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

Re the data leaving UK, there is also the Safe Harbor framework for US and UK firms.

Link

But luckily for us, the 2nd principle supports (imho) the anti-Phorm case
"Organizations must give individuals the opportunity to choose (opt out) whether their personal information will be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose incompatible with the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. For sensitive information, affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice must be given if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than its original purpose or the purpose authorized subsequently by the individual."

[popper]

not just "altered" but diverted/copyed and collected in the first place
i beleave, theres some crossover with the DPA and the EU law RIPA is based on, or i might be getting that bit wrong, i need coffee....

[AlexanderHanff]

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.

Your interpretation of ECHR is erroneous I am sorry to say. It does indeed cover companies as well. I received a 5k settlement after working for a company for 1 week when they unfairly dismissed me for imparting my opinion on the subject of copyright in a BBC Newsnight interview. They settled because they had contravened my Human Right to impart political opinion.

So whereas it may be unusual to use the ECHR against a private corporation, it certainly is possible. I have been saying from Day 1 that this is a Human Rights issue as well as a criminal issue under RIPA and I still believe that to be the case.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Your interpretation of ECHR is erroneous I am sorry to say. It does indeed cover companies as well. I received a 5k settlement after working for a company for 1 week when they unfairly dismissed me for imparting my opinion on the subject of copyright in a BBC Newsnight interview. They settled because they had contravened my Human Right to impart political opinion.

So whereas it may be unusual to use the ECHR against a private corporation, it certainly is possible. I have been saying from Day 1 that this is a Human Rights issue as well as a criminal issue under RIPA and I still believe that to be the case.

Alexander Hanff

Thats reassuring to know. When I read up on article 8 of the ECHR I too interpreted it to mean that it couldnt apply to companies. Glad to know I was wrong. We should use any and all avenues open to us.

Speaking of which, did you manage to fix your friends laptop and speak to him to get some advice vis-a-vis an application for an injunction of some sort?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Thats reassuring to know. When I read up on article 8 of the ECHR I too interpreted it to mean that it couldnt apply to companies. Glad to know I was wrong. We should use any and all avenues open to us.

Speaking of which, did you manage to fix your friends laptop and speak to him to get some advice vis-a-vis an application for an injunction of some sort?

He is not back from Bristol yet.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Alexander, I just looked on the petitions site to try see if the new petition you submitted had been accepted and although so far it doesn't look to have been accepted, I could find no reference to it being rejected either. Am guessing nothing will happen until monday at the earliest though I will check regularly.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Alexander, I just looked on the petitions site to try see if the new petition you submitted had been accepted and although so far it doesn't look to have been accepted, I could find no reference to it being rejected either. Am guessing nothing will happen until monday at the earliest though I will check regularly.

I checked myself earlier and came to same conclusion. The latest petition was added yesterday so I am presuming they don't work weekends.

Alexander Hanff

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I checked myself earlier and came to same conclusion. The latest petition was added yesterday so I am presuming they don't work weekends.

Alexander Hanff

I did the same and came to the same conclusion. That's government for you

[popper]

an OT but still interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?

Virgin Media become the first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....

except it seems when it's they that are doing the suspected (clickstream copyright)Piracy perhaps!

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html
Virgin Media Adopts Three-Strikes Rule for Illegal Downloads

thread started here (sorry Toto didnt see your thread here)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...rike-rule.html

It's being discussed this in another thread this popper.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...rike-rule.html

Anybody see the irony in this? People are (quite rightly IMHO) up in arms about the ISPs and Phorm 'stealing' OUR data, but they (maybe not the same peiple TBF), are also up in arms about attempts by the ISPs to stop US stealing other people's data!

Personally, I have no objection to attempts to stop illegal file-sharing, but I have STRONG objections to Phorm stealing MY clickstream data. Let's not be hypocritical about this.

[popper]

you forget the key word "suspected"

TBF - in both cases

[OF1975]

Here is the letter I posted to liberty on friday afternoon. I am posting it here so that others may use it as a very basic template upon which to write their own letters if they so choose.

Please feel free to edit it and rewrite it as you see fit. I am sure its full of grammatical errors. I am sure some of you will be able to refine it a great deal. I will of course post any response I may get.

Dear Liberty

I write to you regarding an issue of great concern to me and others. Recently I emailed your press office to bring your attention to a worrying development in the arena of online-privacy. Notably that 3 of the United Kingdoms biggest Internet Providers have signed a deal with an ex-spyware company called Phorm.

This company, in its previous incarnation as 121media, developed a system called People On Page. This system utilized the Apropos rootkit which was categorized by many computer security companies as spyware. This spyware caused thousands of people hours of frustration trying to uninstall it from their computers.

Now this company has signed a deal with BT, Virgin Media, and Talk Talk/Carphone Warehouse to place servers within the networks of said Internet providers to monitor customers online browsing and then to use the information to build a profile that will lead to supposedly more targeted online adverts.

Put simply, this system is the online equivalent of the Post Office opening our letters, reading them, and then using what they have read to build a profile on us so that they can send us a better class of junk mail.

So far there is no way to opt out of having your data profiled by their system. The so-called “opt-out” only relates to opting out of the delivery of their ads. Even if opted out our data will still be intercepted and mirrored to their profiler within the Internet Providers network.

So far a petition against Phorms’ technology on the Downing Street website has garnered almost 9000 signatures in a matter of only a few weeks and has now broken into the top 20 petitions. More information and background on the story can be found at the links at the bottom of this letter.

Already questions have been raised as to the legality of this system and the Foundation for Information Policy Research has already written an open letter to the Information Commissioners Office arguing that these proposals violate the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and are possibly an infringement of the Data Protection Act.

British Telecom, in collaboration with Phorm, ran a trial of this system last year and did so without obtaining any consent which means that it potentially violated RIPA. Initially when presented with evidence of this by various technologically literate people last summer they denied all knowledge but finally this month they have come clean and admitted that they lied and that they did carry out a trial of this system. Already legal action is in the early stages of being prepared. One person has attempted to report this to the police, given that offences in the scope of RIPA are criminal acts and can carry a sentence of up to 2 years in prison, but they were unsuccessful as the police refused to issue a Crime Reference Number.

I have already written to my MP and all the MEPs for my area but have had only one response so far which is another reason why I have decided to send this letter to you.
Given that you have a well known and well respected history of activism in the Human Rights and Privacy arena I am curious as to whether you have any comments to make or whether you are even aware of this issue and the potential threat it poses to online-privacy.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would look further into this issue. The information commissioner has already warned that we may be sleep-walking into a surveillance society and the technology and systems that Phorm are developing, in my opinion, represent another step in that direction. Lastly, please be aware that I intend to publish any response I may get from you on assorted websites where this discussion is being debated furiously.

Yours sincerely


For background information please visit these links:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/04/phorm_ripa/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03..._fipr_illegal/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...n_phorm_uturn/
http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

************************************************** ****************

The address for Liberty should you wish to write to them is:

21 Tabard Street
London
SE1 4LA

[popper]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

TBF - in both cases

To Be Frank (or bob, or even jane ) i did include 'suspected' in both cases.

but it has to be considered OC, once you admit your going to use such copyrighted material such as the Phorm signed ISP's have already said, is it really then suspected!

while the majority have been reading up on the RIPA and DPA part of this ISP/phorm consern, some of us have been looking at the less talked about, indeed hardly mentioned so far such as the Human Rights,the safe harbor/ EU E-commerce Directive/ Conduit questions etc.

for the purposes of this ISP/Phorm related thread "copyright theft" becomes a very real interrelated concern,as does the Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive.

the BT 2007 trial using unauthorised copyrighted material position not withstanding, it's now Virgin Media's turn to stand in the spotlight, indeed they walked right under it and turned the super beam on .

keep in mind, Virgin Media have now put themselves sqarely in the spotlight, and into the unique position of being both a UK signed Phorm ISP AND the very first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....

hence the/a real pressing question is this Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive protection they seek to retain, and its implications for Virgin Media directly, should they loose or have infact,just plain automaticly given up that EU legal protection, by freely entering into both the Phorm signed contract, and now the freely entering into ‘a general monitoring of the network’ for potential unauthorised copyrighted material on their conduit protected network.

#1823 "popper:did the UK ISPs in question, infact give up their legal protection in EU law as a mear conduit,by freely signing up and agreeing to ‘a general monitoring of the network’ in that contract for profit."


only Alexander has make comment on that so far #1825

and while it seems true at the moment only the one HTML protocol is being proposed, the Phorm Patent clearly states that could change at any point.....

this story URL makes for interesting reading when you place your thinking into this ISP/Phorm frame of mind, and from the end users POV in this .

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.14/belgium-isp
"EDRI-gram - Number 5.14, 18 July 2007
UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) made public its opposition to such a move to make ISPs "play judge and jury" whenever customers are suspected of engaging in copyright infringement.

An ISPA representative explained "What we wouldn't want is corporate censorship.

Any kind of censorship of the Internet has to be at the government level.

ISPs are not law enforcement.

We understand that ISPs play a part in combating instances of illegal activity on the Internet, which is why we engage with rights holders and work with government authorities on that basis, but we wouldn't say we're the gatekeepers of the Internet."

"

given the fact Virgin Media are a large part of the 'UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA)' and ISPA's statement above in July 2007.

is it now to be taken that the ISPA position has changed?, or that they dont now represent Virgin Media; or its apparent Uturn policys to freely enter into these two ‘a general monitoring of the network’ agreements, and potently giveing up their EU conduit Legal protection?