search engine, all links are equal, the positioning of each link, free or paid, reflecting the amount of money spent to put it into that position. Even though the search engine logs which link has been clicked on, once off the search page it can no longer track what the visitor does nor where it goes.

Originally Posted by jelv

Has anyone requested the ICO write to the police clarifying their responsibilities?

According to The Interception of Communications Commissioner, it is their responsibility to "Keep under review the excercise and performance by the Secretary of State [Home Office I presume] and others of powers and duties imposed on them by the Act"

Therefore I think it is the Home Office's task to direct Police Chief Constables on their responsibilities. And if we find that we're getting nowhere it is back to The Commissioner as they have to review what's going on according to their role as defined in RIPA s57(2) (which I have not read yet and don't have time to do right now - arrgh!)

Hank

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Originally Posted by madslug

When I spoke with Ms Plod, I was asked if I could provide evidence of a crime. BT have offered a very good catch 22 situation - they claim to not know who was profiled so are unable to provide IP address range data (possible DPA restrictions?). Everyone with access logs for that period could be sitting with all the proof that Plod requires to prove the case yet Plod is not prepared to initiate a case and require BT/Phorm/121Media to provide logged evidence unless there is a strong likelihood of success.

Is admission of a crime over a public media permissible evidence in Court?
What about the published opinion by out-law that it was only a 'technical breach' which did not cause harm to anyone?

Well the leaked report says they intercepted the communications to see what their customers were doing. It says that thay did it without telling (or ASKING) customers. And it does not say that they had a legal warrant/authority from a court. Ergo, illegal interception. So the Police should request an original copy of that report from BT (leaked one is undoubtedly real but probably does not count), review it and inerview Emma or someone else to see if they had a legal warrant to do it. That's the evidence needed by the CPS, isn't it?

They did it. They were not told to. They did not ask to. Illegal under RIPA.

There's always the Police Complaints Commission.

Originally Posted by Peter N

There's always the Police Complaints Commission.

Interesting thought. Though I'd rather not go there. Too many friends are officers. I'm not really complaining about behaviour/conduct during the police pursuit of their responsibilities. It's more about getting them to accept this is their responsibility to do something. And of course the reason they are pushing back is cost, so it's back to London... Won't forget your point here though!

OT:
Love the dog pic - went with friends last week to look at a long haired german shep. His owners are moving to Oz and it needs a new home. Unlucky friend I have... has lost 2 alsations at 6 or 7 years of age.

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by madslug

Is admission of a crime over a public media permissible evidence in Court?

Video evidence is from surveillance cameras is regularly used as corroborating evidence in court.
A number of people have been interviewed and charged with offensives from speeding to assault as a result of posting videos on YouTube.
Even if the TV interviews on Channel4 and BBC Business aren't sufficient evidence in themselves, they are enough to warrant an investigation.

I have a feeling that the reluctance to take any action, and all the buck passing by the police, agencies and the civil service is because none of them fully understand the internet let alone what BT/Phorm have done. Their policy is, if they don't understand it, pass it to another department. It also takes lot of persuasion to convince people that a national company like BT has been involved in anything underhand.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Hank

Well the leaked report says they intercepted the communications to see what their customers were doing. It says that thay did it without telling (or ASKING) customers. And it does not say that they had a legal warrant/authority from a court. Ergo, illegal interception. So the Police should request an original copy of that report from BT (leaked one is undoubtedly real but probably does not count), review it and inerview Emma or someone else to see if they had a legal warrant to do it. That's the evidence needed by the CPS, isn't it?

They did it. They were not told to. They did not ask to. Illegal under RIPA.

... not forgetting that the 2006 trial was 18,000 people, the 2007 trail was hundreds of thousands.

It is the documentation from the 2007 trial that would likely be even more damning, and it is only the Police who would be able to raid the ISPs and arrest directors to obtain that information. BT did not provide that data to the ICO (nor did the ICO ask for it, for reasons I can't comprehend).

By prevaricating, the Police have given ISPs ample time to destroy evidence of the 2007 trial.

I sincerely hope someone, somewhere has a copy of that evidence they are willing to turn over to a corruption free Police enquiry, if not this forum too.

The police don't have to investigate every "crime" reported but in this case they are working under the misapprehention that it is outside of their remit. As this situation has now been clarified they should investigate and the idea that there has to be "a" victim is untrue as many offences don't need a specific victim - public order offences for example.

Raising a case with the PCC will allow the authorities to inform the relevant officers of their responsibilty in this matter - it does require disciplinary action so much as someone to take responsibility.

I have friends and family who work for BT - my late father worked for them his whole working life and reached a fairly senior position - but it doesn't stop me from persuing this matter.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by Hank

According to The Interception of Communications Commissioner, it is their responsibility to "Keep under review the excercise and performance by the Secretary of State [Home Office I presume] and others of powers and duties imposed on them by the Act"

In that case has anyone raised a FOI request asking the ICO what communications they have had with the HO regarding the BT trials?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ieless_optout/

NebuAd vows to eat it's opt-out cookie

[Florence]

BT spending lots of money wonder why... 20 million is a lot of money

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...lay=news&it=le

Originally Posted by Florence

BT spending lots of money wonder why... 20 million is a lot of money

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...lay=news&it=le

Oh God...

I manage an Iomart hosted site whose Customer Service and Tech Support are UK based and run by Ufindus...

S'pose they'll both be moved to Lahore now

Being bought out by BT really is the kiss of death, having robbed Tiscali of the title! *spits* (after typing the T word)

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Hank

Interesting thought. Though I'd rather not go there. Too many friends are officers. I'm not really complaining about behaviour/conduct during the police pursuit of their responsibilities. It's more about getting them to accept this is their responsibility to do something. And of course the reason they are pushing back is cost, so it's back to London... Won't forget your point here though!

OT:
Love the dog pic - went with friends last week to look at a long haired german shep. His owners are moving to Oz and it needs a new home. Unlucky friend I have... has lost 2 alsations at 6 or 7 years of age.

Or the relevant police authority? (different in London from rest of country)

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Florence

BT spending lots of money wonder why... 20 million is a lot of money

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...lay=news&it=le

At the same time they are currently cashing in commercial property (old exchanges etc) at auction.

See here; http://www.breachwoodingram.co.uk/fo...n.php?all=true (see 'former BT property').

regards
Pete.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Hank

In post 34571690 I pasted a copy of a letter I wrote to West Yorkshire Police to report a crime.

I then had a reply from a Detective Inspector which told me they could not help and "All matters in respect of alleged breaches of communications are dealt with by The Interception of Communications Commissioner."

So I wrote to Sir Paul Kennedy (The Commissioner, c/o 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF). Now I did say I would share his reply, so I'll scan in and do that later. Suffice to say... (you guessed it!!), he does not agree with the Detective Inspector.

So I am writing back to the DI at West Yorkshire Police and I post below my letter reporting the crime again, this time backed up by Sir Paul's commentary:

I wonder what the next letter will say...

Hank

well done, that needs posting on the
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...keup/comments/
Phorm is a crime or is not,There are rules that would suggest that it is... post , to backup the Q31 Earl of Erroll: points

---------- Post added at 17:52 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Originally Posted by jelv

I interpret all these refusals to investigate as an acknowledgement by the authorities that a crime has probably been committed.

If a crime has been committed, to investigate and prosecute is probably going to be messy and expensive for whoever takes it on. If they were pretty sure that the conclusion of an investigation would be that no crime had been committed - which would not be as expensive or messy - they would be more prepared to take the case on.

Note that they have all without fail said that it is not their responsibility to investigate - not that they believe there is no case to investigate.

So much for justice!

again,that needs posting to the "Phorm is a crime or is not,There are rules that would suggest that it is..." post , to backup the Q31 Earl of Erroll: points
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...keup/comments/

time to pile it all up slowly again, to bring us to the a day or so before the protest

and link all the external posts back here with direct urls to your posts, so people can follow the points made from that point...

click your post, then click the link to show the thread from that point on, so they dont just see a single post view and think theres no more to see or read.