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

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by popper

yes, what you say makes perfect sense as regards RIPA and criminal law, and you may be right on reflection.

I arent 100% sure that what I have said above is right and I remain open-minded. Maybe a county court would have the authority and jurisdiction to issue the injunction itself if convinced of the arguments or merits of the case. Its just my gut instinct is telling me otherwise.

Originally Posted by popper

i guess its just a frame of mind really, i see companies no matter their size or global footprint as just a bunch of paper in a companies house office.

and its really just the people in these companies that infact get together to plan and profit and admitedly sign big contracts to pay and build the services we pay for.

i see people not companies, and its people that are just like you and me and subject to the exact same rules and laws, they might forget that in their high office, i dont, but perhaps thats just me!.

All points with merit and I think its pretty clear by their actions (both those of Phorm and the ISPs) that they a) thought they could get away with this because people wouldnt notice and b) those in charge let the ££££ cloud their judgement regarding the legal ramifications of all this.

Phorm, BT, Virgin Media and Carephone Warehouse arent above the law and hopefully, one way or another, they will be brought to book for this.

Time for bed.

[3x2]

The European Convention on Human Rights

Section 1 - ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.


I may be mistaken but (1) does not say "except his Internet correspondence" and I'm pretty sure Phorm do not qualify in the exceptions list (2).

http://www.europaworld.org/issue8/th...ight101100.htm

<...>and gives anyone residing in a Council of Europe member state an ultimate remedy if these fundamental rights are violated: appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.<...>

They have covered issues such as: <...> secret surveillance of correspondence and telephone tapping; <...>

[jem]

Originally Posted by 3x2

The European Convention on Human Rights

Section 1 - ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.


I may be mistaken but (1) does not say "except his Internet correspondence" and I'm pretty sure Phorm do not qualify in the exceptions list (2).

However Phorm and/or VM are not a 'Public Authority' i.e. a national or local government or agent acting for them. The ECHR and the Human Rights Act are both concerned about ensuring that people are protected from undue interference by governments. They have little or anything to say about what private individuals or organisations can do.

[3x2]

I don't know. (1) is pretty un-ambiguous in my mind and (2) I read as a clarification of what circumstances allow interference in (1) not an invitation for anyone not specifically listed to interfere.

[Barkotron]

No, Jem's right. In point 2, you've missed out 4 words from your emphasis: "There shall be no interference by a public authority" - it's spelled out right there.

VM is a private company, so isn't covered by this.

[3x2]

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except <...>

Which I read as a clarification of where a "public authority" may interfere not that anybody who is not a public authority may interfere at will.

(and it still doesn't negate (1))

[RamJet]

Sorry if I've missed on this

but has anyone posted a sticky note somewhere with the procedure you need to deploy to Opt-out of Phorm ?

I feel the need to do this asap

thanks

RJ

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by RamJet

Sorry if I've missed on this

but has anyone posted a sticky note somewhere with the procedure you need to deploy to Opt-out of Phorm ?

I feel the need to do this asap

thanks

RJ

One way at the moment would be to go to http://a.webwise.net/services/OO?op=out and accept the OPTED_OUT cookie... or if you use Firefox try the Dephormation add-on from http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

will sign that as soon as its up

So will I. Perhaps someone could post a link to it in this forum as soon as it apears (if it appears...)

[edit] I've just realized that the first quote didn't appear, and my post might look like I'm saying "I'll sign up to Phorm as soon as it appears." NO!!!!

I'm referring to Alexander Hanff's post regarding a second petition on the Prime Minister's website calling on him to take legal action against BT over the secret trials they conducted last year.

[kt88man]

Over on the BT Technical Trials thread at BT http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread...t=405&tstart=0
William Nagle points out that webwise.bt.com is hosted in the USA.

And indeed so it is...

SmartWhois:

webwise.bt.com (207.44.186.90)

207.44.128.0 - 207.44.255.255
ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
315 Capitol
Suite 205
Houston, TX
US

Technical Support
admins@theplanet.com
+1-214-782-7800

He also points out that the IP 207.44.186.90 has in the past appeared on an ad-tracking blocklist as phorm.com:207.44.186.90-207.44.186.90

So, what were those comments about all of the kit being physically located at the host ISP...

[Florence]

Just read the news on ISPreview then looked at the Register it is hotting up..

The Conservative's shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, has joined the fun by writing to the Department for Business, Employment and Regulatory Reform to voice his constituents' opposition to Phorms deal with Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...t_westminster/

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by jem

However Phorm and/or VM are not a 'Public Authority' i.e. a national or local government or agent acting for them. The ECHR and the Human Rights Act are both concerned about ensuring that people are protected from undue interference by governments. They have little or anything to say about what private individuals or organisations can do.

i would read that as no one can do it, but "Public Authority" can in those set circumstances as its in the exception part 2 not in part 1

bit pointless having a law in place that lets eey one bar the goverment snoop on you

for wouldnt that mean i could tap all goverment data as i am not a public authority ( well not last time i checked anyhow ) cant see the goverment seeing it that way

[Ravenheart]

Pete John has updated the Dephormation plug in for Firefox to V1.5 http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

I would also assume that if the government aren't able to snoop on people the law would also apply to the likes of BT, TT and VM. The fact that it's being talked about in parliament is a step forward too.

With the revelation that BT's webwise server isn't in the UK wasn't Phorm claiming that no data left the hosting centre? As it's not in the UK doesn't this also break another part of UK law?

As has been mentioned before why register the domain through godaddy.com? Maybe they were using the money off offer given with Diggnation and The Totally Rad Show, after all they've lost some money on the stock market of late.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

I would also assume that if the government aren't able to snoop on people the law would also apply to the likes of BT, TT and VM.

The government can intercept Internet traffic as part of a criminal investigation, this is covered under RIPA. However such interceptions have to be signed off by minister, usually the head of the home office or whatever they may be called now.

The issue is though whether Phorms equipment or that of the ISP in placing the Phorm system within their network edge breaches the appropriate RIPA legislation in that the data is altered when it is passed onto the interception device.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

With the revelation that BT's webwise server isn't in the UK wasn't Phorm claiming that no data left the hosting centre? As it's not in the UK doesn't this also break another part of UK law?

thats were your ISP think they have wiggle room, they all put in the T&Cs that they can export your personal data.

its put there so they can export it to their offshore customer care personel, but they can claim wiggle for the other exporting going on.

THATS WHY its important to override that T&C with your own official Notice excluding or rather nullyfying the Export clause under the DPA legislation.

and OC, it has the added effect (depending on how you word it)of stopping them exporting your data to the offshore customer Care personel, good and bad for you and them in their UK job/cost cutting savings.