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

[3x2]

At the time of this newly-revealed first trial, Stratis Scleparis was the chief technology officer of BT Retail. He hopped across to occupy the same position at Phorm in January 2007. BT has not addressed our question over whether it is comfortable with the role Scleparis has played in the deal.

The words tail and donkey come to mind

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

ok I can't be speechless too long. I have resubmitted the petition after adding the new information as below:

BT have admitted to running secret trials of Phorm technology between 23 September and 6 October 2006 and July 2007. They have further admitted to lying to the media, press and their customers when questioned about this at the time.

In carrying out this trial without receiving consent from their customers and the web sites they visited, BT appear to be in criminal breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; as this (as defined by the Act) is classified as an Unlawful Interception.

The number of counts for this offence potentially runs into millions dependent on how many communications they intercepted over the period of the trials.

Whether the data was discarded or anonymised after the fact is irrelevant and does not alter the fact that all these interceptions were in fact Unlawful as defined by the Act.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

If it gets rejected this time, I respectfully request everyone goes and submits the exact same petition over and over again until it is accepted. Oh and don't forget the opening paragraph from the first edition I didn't cut it all in the above amendments.

for Alexander and you can count me in. If they reject your petition again I will resubmit it with subtle changes in wording and will keep resubmitting it until such a time as they accept it.

[Raistlin]

Are you sure it's being manually rejected?

Is there a chance that the site is rejecting it on the basis that the content is sufficiently close to the other petition that they look the same?

[OF1975]

Raistlin I LOVE your signature pic. Very funny.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Are you sure it's being manually rejected?

Is there a chance that the site is rejecting it on the basis that the content is sufficiently close to the other petition that they look the same?

Well according to the site all petitions are reviewed by real people, so it should be the case that it was rejected by a person not an automated system.

Alexander Hanff

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Well according to the site all petitions are reviewed by real people, so it should be the case that it was rejected by a person not an automated system.

Alexander Hanff

Cool, didn't know that - just checking

[Barkotron]

These **** need to be beaten down hard - the BT trials are very clearly in breach of RIPA even if you base that on the Home Office advice they were given.

PhormUKPRTeam - your employers clearly have no morals, and no sense of shame. Their response to the Register is a complete disgrace. No-one wants anything to do with your stinking criminal company or its stinking criminal software. You're not going to get away with this.

[AlexanderHanff]

wow 141 people reading this thread currently.

Alexander Hanff

[Ravenheart]

And no PhormPRTeam

Funny how they go missing at each detrimental announcement

[OF1975]

Does anyone think writing to the computer crime unit of the metropolitan police would be any use? They can easily sidestep a phonecall but maybe it will be harder for them to ignore letters?

EDIT: I have also emailed Daljit (who does the understrictembargo blog that commented on the PR aspects of the phorm controversy) to update him on the latest developments. He answered that he would be returning to the issue again if/when Virgin Media go live with Phorm and asked that I let him know if we hear any concrete information on it starting

[brundles]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

I'm hoping this isn't an April Fool.

From The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

<Snip...>

I'm actually stunned (despite the fact this is Phorm we're talking about) that they had the nerve to accuse El Reg of being unethical given the current state of play and their track record!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Does anyone think writing to the computer crime unit of the metropolitan police would be any use? They can easily sidestep a phonecall but maybe it will be harder for them to ignore letters?

EDIT: I have also emailed Daljit (who does the understrictembargo blog that commented on the PR aspects of the phorm controversy) to update him on the latest developments. He answered that he would be returning to the issue again if/when Virgin Media go live with Phorm and asked that I let him know if we hear any concrete information on it starting

Scotland Yard is part of the Met and they refused to issue me with a crime number. I doubt they would pay more attention to a letter to be honest, not on this matter. We need someone who was actually part of the trial to step up to the plate and start swinging the bat with a criminal complaint.

Once a criminal complaint has been lodged it should be relatively easy to get an injunction until that investigation is complete. Certainly from my reading of the relevant legislation over the weekend it would appear to be easier to get an injunction in parallel to an existing action as opposed to independently.

I hasten to add I am not a lawyer, I read law purely as a hobby, for academic purposes and to educate myself with regards to my legislative rights and responsibilities; so if anyone has any feedback on any of my comments please feel free to leave them.

Alexander Hanff

[kt88man]

From around mid-day people have started selling their Phorm shares again...

However, come on, own up who was it that bought 4 shares

09:07:59 1666p 1615p 1700p 4 £67 BUY

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by kt88man

From around mid-day people have started selling their Phorm shares again...

However, come on, own up who was it that bought 4 shares

09:07:59 1666p 1615p 1700p 4 £67 BUY

Yeah that made me laugh too. Child Benefit was paid today (£72) so maybe it was some poor single mother and that is all she could afford. The way society is going if she has kids those shares in 20 years might put them through University...

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Scotland Yard is part of the Met and they refused to issue me with a crime number. I doubt they would pay more attention to a letter to be honest, not on this matter. We need someone who was actually part of the trial to step up to the plate and start swinging the bat with a criminal complaint.

Once a criminal complaint has been lodged it should be relatively easy to get an injunction until that investigation is complete. Certainly from my reading of the relevant legislation over the weekend it would appear to be easier to get an injunction in parallel to an existing action as opposed to independently.

I hasten to add I am not a lawyer, I read law purely as a hobby, for academic purposes and to educate myself with regards to my legislative rights and responsibilities; so if anyone has any feedback on any of my comments please feel free to leave them.

Alexander Hanff

Yeah you may be right. If I was involved in one of the trials my letter would have already been winging its way to the police. I just want to capitalise on the new developments. Thats why I was thinking of writing to the computer crime unit.