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

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Hank

I've thought about progressing the EC complaint route now, but have decided in my case I will wait until I hear from the police (who have received my recorded delivery letter)

Hank
(PS - Thanks for typing/scanning your copy of the letter in!)

I think I'd tend to agree.

If the Police fail to investigate/ arrest/ prosecute... then we put the complaint in.

I would guess otherwise there is a chance the EC would say "nothing to do, the Police are investigating". Lets wait and see the outcome of the Police complaint first.

However I do also plan to write to the ICO, and point out, their investigation to date has been utterly inadequate (and include the content of the EC letter with it).

Pete

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

The anti-Phorm campaign is about the abuse of ISP's positions to intercept our private surfing for commercial gain. Whilst not entirely un-related, the debate about the 'surveillance society' and privacy vs security is a separate, though worthwhile, debate, and should not (IMHO) be allowed to dilute this thread.

Again I agree, but I feel that it is open to interpretation;

Article 3 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58/EC lay down the rules applicable to the processing by network and service providers of traffic and location data generated by using electronic communications services. Such data must be erased or made anonymous when no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, except for the data necessary for billing or interconnection payments. Subject to consent, certain data may also be processed for marketing purposes and the provision of valueadded services.

Article 5 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC sets out the conditions under which ember States may restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided or in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of that irective. Any such restrictions must be necessary, appropriate and roportionate within a democratic society for specific public order purposes, .e. to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public ecurity or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communications ystems.

The above is the Directive which is the driving force behind the Data Retention, you should note that Article 3 makes it possible for Services such as Phorm to be Implemented and Article 5 give the reasoning behind the Directive.

IMHO - if we do not grasp the opportunity to involve the Campaign in the protest in October, we will be effectively allowing the implementation of the Legislations that are clearly designed to Legitimise the likes of Phorm.

EDIT: Also compare the wording for Article 3 with the Phorm Webwise System - and you have a 100% match. This is clearly what they are using, or attempting to use, to Legitimise Webwise. So therefore this is very relevant to Phorm.

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by lucevans

It might afford some degree of protection from intrusion, at least until Phorm decide they're not making enough money out of the English-speakers.
But then, how many Welsh-language sites are there out there? Apart from the beeb and google, do any other major (non-government) organizations produce a Welsh language version of their sites? Amazon? eBay? And doesn't google cymraeg return results in English, which will be profiled anyway?

there is plenty of none English website that people visit who live here after all it`s a country of multi ethnics with ties back home. Yes the web is dominated with English sites but you cannot ignore the others.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by icsys

Whilst the privacy and surveilance debate is loosely tied and certainly NOT irrelevant, I think there is a need to keep clear boundaries.

Its one of the glaring hypocrisies in this whole discussion. Organisations that are proposing systematic piracy of websites, want to prevent piracy of music/videos. Pardon?

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I agree with John Horb. One practical comment - Thursday's Lord's questions were characterised by some blurring of boundaries between:

• DPI/Behaviourally targeted advertising/Phorm/Webwise (Miller/Northes)
  
• File sharing, music and game copyrights and monitoring/prosecution and release of names and addresses by ISP's/google to copyright holders of said music/games
  
• The government's plans for new "super database".

This whole area is complicated enough for our technophobe legislators, and I'd like to keep the NO DPI/NO PHORM/NO WEBWISE question in clear blue water away from the other two - even though there IS overlap. At the moment it is clarity and understanding that we are looking for - and mixing the different things in this thread won't help. I'm not against the other things - I just don't want to have to constantly try and differentiate them here and in contacts with legislators and opinion formers.

The task once again

Find the UNinphormed
and the DEphormed
and get them INphormed
so that they become REphormed


and once again - hello to any guests. For background reading to give you quick opportunity to learn about Webwise see a few user/newbie friendly links here
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post11849.html

I also tend to agree with Robert. Although there is a much bigger picture that is more important, Phorm/WebWise is something very tangible and very close to home and it is that problem that we can use to drive home the privacy issues that are being exploited. Lets get the public support against this issue and use this support to tackle the greater issues later. There is too much dilution within this WebWise thread "Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts" already and although we are concentrating mainly on Phorms presence in the BT system and using that issue against VM's adoption, let us not forget what this thread is about. We still have a large percentile of the General population to educate about Phorm.

As I have said before, we can only eat an Elephant a bite at a time and if we take on-board within this thread other issues in detail, I believe we have a good chance of losing the opportunity to educate our readers against Phorm specifically. It is difficult enough for us to handle all the issues within this thread already and we will get lost within high level legal arguments that will alienate the average reader if we take on-board in detail the EC issues.

I suggest we let the UKCrypto type threads or perhaps another new thread debate these greater issues for which, Alex, I add you have my support.

We can always reference that 'other' thread from within this one when relevant.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

with due respect they could have swelled the ranks of our demo bit late now.

[AlexanderHanff]

I have to go out to a wedding, so I will not be available for the remainder of the evening. I will catch up on PMs and posts when I get back. You all have fun.

Alexander Hanff

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

with due respect they could have swelled the ranks of our demo bit late now.

Exactly!!!

A few points:

1/ The Protests in Europe are against the Directive 2006/24/EC (and related) which are our biggest threat, as this is what may help Webwise to operate legally.

2/ The Protests are the PERFECT opportunity to reach greater audiences; picture our campaigners with the crowds handing flyers and educating the public that way.

3/ The greatest threat to our campaign is the implementation of Phorm, which will set a precedence. Coupled with European Directive 2006/24/EC I can see NO WAY for us to legally challenge - and our campaign will become no more than a talking shop to ensure that the extent of the intrusion does not go too far.

The Protests are VERY relevant, and a great find by Alex - well done again bud. We must be involved, as the issue with Phorm will not be resolved until the likes of Article 3 of the European Directive 2006/24/EC are removed from the statutes. This is the Directive the protests are opposing - the very same that is threatening success in our campaign.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Exactly!!!

A few points:

1/ The Protests in Europe are against the Directive 2006/24/EC (and related) which are our biggest threat, as this is what may help Webwise to operate legally.

2/ The Protests are the PERFECT opportunity to reach greater audiences; picture our campaigners with the crowds handing flyers and educating the public that way.

3/ The greatest threat to our campaign is the implementation of Phorm, which will set a precedence. Coupled with European Directive 2006/24/EC I can see NO WAY for us to legally challenge - and our campaign will become no more than a talking shop to ensure that the extent of the intrusion does not go too far.

The Protests are VERY relevant, and a great find by Alex - well done again bud. We must be involved, as the issue with Phorm will not be resolved until the likes of Article 3 of the European Directive 2006/24/EC are removed from the statutes. This is the Directive the protests are opposing - the very same that is threatening success in our campaign.

This should be on a different thread, closely linked when necessary or we run the risk of making the issue more diluted & more difficult to follow.

This would not mean ignoring either topic, just making them much easier to follow!

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Again I agree, but I feel that it is open to interpretation;

Article 3 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58/EC lay down the rules applicable to the processing by network and service providers of traffic and location data generated by using electronic communications services. Such data must be erased or made anonymous when no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, except for the data necessary for billing or interconnection payments. Subject to consent, certain data may also be processed for marketing purposes and the provision of valueadded services.

Article 5 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC sets out the conditions under which ember States may restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided or in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of that irective. Any such restrictions must be necessary, appropriate and roportionate within a democratic society for specific public order purposes, .e. to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public ecurity or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communications ystems.

The above is the Directive which is the driving force behind the Data Retention, you should note that Article 3 makes it possible for Services such as Phorm to be Implemented and Article 5 give the reasoning behind the Directive.

IMHO - if we do not grasp the opportunity to involve the Campaign in the protest in October, we will be effectively allowing the implementation of the Legislations that are clearly designed to Legitimise the likes of Phorm.

EDIT: Also compare the wording for Article 3 with the Phorm Webwise System - and you have a 100% match. This is clearly what they are using, or attempting to use, to Legitimise Webwise. So therefore this is very relevant to Phorm.

This may be what phorm are atempting to use but glancing over the directive as seen here I note the following sentence:

Article 5
Categories of data to be retained.
2. No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive.

It is my interpretation that the Phorm system requires the content in order to profile it?

There is no doubt that this is a grey area and open to interpretation. The fact is that it should not be open to interperetation, it should be clear cut - and probably is to those who understand it, which is why I suggested earlier that the government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done.

All impending trials of this technology need to be officially and publicly stopped, right now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called in and a test case is put before the courts. The experts who wrote those directives are the ones who know whether or not they confirm or deny the legality of the phorm technology.

If our government will not call a halt and apply the legislation then the EU should do it for them.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Exactly!!!

A few points:

1/ The Protests in Europe are against the Directive 2006/24/EC (and related) which are our biggest threat, as this is what may help Webwise to operate legally.

2/ The Protests are the PERFECT opportunity to reach greater audiences; picture our campaigners with the crowds handing flyers and educating the public that way.

3/ The greatest threat to our campaign is the implementation of Phorm, which will set a precedence. Coupled with European Directive 2006/24/EC I can see NO WAY for us to legally challenge - and our campaign will become no more than a talking shop to ensure that the extent of the intrusion does not go too far.

The Protests are VERY relevant, and a great find by Alex - well done again bud. We must be involved, as the issue with Phorm will not be resolved until the likes of Article 3 of the European Directive 2006/24/EC are removed from the statutes. This is the Directive the protests are opposing - the very same that is threatening success in our campaign.

I do agree - I am just wanting them both to benefit from a clear uncluttered opportunity to be highlighted and linked but by separate threads. I think we are at the stage now when the number of enquirers on these issues is going to grow, and the education process must be as painless as possible - whatever it is that they are picking up on - the wider privacy debate, or the Phorm/DPI/Webwise issue. Go full steam on both, but not in one thread otherwise all those enquirers will just wander away again confused.

But I'll go with the consensus ;-)

Originally Posted by lucevans

A good point regarding the admin of home accounts, although with respect to the official secrets angle, I'd like to think that the people on the ground in theatre are already diligent enough to not write anything in a blog/e-mail home to loved ones which could compromise operations in any way. (Note: I'm only talking about the professionals who actually carry out the business of our Armed Forces, not those idiots in Whitehall who leave laptops on trains and have lost 140 MOD memory sticks in the last 18 months)

<sarcasm>
Hey, maybe there's a new product category right there for Phorm-

Category:Family of overseas military personnel
Advertising potential: sell to Al Quaida in order to target those families with adverts containing anti-British forces propoganda (a la "Lord Haw-Haw" Radio in WWII)

I wouldn't put it past Kent - after all, business is business...
</sarcasm>

Yes, and one would like to think that every single serving person is technologically aware enough to recognise they can be profiled easily, dates, reverse dns lookup, and that they wouldnt communicate details which can be assembled through the media of for example myspace or similar, besides emails. Whats the average age of serving personnel?, I would suggest they are mostly young and fit and new attractive avenues of communication taken up quite readily. If sectors of our government as the Earl of Northesk has stated are 'envious' of the phorm technology, and the ignorance of current technological/legal issues within the houses which has been highlighted with this campaign, then how much relevant good advice have our forces on the ground received from their seniors.

[lardycake]

re: phorm/webwise vs. Europe wide protest

Please keep these two issues separate (ie: I agree with R Jones, SelfProtection et al) for all the reasons already stated.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I do agree - I am just wanting them both to benefit from a clear uncluttered opportunity to be highlighted and linked but by separate threads. I think we are at the stage now when the number of enquirers on these issues is going to grow, and the education process must be as painless as possible - whatever it is that they are picking up on - the wider privacy debate, or the Phorm/DPI/Webwise issue. Go full steam on both, but not in one thread otherwise all those enquirers will just wander away again confused.

But I'll go with the consensus ;-)

Clear uncluttered opportunity to inform. I'll go along with that!

[Wild Oscar]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet ... apologies if so ..

UK internet service providers will be invited to tender for a British government scheme to monitor all internet communications and telecommunications.

Under the proposed Interception Modernisation Program (IMP), internet service providers (ISPs) would be required to link 'black boxes' to their servers to record all internet traffic, including details of emails, VoIP telephone conversations, instant messages and browsing habits. Telephone conversations would also be monitored.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communi...0.htm?feed=rss

I also wasn't sure whether this merited a new thread or not!? .. move it mods please if you think it does!