Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 199

bigsanta11 · 12-04-2008, 00:29

I don't know if it has been already answered,but how long are the webwise bt/phorm/ spying/phishing trials going to last?

Is there some kind of limit to how long they can conduct their spying,as i'd expect there to be a limit in place,but with what i've read on the CFs , nothing would surprise me now.

fraser

CaptJamieHunter · 12-04-2008, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

I do have the 'Conflict of Law' act somewhere in print upstairs and with respect if you have no knowledge of the law then keep your mouth shut, after all we are on the same side and I am lost for a reason to appeal the legal decisions already made against Phorm..
Phorm International, 18/20 international, registered offices in many countries, Uk law is prominent here but on legal request you can divert any British court into international law under 'conflict of laws act' .. Oh, it's civil law only pending.. Criminal conflict of law is normally down to parlimentary debate...

I know conflict of law because I used it to win a court case stretching from 1993 - 2001... 3 different courts by the way including the Royal...

Then I suggest you politely and respectfully state your knowledge here rather than slate someone who has put in a lot of public work into this campaign.

Bring your knowledge to the table or remove yourself and your less than pleasant comments.

Bobby's-Nutz · 12-04-2008, 00:33

Sorry Alexander if I was a bit blunt with you just now, really sorry believe me coz I know you're a good guy.. Please do not let me elaborate on what I said, they will use it against us... It's a real uk law that's rarely called upon because it's so god damned costly but when you got a Ã‚Â£billion riding on it, hmmmmmmm, aweful thought... We're on the same side here so let's stick together... Oh! I had a thank you from the ICO this morning and I will reveal no more except to say, respect them and they will look after us..

manxminx · 12-04-2008, 00:35

[deleted by me]

[reported to the mods instead]

AlexanderHanff · 12-04-2008, 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

Sorry Alexander if I was a bit blunt with you just now, really sorry believe me coz I know you're a good guy.. Please do not let me elaborate on what I said, they will use it against us... It's a real uk law that's rarely called upon because it's so god damned costly but when you got a Ã‚Â£billion riding on it, hmmmmmmm, aweful thought... We're on the same side here so let's stick together... Oh! I had a thank you from the ICO this morning and I will reveal no more except to say, respect them and they will look after us..

If there is some little known law in existence that is not listed in the relevant government databases, then I would request you do share it with us. Rest assured, if it exists Phorm will know about it (they have a QC) and will use it or would have used it by now.

So in the interests of preparing us with resources to deal with it, forget Phorm and just tell us please. I have put a great deal of time and effort (approx 16 hours a day for the past 2 months) into this issue and certainly don't want to release a very important article on the legal issues revolving around this case if it is missing some little known legislative get out of jail free card.

Just for reference, if you want to evaluate my legal understanding of this issue, please feel free to read the -almost- complete draft of my article which can be found here:

http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm_paper.pdf

Alexander Hanff

serial · 12-04-2008, 00:45

Alex, is it worth submitting legal questions in advance so that on the day they can't say "we'll have to consult our legal team" etc etc. We need to force answers to legal questions on the day as the press will be there.

mark777 · 12-04-2008, 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by manxminx

It's obvious that Phorm have either sacked their PR machine, or reduced it to one or two people who have been well and truly gagged.

The alternative is that they have split into their component parts and having a go on their own.

I wonder what the tea-boy is up to now?

Seriously, if we are getting trolls, that means the message is getting out.

If Phorm are changing their tactics, they are worried.

Bobby's-Nutz · 12-04-2008, 00:45

Alexander you will not find it in a data base, you must refer to the law books. I will go up to my old case files tomorrow and get you the relevant act number but please believe me it is real uk law and it allows them to submit their laws in conflict of ours.. Makes sense of course if it's for the betterment but can be devastating to any legal uk case. There are about 4 solicitors in the UK specialising in conflict of law.. Please find it Alexander I don't want to rake through my old papers....

AlexanderHanff · 12-04-2008, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

Alexander you will not find it in a data base, you must refer to the law books. I will go up to my old case files tomorrow and get you the relevant act number but please believe me it is real uk law and it allows them to submit their laws in conflict of ours.. Makes sense of course if it's for the betterment but can be devastating to any legal uk case. There are about 4 solicitors in the UK specialising in conflict of law.. Please find it Alexander I don't want to rake through my old papers....

I am sorry but I simply can't believe that. I can't turn round to a judge and say "Sorry your honour but you can't bust me for the marijuana offences I have been charged with because in multiple states in the US and several countries in Europe the amount I had in my possession was legal."

I apologise if I am offending you any way, but the law simply doesn't work that way. If you have a reference you really need to provide it as soon as possible.

Alexander Hanff

rogerdraig · 12-04-2008, 00:54

only thing i could find was this and it doesn't seem to have much to do with this sort of case as all of this is happening here

http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/curr...conflict.shtml

Bobby's-Nutz · 12-04-2008, 00:54

Jesus Christ, **** you Phorm, lecherous *******s, we have sussed you out finally and we know your puney defence, ha, well if conflict of laws is on the cards then be careful as there are certain clauses in the said act that could imprison you for longer than you might think so think twice before using it under uk law... haaaaa

serial · 12-04-2008, 00:57

The Phorm PR team simply realised that they were argueing against people that knew more than them. This is an unwinnable situation. The PR and marketing community made this clear in numerous blogs and publications. Hopefully the Tuesday talk won't have Kent repeating the usual garbage as he will be faced with an audience of informed users. I know that the Phorm/BT plan is that they can sell **** to people who know **** about the situation.

AlexanderHanff · 12-04-2008, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogermevans

only thing i could find was this and it doesn't seem to have much to do with this sort of case as all of this is happening here

http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/curr...conflict.shtml

Correct it is not an Act of Parliament (as Bob suggested) and neither is it relevant in this issue. there is no conflict because the alleged offences occured in the UK, to UK People, by a company (or companies) with registered offices in the UK. This "conflict of law" craziness has no bearing on this issue whatsoever, there is absolutely no question of jurisdiction.

Alexander Hanff

Bobby's-Nutz · 12-04-2008, 01:05

Alexander, I swear I tell no lies on this.. Don't worry ok, we won and they gotta figure out a way to get back.. Conflict of law only means what it literally means but you must bring this up at the begiining of a court action not after. It may come under jurisdiction law because that's what you start the court with. After that you get years of adjournments and it never seems to end but... big but.. If Phorm use that then they could carry on with their scam in conflict of the ICO report.. I might be wrong here but they must have a reason to not lay down and die....

---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------

No no noooooooo... get real. its truly international here... tread carefully... Well anyways, we are prepared for it.. My advice is say little and trust you ICO ...

AlexanderHanff · 12-04-2008, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

Alexander, I swear I tell no lies on this.. Don't worry ok, we won and they gotta figure out a way to get back.. Conflict of law only means what it literally means but you must bring this up at the begiining of a court action not after. It may come under jurisdiction law because that's what you start the court with. After that you get years of adjournments and it never seems to end but... big but.. If Phorm use that then they could carry on with their scam in conflict of the ICO report.. I might be wrong here but they must have a reason to not lay down and die....

---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------

No no noooooooo... get real. its truly international here... tread carefully... Well anyways, we are prepared for it.. My advice is say little and trust you ICO ...

I wouldn't trust ICO to tie their own shoelaces. This is the "authority" who have completely failed the British public on more issues than I can even count. This is the "authority" who can't even interpret the laws they are supposed to enforce.

DPA clearly states that operations on personal data is defined as processing (it states so explicitly in the Act) yet the ICO don't seem to be able to grasp that purely by reading the data and passing it to the anonymiser or "special machine" the data is being processed and therefore requires consent.

Furthermore, the ICO issue a Public Statement giving Phorm the green light, which they then have to withdraw/ammend less than a week later because their forgot to do their job and read Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, a directive which falls directly under their remit to enforce.

Furthermore, ICO have the power (as specified by the EU and the Queen) to investigate -all- matters of privacy and data protection in the UK yet they feel it is appropriate to pass the buck with regards RIPA to the Home Office.

Trust ICO? I would trust Kent before I trust ICO.

Alexander Hanff