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

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

Can you do an Anti-Phorm Banner 120x600 to go on my sites?

Will do, PM me the wording. It will remain black as it will stand out. Send me the max filesize, and all the usual suspects, please.

The Logo will remain the same, as it has since February (Many thanks to None for the Logo design), with the www.nodpi.org link written below.

120 (H) x 600 (W)?

[bluecar1]

anyone else noticed the way webwise / phorm is setup, a child with a sub account can change the terms and conditions of the primary account holder as no authentication appears to be required just click yes on the webwise page?

interesting court cases coming me thinks

<spoof>

judge: so what is this case about?

BT punter: BT allowed my child to change my contract and now won't let me revert back or leave

judge: is this right BT?

BT: erm, erm maybe, but it was only a technical trial

judge : so BT you did not make the relevant check to ensure the person was the account holder and legally able to make the change?

BT: erm, erm, erm well no, not really we assume everyone was honest like us

Judge: case found against BT, BT to pay costs, damages for invasion of privacy and issue MAC code, next case please

<\spoof>

peter

[popper]

bbc parliament right now
personal data and privacy debate in the house of lords

[Privacy_Matters]

Phorm Protest Banner:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3...erani02lc1.gif

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

120 (H) 600 (W)

Filesize 85kb

ext: gif (no compression)

Version 2:

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7...erani03mv5.gif

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

Filesize 79kb

ext: gif (no compression)

Originally Posted by Hank

Sir Norman Bettison
Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police
West Yorkshire Police Headquarters
PO Box 9
Wakefield
WF1 3QP

26th May 2008

Dear Sir Bettison

BT plc - Interception of communications, contrary to RIPA 2000

In the Hansard publication within the last week that there is a response to a 'Question for Written Answer' from the Earl Of Northesk. A Home Office parliamentary under secretary, Lord West of Spithead, states that suspected breaches of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would be investigated by the police.

It is for this reason that I write to you. I wish to report what appears to be a crime by a corporate body who has offices within our county. This needs to be investigated so that any evidence found can be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

...

Yours sincerely

I've received a reply on bahalf of our Chief Constable and I will quote the important part:

I have noted your comments in relation to the interception of communications at this time would confirm that all matters in respect of alleged breeches of communications are dealt with by The Interception of Communications Commissioner. Should you wish to write direct the address is:

The Interception of Communications Commissioner
c/o 2 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DF

So... if anyone does want to report the BT trials of 2006 & 2007, where they intercepted the communications of thousands of their customers without their customers' permission and without legal warrant requiring them to do so, contrary to RIPA 2000... confusion still reigns despite the assurances of Lord Spithead!!

I think this has been covered here before...
What is the IoCC responsible for doing? Here's the Government web page info on their role:
http://www.ipt-uk.com/default.asp?sectionID=8&chapter=2

Now, as I read all this:

1) There does not seem to be an investigatory role listed for the IoCC if a corporate body has apparently broken the law according to the bounds of RIPA 2000. So I question if writing to them will achieve anything (considering the Spithead Home Office answer already given)

2) Lord Spithead said the Police would investigate suspected breeches of the law according to RIPA 2000

3) Our local Police service are saying "No, it is not for us to do this"

So following Lord Northesk's question and the answer which that illicited, either the Home Office answer is an untruth or it isn't an untruth... and if it isn't, then what happens now? Where does that leave this thorny question of BT and ignoring the requirements set out in RIPA 2000?

I've decided to forward my letter and a copy of the response to Lord Spithead and ask what he thinks of it in relation to his Hansard recorded answer and I will cc David Carnegie (the Earl of Northesk) - see what happens next.

If anyone wishes to write to the IoCC it probably can't do any harm!!

Hank

EDIT 17:43
- The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:

Which law enforcement agency, department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of (a) the Data Protection Act 1998, (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and (c) the Computer Misuse Act 1990. (HL3267)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): (a) Investigation of breaches of RIPA would be investigated by the police or other relevant law enforcement agency; any subsequent prosecution would be taken forward by the CPS or other relevant prosecuting agency.


Is the Interception of Communications Commissioner the "other relevant law enforcement agency" ??

All write please

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Hank

I've received a reply on bahalf of our Chief Constable and I will quote the important part:
{snip}

I would have thought that this was good evidence for the EU Commission. i.e. the UK authorities are not doing their job properly and are being obstructive with regard to upholding the law.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Will do, PM me the wording. It will remain black as it will stand out. Send me the max filesize, and all the usual suspects, please.

The Logo will remain the same, as it has since February (Many thanks to None for the Logo design), with the www.nodpi.org link written below.

120 (H) x 600 (W)?

PM sent

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Phorm Protest Banner:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3...erani02lc1.gif

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

120 (H) 600 (W)

Filesize 85kb

ext: gif (no compression)

Version 2:

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7...erani03mv5.gif



Filesize 79kb

ext: gif (no compression)

Can you do it this way 120 (W) 600 (H) Sorry for the mix up

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Wildie

just for the hell of it so they cannot id you all and profile you at the protest and serve you fliers.
http://tinyurl.com/3gkjec

**** The link above just flagged up as Spyware in my Zone alarm protection and disconnected me automatically, so don't go there unless you really must. It redirects to:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90553/V-for-Vendetta-Mas

[davews]

Originally Posted by Wild Oscar

Steve Gibson at grc.com is heavily into web security, I wonder what he thinks about all this?

We mentioned US security expert Steve Gibson back in April, he promised sometime he would cover this.

In his Security Now podcast for this week - Episode 148 at http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm - he announces that he will be covering it in next week's podcast. He normally records it on Tuesday for release on Thursday (California evening time) and the links appear on his site on our Friday afternoon.

His short mention in SN148 maybe indicates he is not as up to date with the technology as we would like:

"Next week we're going to finally talk about the form system, the so-called "Phorm Webwise" technology which has really got people upset because ISPs that have adopted this are changing the pages people download from foreign servers. That's next week's topic."

"About the whole Phorm Webwise technology. There's a very disturbing new trend which is ISPs are actually modifying the pages their customers download. So when I go to a website and look at the page, an ISP has tacked on their own JavaScript, which is being used to monitor me and track me and profile me. Not a good idea."

Maybe a chance to contact Steve before he does the recording...

Dave

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

PM sent

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------


Can you do it this way 120 (W) 600 (H) Sorry for the mix up

No worries

I'll have it done after tea

[SelfProtection]

Watch out for forms/links like this;

I wonder how long it would take!


https://www2(dot)formwize(dot)com/run /survey3(dot)cfm?ID=1081

[tdadyslexia]

If you want a laugh at Kent's expense then have a look at these Click on the Attached Thumbnail to see my creation.

kent the vulcher
kent flushed
kent down the pan

I hope that you enjoy my creations.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Phorm Protest Banner:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3...erani02lc1.gif

Just a quibble over the wording. Would it be better to say, "The biggest threat to Internet Privacy is about to be created by..."

or "A significant threat to Internet privacy is about to be created by..."

I reckon Phorm would also challenge the 'disregarding' line, even if they do disregard.

Perhaps you could slip in a dig at the ICO. "And the ICO, Police and Home Office won't protect you. For your chance to say no, click here"

Or something. Dunno.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

{snip}
EU's Online Privacy Hearing Follows Senate's Next Week

U.S. lawmakers are not the only ones who are concerned about whether online advertising violates people's privacy. Regulators in Europe are also turning their attention to the issue.

In the latest development, the European Commission, which is tasked with enforcing Europe's broad privacy protection law, has scheduled a hearing in London for next Friday. That meeting will take place two days after a U.S. Senate subcommittee is slated to explore online advertising and privacy.

Anyone in a position to leaflet outside that meeting next Friday?

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

Attending Meglena Kuneva EU Commisioner

"I want to make sure that people everywhere can enjoy the same high levels of protection, through proper law enforcement. I want consumer organisations in the Member States to have adequate resources, and I intend to tackle those people wishing to cheat and defraud consumers, through good cooperation between national authorities."

I feel another batch of letters flying out.

I've just noticed this, probably because it was done as an edit to an existing post.

It's so important we get letters in to the EU. Particularly explaining how obstructive UK institutions have been with regards to getting all this properly investigated.

[Dephormation]

Agree completely with Mark777... We need to get the complaints in *before* next Friday about the way the case has been handled by the ICO, Home Office and Police forces.

Pete.