Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
Jackson - you can opt out of Phorm too, and in a way that seems so far to be agreeable to the regulators.
You will no doubt choose to disagree, but your vote doesn't really count if the regulators decide otherwise.
Sure you can all make up valid arguments about which 3 nanoseconds Phorm appears to be breaking some rule or other, but the authorities will not wish to stand in the way of commercial progress just to comply with some part of a rule or law that was not intended to cover the way Phorm is operating, but has just been used to try and object to Phorm.
That is the nub of my argument - sure you may be able to find a law and try and attach it to what Phorm does, but if it wasn't intended to catch the sort of thing Phorm does, then the authorities will not bother applying it.
|
while your trying to give your current POV in a valid and reasonable manor i don't see why we cant debate the point you raise.
not so much as to try and convince you to change your mind (as you clearly state, you put "profit" before all other considerations, much the same as a compulsive
Gambler would), but rather to help any future readers that may at first have a like minded viewpoint due to lack of Knowledge or the facts.
i assume you value the law of the land and hold that to be your guide in all things ?.
browser crashed so give me a minute to correct this post and refresh later
"you can opt out of Phorm too",
not true, you can perhaps opt-out of seeing the Ads , but you cant Opt-out of having your full data stream and that of the web pages you visit, Intercepted as clearly shown in the latest official BT diagram
it clearly shows, and there is no other choice given to you ,
all your data Must pass through the Interception device.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34524675
it clearly shows they place a cookie on your machine,store data on your machine, and retrieve data from your machine without your explicit informed consent if you refuse or otherwise opt-out of this ISP/Phorm wiretap.
pecr_reference
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...part2_1206.pdf
clearly shows this in against the statute #
3951
" Sure you can all make up valid arguments about which 3 nanoseconds Phorm appears to be breaking some rule or other"
its not a rule, its the law, and implying how many nanoseconds it takes to break a law does nothing to reinforce your point, it only takes 3 nanoseconds to decide to kill someone, but that doesn't make it right if you do it does it.
"that seems so far to be agreeable to the regulators.
You will no doubt choose to disagree, but your vote doesn't really count if the regulators decide otherwise."
sure it might seem agreeable to the regulators and Home Office, but then you may be still unaware that they have already stated that they haven't look the Phorm case details , but rather some obscure non Phorm DPI, old style cookie model, and even then they state quite clearly,legally it must be fully opt-in to comply with the existing and current Uk and EU legal statutes...
theres also the fact you the end user are infact not just reliant on the regulators and their view or guidence..., you can perfectly well, bring your own private prosecution's in the likes of the small claims county courts, or higher courts if you so chose.
true it doesn't automatically mean it becomes a high court ruling unless you take your case there, but, as with the mass of unlawful Bank charges cases hitting and overloading the court system, if enough people did the same for this Phorm unlawful Interception, then the lower courts could just as easily see fit to move these strong cases to the higher courts to get this explicit ruling for all users to then use in their case files, after all Judges and their familys also use Bt (and VM)residential Broadband both in the offices and their homes.
"authorities will not wish to stand in the way of commercial progress just to comply with some part of a rule or
law that was not intended to cover the way Phorm is operating,
but has just been used to try and object to Phorm."
this is your weakest link and your greatest flaw, there is in fact already case law that covers exactly this case RIPA , while many have said RIPA is a bad law, it never the less exists and is current, that RIPA has already been used to convict a high ranking UK executive on the grounds of interception etc.
even the legal team that are retained by the BT executive
http://www.out-law.com when asked about the 2006/7 trials replied
"Did it breach RIPA?
Personally, I think that it probably did."
when asked about the real possibility of the BT executives authorizing and planning this, those involved in the installation and running of these trials might serve a jail term his response was far more evasive as you might expect.
"
Some have compared BT's trial to the actions that led to the
conviction under RIPA of Demon and Redbus founder Cliff Stanford.
I think a court would consider the circumstances quite different, though."
it might be said "i think" doesn't cut it in the courts when there has already been a clear RIPA case conviction case law in the past with the Demon and Redbus founder Cliff Stanford
and heres what Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge and later Court of Appeal said
"
Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that “right to control”
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required
that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation.
Stanford appealed the judge’s decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin’s view.
It pointed out that the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford’s sentence of 6 months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld."
pretty clear cut that those executives and other involved in those 2006/7 trials are today looking to be convicted if and when a case gets put before a judge weather that be a private case or as we are expecting finally a public case when your regulators have been given no other choise but to uphold the law of the land.
Join CF
You are here: 
