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

[popper]

theres something iffy about it, http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...cgi?BTRipa&101
is kind of working but its real slow and the other pages are failing

[Florence]

The page loaded very slowly has 228 signatures

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by popper

theres something iffy about it, http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...cgi?BTRipa&101
is kind of working but its real slow and the other pages are failing

Thanks for that popper. I will keep an eye on it. Having spent the last few minutes trying to see the signatures of other petitions too the whole site is going at a crawl so maybe it isn't time for the tin foil hats and binoculars to search for black helicopters after all LOL

[Ravenheart]

timeouts in both FF and IE for the site http://www.petitiononline.com/BTRipa/

[Ursine]

The same here,
timeouts in both FF and IE for the site http://www.petitiononline.com/BTRipa/

[OF1975]

Thanks people. So far it seems I was maybe a bit too paranoid. I am now having problems with the entire site so will keep an eye on it and see if problems with my petition linger even when the rest of the site reverts back to normal.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Getting the word out onto the street.

I've e-mailed PinkNews, Gaydar Nation and Stonewall with a brief summary, focusing on the privacy threat.

[SimonHickling]

After asking the Home Office what "the official Home Office stance is on the
provision under RIPA for both parties in the conversation giving consent to be
intercepted?". I have recieved a reply telling me

"The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for
Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform."

And they have forwarded my e-mail. So much for RIPA being the responsibility of the Home Office?

A confused and a bit angry Simon.

[SimonHickling]

My reply to the Home Office.

With reference to my original e-mail, it has been publicly stated by Phorm that they had discussed their plans with the Home Office and were happy that they would be operating within the law. What advice did the Home Office give to Phorm to make them believe that they would be operating in compliance with RIPA?

If you are suggesting that the Home Office is not responsible for upholding RIPA then you should maybe let the ICO know as they have redirected people to the Home Office on questions of RIPA.

From http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/...e_and_oie.aspx

"The Home Office is responsible for compliance with RIPA and Phorm has approached the office directly and had a written response."

If you are unwilling to respond directly to me could you let me know how to go about requesting a copy of your response under the current freedom of information legislation.

A copy of this e-mail may be posted on cableforum.co.uk in their thread re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts.

Regards

Simon Hickling

[Florence]

Originally Posted by SimonHickling

After asking the Home Office what "the official Home Office stance is on the
provision under RIPA for both parties in the conversation giving consent to be
intercepted?". I have recieved a reply telling me

"The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for
Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform."

And they have forwarded my e-mail. So much for RIPA being the responsibility of the Home Office?

A confused and a bit angry Simon.

It is the general pass the book to someone else and hope th epublic get fed up and stop asking.
Best we can all do if we are asked who will we be voting for in May elections. I will be saying the ones that are willing to stand against phorm and our freedom to choose if we wish to conphorm or not. Mainly those willing to fight thr rights of every person to not be spied upon over the internet.

[dav]

Originally Posted by SimonHickling

After asking the Home Office what "the official Home Office stance is on the
provision under RIPA for both parties in the conversation giving consent to be
intercepted?". I have recieved a reply telling me

"The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for
Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform."

And they have forwarded my e-mail. So much for RIPA being the responsibility of the Home Office?

A confused and a bit angry Simon.

It makes you wonder who these clowns are accountable to.
Is this issue really such a hot spud that nobody wants to deal with it?
Maybe they're hoping that we'll eventually quiet down, turn around, drop our trollies, bend over and accept HMG's royal shaft once again.

Too many vested interests I'll bet...and they say corruption is a problem elsewhere in the world.

[Shin Gouki]

Everytime i load page 213 of this thread (the first page where Ravenheart noticed blocks in PG) I get Phorm IP blocks in PG too. This happens wether I've got Dephormation enabled or disabled.

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Shin Gouki

It's links to phorm websites posted on forums that are causing this.

Thanks for the info Shin Gouki, I've never seen it go off before and of course the alarm bells started ringing. I'll head back to the original page and see what happens.

ty again

Edit: On going back to page 213 I get the same results it fires up PeerGuardian with Phorm results.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Shin Gouki

Everytime i load page 213 of this thread (the first page where Ravenheart noticed blocks in PG) I get Phorm IP blocks in PG too. This happens wether I've got Dephormation enabled or disabled.

Strange. I get nothing and I have 17 lists loaded in PG2.

[Shin Gouki]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Thanks for the info Shin Gouki, I've never seen it go off before and of course the alarm bells started ringing. I'll head back to the original page and see what happens.

ty again

Edit: On going back to page 213 I get the same results it fires up PeerGuardian with Phorm results.

I was wrong.

It's not the links because I've tried posting them on this page and i get no blocks then.

Is there something hidden on page 213?