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

[jelv]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

>I'll copyright a file, and let it "leak out". A BT user stuck in a contract can then share it over P2P. I'll then complain to BT. Repeat twice and the contract is terminated by BT!

The letter states that you will have to pay for the fees for the remainder of your contract.

Can they do that?

[warescouse]

I was a little tired last night but I have now briefly read all the documents Pete scanned from his FOI.

What should not be forgotten is that every person who receives a BT/Phorm/Webwise interstitial page is a trialist whether or not they opt in or opt out in the current systems proposed operation. The interception will still occur on all their on-line raw HTTP data.

[NTLVictim]

Nice to see the party of our ineffectual government got a good kicking last night...

[Frank Rizzo]

Posted in another place

Profile on Simon Watkin

My bold

Simon Watkin will share his unique perspective of the Government's progress towards full implementation of RIPA ... he will describe what he is doing to review how best the Government can ensure respect for individual privacy

Simon Watkin joined the Home Office's Covert Investigation Policy Team in September 2002 from David Blunkett's Private Office where he was a Private Secretary. He was nominated as an Internet Hero at the UK Internet Industry Awards 2003 for "doing his best to understand the industry, tech sector interest groups and experts and to subsequently inform discussions within the Home Office".

He worked on implementation of the recommendations of the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report on Encryption and Law Enforcement, and on the development of the National Technical Assistance Centre. In 2001 he established the Home Office's Hi-Tech Crime Team assessing the impact of new technologies upon law enforcement capabilities.

Pete. I think this calls for one of you excellent graphics.

WatkinMan - Internet Hero of the people

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Phormic Acid

Very good. You might want to use these bits to make it an even closer match.

Don't forget that these images are trademarks/Copyright Images. So it should be made obvious somewhere on the final image that this was the intended Webwise startup page as opposed to any actual page.

Don't want to be threatened by BT again do we.

[Frank Rizzo]

Something like this:

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

[vicz]

The following is not aimed at any poster(s) in particular, but is the result of having digested the ICO FOI response and 'slept on it'.

I think it is pretty obvious that the ICO and to a certain extent the Home Office have been a bit gullible and, deliberately or not, have been supportive of BT and phorm, against the best interest of the public. However, we need to remain focussed on BT and phorm as the villains of this piece. They managed to sucker-in the HO and ICO using their PR spin and maybe contacts in high places. We have all seen how this operates, and while one might have hoped that the ICO in particular would have shown a bit more healthy scepticism, the fact is that they have to balance the rights of legitimate businesses and the consumer. The behaviour of BT in particular probably came as something of a shock to them as the true story emerged. But properly informed, the ICO remains one of our strongest potential allies. And the documents show that they did highlight the opt-in requirements, which may yet prove to be a mortal blow. So I think our interests are probably best served by providing them with the ammunition to hold BT and phorm to account, rather than berating them for their alleged incompetence, satisfying though this may be.

The tide may appear to be turning in our favour but I'm sure we all agree we can't afford to relax our efforts yet.

[Frank Rizzo]

I don't think that's right vicz.

The ICO are not balancing the rights of legitimate business and the consumer at all.

One good example is when, straight after the leaked 2006 document was produced, the ICO made the statement that they still think BT did nothing wrong. The evidence of wrong doing was all there.

They still refuse to take action. That is not balanced at all.

[NTLVictim]

Quick technical question; is THIS any help?

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

I don't think that's right vicz.

The ICO are not balancing the rights of legitimate business and the consumer at all.

One good example is when, straight after the leaked 2006 document was produced, the ICO made the statement that they still think BT did nothing wrong. The evidence of wrong doing was all there.

They still refuse to take action. That is not balanced at all.

I didn't say that they had been balanced, but that their role is to be balanced. The relationship with BT must have been a bit like being married to an axe murderer - confronted with the evidence of evil there is a reluctance to believe it until it is so overwhelming it can no longer be denied. BT made soothing noises, the ICO believed them. Hopefully they won't get fooled again.

They still refuse to take action - One of the legislative weaknesses is that no-one appears to believe it it their responsibility to prosecute wrongdoers. This probably reflects chronic underfunding as much as anything else. The ICO seem to think that a public admonishment is sufficient to shame a company into behaving properly. Unfortunately we have seen that some companies have no shame...

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Quick technical question; is THIS any help?

Its probably a bit extreme for the casual browser (the Onion Router) More info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing but if phorm-a-like companies do manage to proliferate around the web I can see this or some other mechanism for a generally encrypted/obfuscated web as being the only way to go.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by vicz

The following is not aimed at any poster(s) in particular, but is the result of having digested the ICO FOI response and 'slept on it'.

I think it is pretty obvious that the ICO and to a certain extent the Home Office have been a bit gullible and, deliberately or not, have been supportive of BT and phorm, against the best interest of the public. However, we need to remain focussed on BT and phorm as the villains of this piece. They managed to sucker-in the HO and ICO using their PR spin and maybe contacts in high places. We have all seen how this operates, and while one might have hoped that the ICO in particular would have shown a bit more healthy scepticism, the fact is that they have to balance the rights of legitimate businesses and the consumer. The behaviour of BT in particular probably came as something of a shock to them as the true story emerged. But properly informed, the ICO remains one of our strongest potential allies. And the documents show that they did highlight the opt-in requirements, which may yet prove to be a mortal blow. So I think our interests are probably best served by providing them with the ammunition to hold BT and phorm to account, rather than berating them for their alleged incompetence, satisfying though this may be.

The tide may appear to be turning in our favour but I'm sure we all agree we can't afford to relax our efforts yet.

They have heard evidence to the contrary from the best in the land,yet still they sit and do a pontius pilot and wash their hands rather than admit they have been duped by BT and Phorm there has always been academics etc to give an unbiased expert opinion but it was never sought ,sorry but they are as bad as the rest of the villains in this plot.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Quick technical question; is THIS any help?

The problem with using Tor, in this situation is that you cannot guarantee that the end-point is safe additionally it could be on a Phorm or Nebuad ISP.

[HamsterWheel]

Happy to see you lot all diverted from Phorm and attacking ICO etc.
Keep up the good work attacking the very people you expect to save you from the perils of Phorm.
Thanks !

[Frank Rizzo]

vicz - Unless there is some miracle I can not now see how the ICO can be potential allies. They refuse to take action over the contraventions of PECR and even if they did take action they have no power to significantly punish BT for what they did.

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Something like this:

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

The reality.