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

This is not an English lesson back on topic

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

... but I'm not a moderator - I don't need to be.

A_D

I'm a Moderator, and I don't profess to be impartial on any issue other than moderating. My actions in moderating the forum have to be wholly in accord with the Terms of Use, but that doesn't mean that I'm not just as entitled to a personal opinion on Phorm (carefully keeping on topic) as any other poster here. My own personal opinion, based on the information that has been provided by both sides of the argument, is that I don't want to see Phorm (or any other such technology implemented) and I would be quite happy to see it just dissapear.

For those in any doubt as to how to differentiate between my two roles please feel free to read my signature

[icsys]

Thank you to all who posted the link to the Lords questions session.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

Whilst it is good to see that the Lords are discussing the issues around the phorm technology thereby raising awareness in the upper realms of government. What is disturbing, however, is the continued lack of understanding.
Good questions are raised around the need to ensure the privacy of the public is protected, that any system that intercepts online communications should be explicit opt-in, that a test case is required in the courts to ascertain interception.
Then the whole debate is overshadowed by references to letters regarding downloading thereby confusing DPI profiling for profit with P2P monitoring for the prevention of illegal downloading.

The government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done. All impending trials need to be officially and publicly stopped, now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called and a test case is put before the courts.

In my opinion, this is what everyone should be pushing for otherwise kent will succeed in the path that he is obviously treading... playing on the fact that our 'leaders' are technically inept (by their own admissions) and baffling them with BS and spin.

Saturday, July 19th 2008... Site Terms of Use Reminder

Unfortunately it would appear we are in need of some final reminders... So here goes:

If some person(s) continue with their baiting crusade, such posts will be deleted after infractions will be dished out.

D_Advocate, if I see you spoiling my thread again with stupid and off-the-cuff remarks every now and again, you will be first in-line to receive such infractions and post removals.

If you are going to add an opposing view to do with Phorm, you will do so without throwing personal and petty digs around at other members.

Reminder to ALL:- This thread was reopened in good faith - the amount of reported posts within the last 24 hours regarding this thread alone, is ridiculous. We should not have to put up with this amount of crap, day in, day out and further more, we will not, so this is the absolute last chance. We suggested this thread get closed mid week but we kept it open. The team cannot be pussy footing around people who cannot debate amicably anymore, we have had enough, so I am drawing a line, right here and right now..

So...

... The next person to bait another member....

... The next person to make a personal remark and cause a flame war...

... The next person I see abuse their posting privileges...

... The next person to Royally Pee me off...

... May face having their account TERMINATED.

... Additionally - All members are reminded about the Ignore feature, if members feel aggrieved towards another forum member, I suggest you use this feature, don't rise to the bait, if we spot it first or its been reported, we can deal, if you get involved in a two-way argument, you will both be to blame.

Some people need to realise this forum is not their property, posting is a privilege, not a right. I hope I am making myself crystal clear on this. Thank you.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Parliamentary holidays time to get face to face with your MP I will with mine as he is one of the many that has confused DPI with illegal downloading any suggestions on where I can D/L and print a complete explanatory paper to hand to said MP for him to read with all the relevant sites etc maybe we can get them reading from the same book! Well one always hopes

Bob

[gnilddif]

Originally Posted by icsys

The government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done. All impending trials need to be officially and publicly stopped, now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called and a test case is put before the courts.

And the ICO - don't forget the fatuous excuse used by them over their feeble rap on BT's knuckles that the evidence was "technical in nature"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/204711/b...missioner.html
despite BT's assertion that "The Information Commissioner has been kept fully informed about BT Webwise."
(http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64)

gnilddif

[Dephormation]

Don't forget to keep writing the letters.

MP's must never get the idea we've forgotten about this cack.

If you haven't written to your MP yet, use this wizard to get started;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/letters/

And don't forget to send a Data Protection Act section 11 notice to your ISP;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Simply print, add envelope, stamp, and a post box. Cook on a gentle heat.

Pete.

[davews]

As well as the problems in addressing the privacy issues, what many seem to be ignoring is the very real threat to the overall security of the internet with the Man in the Middle hardware. This, and the rather bizzare browser redirect process which will in itself break many things, seems to be being totally ignored. Unfortunately it is these technical aspects that the non-technical seem unable to appreciate, those are the key issues which must be stopped. I have already seen myself during the 2007 trials that the current proposed implementation is fundamentally flawed and if implemented network wide will probably mean the internet is unusable. I am not sure how to get these points through to people.

[gnilddif]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Don't forget to keep writing the letters.

MP's must never get the idea we've forgotten about this cack.

I haven't. Seven letters now to BT Retail legal department, and several to ..er..Ummer Sanderson and other BT execs, all copied routinely to my MP, who has sent me replies from Shriti Vadera and John Hutton (BERR) - I'll be enlightening those two with my own reality with BT and phorm such as the untruths that BT have dealt me. And two complaints to ICO about BT, one of which relates to sending PII to phorm.
Sorry that Alex was disappointed with the small (but perfectly phormed) turn out, and I'm sorry that I couldn't make it, but don't forget that there are many who are spending hours pushing away behind the scenes.
I'm very grateful to Alex, Def. Pete and all the others who provide such useful information and action here and elsewhere.
gnilddif

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by davews

As well as the problems in addressing the privacy issues, what many seem to be ignoring is the very real threat to the overall security of the internet with the Man in the Middle hardware. This, and the rather bizzare browser redirect process which will in itself break many things, seems to be being totally ignored. Unfortunately it is these technical aspects that the non-technical seem unable to appreciate, those are the key issues which must be stopped. I have already seen myself during the 2007 trials that the current proposed implementation is fundamentally flawed and if implemented network wide will probably mean the internet is unusable. I am not sure how to get these points through to people.

Dr Claytons analysis does go into the security risks (to the infrastructure) to some extent, but of course is not all that user friendly. I'm not a techie and I don't understand much of it. Maybe his blog might give you some useful quotes?

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by davews

As well as the problems in addressing the privacy issues, what many seem to be ignoring is the very real threat to the overall security of the internet with the Man in the Middle hardware. This, and the rather bizzare browser redirect process which will in itself break many things, seems to be being totally ignored. Unfortunately it is these technical aspects that the non-technical seem unable to appreciate, those are the key issues which must be stopped. I have already seen myself during the 2007 trials that the current proposed implementation is fundamentally flawed and if implemented network wide will probably mean the internet is unusable. I am not sure how to get these points through to people.

It is a very good point you make and one that needs to be addressed. Rather than talk about the redirects and the shenanigans that goes on perhaps we should use more often simplified pictures show what is happening.

Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...ie_diagram.png shown even more simplified (if possible) and compared side by side with a standard browser DNS request. The points can then be raised that these shenanigans can break HTTP applications, due to all the redirect requests and the cookie issues.

Compared side by side the original compared to the Phorm'ed connection would show a lot of extra overhead in the latter.

[Dephormation]

European Commission Response

Just wanted to update you with an important letter received from the European Commission which confirms;

"Privacy and the protection of personal data are fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the related instruments of the Council of Europe, to which all EU Member States are signatories. Specific EU law provisions concerning privacy and data protection in the electronic communications sector are laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications (ePrivacy Directive), which specify and complement for this sector the general personal data protection principles defined in Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive).

In particular Member States are to ensure the confidentiality of communications and related traffic data through national legislation. They are required to prohibit interception or surveillance of communications and the related traffic data by persons other than the users without the consent. Traffic data may only be processed for certain defined purposes (eg billing) and for a limited period. The subscriber must be informed about such processing. Additional processing requires anonymisation or prior consent of the subscriber or user.

As regards the enforcement of these provisions, the ePrivacy and Data Protection Directives require Member States, through their national law, to ensure the availability of adequate judicial remedies as well as to establish liability of data controllers for the damage caused and to provide for sanctions in case of infringements. The supervisory authorities designated by the Member States must be endowed with investigatory powers, effective powers of intervention and the power to engage in legal proceedings. They must also hear claims lodged by any person regarding processing of personal data.

The responsibility for the enforcement of national legislation transposing EU Directives lies with the competent national authorities. The Commission is following the statements by the UK authorities, such as the Information Commissioner's Office, regarding Phorm and expects them to investigate any complaints raised with regard to the deployment of Phorm technology by ISPs.

The Commission is currently in contact with the UK authorities to clarify, in particular, the actions of the competent national authorities with regard to the users' complaints about trials of the Phorm technoogy by BT in 2006 and 2007, as well as the position of the UK authorities regarding the planned future deployment of the Phorm technology, in particular the way in which it is planned to obtain the users' consent. The Commission will continue to follow this case and take appropriate action, should the need arise, to ensure that the relevant EU law is effectively implemented by the UK authorities on this matter.

They go on to mention that EU citizens have the right to submit a formal complaint to the EC if a member state fails to apply European Community Law.

A complaint form is available on the European Commission web site;

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/yo...s_forms_en.htm.

I'm going to write to my (Labour) MP momentarily to ask, if he considers all avenues with the ICO are exhausted, whether such a complaint is now necessary.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

European Commission Response

Just wanted to update you with an important letter received from the European Commission which confirms;

Can you just give us enough reference on that letter to enable me to reference it to my (LD) MP - the date sent and from what office etc.)and also any url for the EU correspondence so far? I couldn't see anything obvious on Dephormation.

Many thanks. and well done.

[Dephormation]

Sure, should have included;

It was dated 16/07/2008

Reference details are INFSO/B-2/MP/fd D(2008)930170 A(2008)525835

It came from the European Commission Information Society and Media Directorate-General (Paraskevi Michou, Head of Unit).

Originally Posted by R Jones

Can you just give us enough reference on that letter to enable me to reference it to my (LD) MP - the date sent and from what office etc.)and also any url for the EU correspondence so far? I couldn't see anything obvious on Dephormation.

Many thanks. and well done.

(Ditto Pete...)

Robert - I think Pete will confirm something like this...:

Brussels
INFSO/B-2/MP/fd D(2008)930170
A(2008)525835

Hank


EDIT: And my copy also "Date stamped" 16.07.2008 too. Same letter. Pen signature, same person.