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

[Ravenheart]

Matty

It's about time you posted here, you can never have enough of us trouble makers when it comes to Phorm

[mark777]

Originally Posted by The Other Steve

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

About what you'd expect given Pinsent Masons LLP's relationship with BT, basically says that, yes, ISPs implementing Phorm are probably breaking tons of laws, but that's OK, where's the harm ?

Seriously, that's what it says. Can't comment further now, blood boiling.

It's ok to break the law a little. OK.

Doesn't address the 2006/2007 trials where they broke the law a lot does he.

If this is the standard of legal advice they got there must be squeeky-bottys at Phorm towers just now.

Just break the law and hope they don't do you.

----

Looking at the share price, today, not one of the six billion people on the planet consider it to be a sure-fire winner to buy into.

[Chroma]

with my strong feelings about my children being profiled and being unable to provide any legal consent to have this done being put to one side, i have another interesting avenue to explore.

I have a cousin whos mentily handicaped (is this the correct PC term nowadays?) he goes online a lot to browse different flash based sites because he likes the cartoons and video clips on them.
He uses the internet frequently and although hes 19 he has the equivilent mental capacity of a nine year old at best. his litterary and numaracy skills are severely lacking.

Where does he stand is the informed consent debate? i mean i figure for informed consent you would need to fully understand the way in which a contract would impact on your life, without wanting to sound eletist or put the guy down in any way im fairly certain that thats beyond the level of his comprehension.

Even if i was presented a complete document detailing exactly what i was signing up to and indeed gave my full informed consent to be a battery hen where does that leave my cousin and others in the same situation, not to mention my children?

[Florence]

suppose the best advice to give is what I did move to an ISP that has said they have no intentions of using Phorm. If BT and VM lost all the customers who didn't want to be phormed then thye can please themselves but the good names they trade under will be tarnished with phorm.

[unicus]

Originally Posted by Chroma

with my strong feelings about my children being profiled and being unable to provide any legal consent to have this done being put to one side, i have another interesting avenue to explore.

I have a cousin whos mentily handicaped (is this the correct PC term nowadays?) he goes online a lot to browse different flash based sites because he likes the cartoons and video clips on them.
He uses the internet frequently and although hes 19 he has the equivilent mental capacity of a nine year old at best. his litterary and numaracy skills are severely lacking.

Where does he stand is the informed consent debate? i mean i figure for informed consent you would need to fully understand the way in which a contract would impact on your life, without wanting to sound eletist or put the guy down in any way im fairly certain that thats beyond the level of his comprehension.

Even if i was presented a complete document detailing exactly what i was signing up to and indeed gave my full informed consent to be a battery hen where does that leave my cousin and others in the same situation, not to mention my children?

The term is mental disability.

Now with regards to consent I'd say a child (especially below 12) cannot give informed consent and I would expect there are laws in place with regards to vulnerable adults too (I'll ask my wife later - she works extensively in this field).

As for Struan Robertson's article on out-law.com he says;

After reading Dr Clayton's paper and other reports, attending last month's meeting and talking to Ertugrul, I think I understand most of what Phorm does and doesn't do. I am confident that I do not understand all of it.

Well I've got some news for him - you obviously understand Phorm/Webwise (and the Internet) less than you think. For instance he also says;

Arguably Google breaks copyright laws when it indexes the web; Arguably Microsoft breaks anti-spam laws when it attaches tiny ads to the foot of Hotmail emails. But nobody cares about such minor transgressions. After all, where's the harm?

Webmasters allow (and know how to dissallow) their sites to be indexed and Google don't hide what they do, they leave a trace in the Webmasters logs - Phorm/Webwise doesn't. You sign up to Hotmail with all its T&C's so if you don't like their way to provide free email use another. So what transgressions or harm is he on about? He doesn't understand does he.

I could go on but why bother, he's had a meeting with Kent and believes the sales pitch - how sad.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Florence

suppose the best advice to give is what I did move to an ISP that has said they have no intentions of using Phorm. If BT and VM lost all the customers who didn't want to be phormed then thye can please themselves but the good names they trade under will be tarnished with phorm.

What annoys me about this prospect ( which I actually agree with ) is that I don't want to leave VM cable internet. I like having a 20mbit pipe, I'm aware that it will soon be a 50mbit pipe and I don't doubt that I'll have ( once again ) a 100mbit pipe for little more than I am paying now.
I'll never get this anywhere else in the UK unless I return to satellite and that cost me over a grand a month 7 years ago for 100mbit.

The fact is that the cable infrastructure is good and getting better. It annoys me that VM can use STM when their network is already so much more capable than even the planned upgrades. The fact of the matter is that they are at a price point that they feel is wrong and so rather than hike the prices too often they will explore revenue sources such as target advertising.

Does not work for me that way. I want my current experience for the current price. If you want to use me as an ingredient in your revenue pie then fine, let's discuss just how much reduction in my outlay you plan to offer me in exchange for my cooperation. Otherwise I'll just continue to pay for the service you are contractually obliged to give me and I'll not take anything different or extra. ( aimed at hypothetical VM rep reading this )

[Chroma]

Originally Posted by unicus

The term is mental disability.

Now with regards to consent I'd say a child (especially below 12) cannot give informed consent and I would expect there are laws in place with regards to vulnerable adults too (I'll ask my wife later - she works extensively in this field).

I would appreciate that.

<offtopic> i was rereading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Hunter S. Thompson) and came across a passage which kind of fits to this whole "A crime has been committed but who cares" mentality:
The only chance now, I felt, was the possibility that we'd gone to such excess that nobody in the position to bring the hammer down on us could possibility believe it.
The mentality of Las Vegas is so grossly atavistic that a really massive crime often slips by unrecognized.

Seems to fit rather well in the current political climate, a starving man shoplifts a loaf and winds up sentanced to life, whereas Corporations sell human rights to the highest bidder and seem to get away scot free.
</offtopic>

Im left wondering why we even got involved in fighting the world wars, clearly Hitler won and the rest of society was too busy celebrating to notice the fact.

AHEM!

Ok If I can have everyone's Attention for a short while.

I was asked by popper to give Alexander Hanff a Special CF award in the Helpful Post of the Month thread for April

I declined and suggested he should get one of these.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

I was then touched by Alex suggesting that perhaps this award should instead be given to BetBlowWhistler for his service in whistle blowing on BT in relation to it's covert and illegal testing of Phorm on it's unsuspecting customers and the subsequent loss of his job as a result.

I said to him that the award is his(it's not awarded very often) but that I would give BetBlowWhistler a unique award of his own.

Therefore I have great pleasure in unveiling a new award and that BetBlowWhistler is the very first recipient of this award.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Let us hope for more folk to be worthy of this award-I'm sure we will.

Thank you for your patience and I hand you back to the Anti Phorm Campaign.



Coggy whois desperately trying to keep up and understand all the information being disseminated in the thread thus far.

[popper]

Originally Posted by The Other Steve

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

About what you'd expect given Pinsent Masons LLP's relationship with BT, basically says that, yes, ISPs implementing Phorm are probably breaking tons of laws, but that's OK, where's the harm ?

Seriously, that's what it says. Can't comment further now, blood boiling.

i sent comments about their clear avoidence of the exiting RIPA breaking 2006/7 trials.

and also pointed out yet again..., about the clear potential of the Bt executives and employee's involved in its activation and running being under threat of a real criminal conviction , pointing again to the clear existing case law.

"remember RIPA conviction for UK executives case law already exists.

the lost RIPA appeal of Stanford's
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
"
Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

3 February 2006

Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal...."

i assume many of you here have done so too by now!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

@Alexander, great job on the dissertation. I think I just heard a final nail going in to the coffin. This document needs a widespread distribution!

Small point - second to last line on p9 you write "or implied negatived." Should that read 'negatively ? I should be a proof reader :P

Anyhow, very well done

It is actually quoted text so I kept it verbatim. But thanks for pointing it out.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------

I have been contacted by a major broadsheet who will be running an article on high risk technology stocks in the near future and wish to discuss the legal issues regarding Phorm. I have agreed to an "interview" (although I expect it will be Internet based and won't require a long road trip) and will keep you all updated as more news becomes available.

Alexander Hanff

[GoldenBoar]

I'll be changing broadband when VM start this, and given that I'm a VIP customer, i'll be dropping VM altogether.

I'm also a self-employing computer technician doing call outs, and will be definitely spreading the word to my customers. I have previously been recommending VM cable broadband to my customers, family and friends where applicable, but not any more. If I come across phorm webwise in the field, I will opt the user out, tell them the truth about it, and opt them back in if they wish. I will also recommend them to change their ISP to a phorm-less one.

I will be telling all my friends and family about webwise, and recommend them to switch ISP. I will also be urging them to tell everyone they know.

A lot of people on the VIP package like me, will probably be cancelling all services when VM introduce this crap.

There too many pages to check through, so perhaps someone can answer this for me.

Will the popup to get consent, be a web browser popup?
If so then how will it get past pop up blockers, etc.?
If not, then how do you think a personal firewall such as Comodo or even Vista's built-in one, will deal with it?

Didn't BT say that if the user does not agree or disagree to the popup, then they will have a dead internet connection.

Most PC's (from PC world, etc) come with Norton installed and some ISPs provide security software with a firewall.

[AlexanderHanff]

Need some Diggs: http://digg.com/tech_news/Legal_Anal...7_Phorm_Trials

Alexander Hanff

[jca111]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoar

I'll be changing broadband when VM start this, and given that I'm a VIP customer, i'll be dropping VM altogether.

I'm also a self-employing computer technician doing call outs, and will be definitely spreading the word to my customers. I have previously been recommending VM cable broadband to my customers, family and friends where applicable, but not any more. If I come across phorm webwise in the field, I will opt the user out, tell them the truth about it, and opt them back in if they wish. I will also recommend them to change their ISP to a phorm-less one.

I will be telling all my friends and family about webwise, and recommend them to switch ISP. I will also be urging them to tell everyone they know.

A lot of people on the VIP package like me, will probably be cancelling all services when VM introduce this crap.

There too many pages to check through, so perhaps someone can answer this for me.

Will the popup to get consent, be a web browser popup?
If so then how will it get past pop up blockers, etc.?
If not, then how do you think a personal firewall such as Comodo or even Vista's built-in one, will deal with it?

Didn't BT say that if the user does not agree or disagree to the popup, then they will have a dead internet connection.

Most PC's (from PC world, etc) come with Norton installed and some ISPs provide security software with a firewall.

The way I think it will work will be like when you first have to turn on your VM BB account. (i.e. no matter what website you go to you will be redirected to a phorm website with the info on it, until you have said yes or no). I don't think it will be a pop-up as such. I dont see this causing problems for firewalls etc either.

[AlexanderHanff]

Also added the article to Slashdot. If people can click the following link it has a better chance of being published on Slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=650576

Alexander Hanff

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I was then touched by Alex suggesting that perhaps this award should instead be given to BetBlowWhistler for his service in whistle blowing on BT in relation to it's covert and illegal testing of Phorm on it's unsuspecting customers and the subsequent loss of his job as a result.

I'm choked, I really am Thankyou both.

I should point out though that I didn't know about the covert testing in 2006/2007 so that wasn't me. The diagrams were though.

I also like the nice little touch of the filename for Alex's award