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

[labougie]

So, why don't we all move to https? There's a commercial opportunity, if ever I saw one!

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by labougie

So, why don't we all move to https? There's a commercial opportunity, if ever I saw one!

And we can all wear burkas to defeat CCTV. I'm not keen. And I don't want to have to pay for https just to have the protection that the law says I already have with http.

Nope -my website content is my intellectual property, and it does not belong to my ISP or to Kent Ertugrul. He may be able to see it - but that is all. He can see it but he has no right to copy it, make derivative works from it, and no right to commercially exploit it without my consent and without paying ME the appropriate amount of dosh.

[AlexanderHanff]

OK NoDPI is back up had some problems with the page caching plugin which is now disabled until I can figure wtf happened.

Alexander Hanff

[davethejag]

Originally Posted by R Jones

The ISPA used the postman analogy a few months ago to say that they couldn't be expected to monitor content to detect filesharers because that would be like opening letters and it was illegal - and anyway they couldn't do it (DPI).

Now they have major members doing exactly that, who say it IS legal.

Hi, It has been mentioned in the past on Cable Forum (and loads of other websites) that ISP's have given out personal information about people that have dowloaded a "Pinball" game and then they have been pursued by a Legal firm called Davenport Lyons. They have asked for money from them or they will be taken to court. Here is a link about it, there is loads more if you search the internet.

http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught...w-or-go-broke/

dave.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

OK NoDPI is back up had some problems with the page caching plugin which is now disabled until I can figure wtf happened.

Alexander Hanff

I'm seeing a blank home page Alexander - http://nodpi.org/ - it is loading the html file but there's only a few standard tags in there and no content. I was looking for the "Leaked BT Document" just now to add to my complaint they are working on...

PS - Stick to your guns on the latest BT demand to remove the comments you have made questioning if they have misled the ICO.

Hank

OK here

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

OK here

Thanks - ok here now too... www.nodpi.org

Hank

[AlexanderHanff]

Yeah I was experimenting trying a few things, it is back now.

http://cryptome.org <- I never knew that was there til just now.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Alex don't give in on this Emma is desperate I think she has realised with Ian moving up she might be the fall guy or women, if this goes bad for BT.

Personally I think Ian also brought BT's name into disrepute thinking about adding Phorm to the network so both should resign or AGM vote a no confidance in them.
Sadly the last might not be that easy since they increased the company shares to almost match the voting shareholders shares. This is a sign of a company desp.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by R Jones

And we can all wear burkas to defeat CCTV. I'm not keen. And I don't want to have to pay for https just to have the protection that the law says I already have with http.

Nope -my website content is my intellectual property, and it does not belong to my ISP or to Kent Ertugrul. He may be able to see it - but that is all. He can see it but he has no right to copy it, make derivative works from it, and no right to commercially exploit it without my consent and without paying ME the appropriate amount of dosh.

Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).

There was also the issue of 'hidden' URLs not designed to be linked to. And of course the blacklists of webmail services, and agent types that we have never been allowed to see.

Maybe we should re-visit some of the original key issues lest they are forgotten.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Florence

Alex don't give in on this Emma is desperate I think she has realised with Ian moving up she might be the fall guy or women, if this goes bad for BT.

Personally I think Ian also brought BT's name into disrepute thinking about adding Phorm to the network so both should resign or AGM vote a no confidance in them.
Sadly the last might not be that easy since they increased the company shares to almost match the voting shareholders shares. This is a sign of a company desp.

Just a comment & definitely not aimed at anyone, don't forget that BT & Phorm have been planning this for 2-3 Years, so watch out for Posters/Supporters who claim to be on your side, but slowly try to sideline the debate.

After the Leaked Report, I have noticed the possible re-immergence of some of these "dog in the mangers", trying some damage limitation around the WWW.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

[QUOTE=vicz;34570098]Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).

In order to guarantee that they have not visited a Password Protected Site, I believe they would have to look at the Form Fields.

I thought I read or heard in one of the interviews, that this is something this system is supposed to avoid? (could be wrong though, it's difficult to keep up with this thread & others.)

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Just a comment & definitely not aimed at anyone, don't forget that BT & Phorm have been planning this for 2-3 Years, so watch out for Posters/Supporters who claim to be on your side, but slowly try to sideline the debate.

After the Leaked Report, I have noticed the possible re-immergence of some of these "dog in the mangers", trying some damage limitation around the WWW.

Exactly so that is what happened on the BT beta forum and finnished with bans an thread closure but thanks to the few that remained they kept it rolling and I am pleased to see that it is once again gaining momentum .Many thanks to the many contributers to all the main forums especially the cross posters as it gives a more united appearance to those who are against this privacy intrusion.

Where can I but an anorak anyone?

Tarquin

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

Exactly so that is what happened on the BT beta forum and finnished with bans an thread closure but thanks to the few that remained they kept it rolling and I am pleased to see that it is once again gaining momentum .Many thanks to the many contributers to all the main forums especially the cross posters as it gives a more united appearance to those who are against this privacy intrusion.

Where can I but an anorak anyone?

Tarquin

To protect you from the crossfire of BT/ phorm best look at army and navy stores sure they will have something with bullet proof vests attached

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by vicz

Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).

There was also the issue of 'hidden' URLs not designed to be linked to. And of course the blacklists of webmail services, and agent types that we have never been allowed to see.

Maybe we should re-visit some of the original key issues lest they are forgotten.

Nope - I've had no answers on that. They have said they won't do it, "and of course BT is an honourable company" so of course I believe them (Julius Caesar, apologies to Brutus, at least he's dead and won't sue me for defamation).

Of course you can just copy the details of the official ADMISSION that Phorm were hosting the contact page, which several of us have received, and the Dephormation logs about bt.com cookies, and the details of the overseas hosting, and the lack of listings of US partners on Safe Harbor, and then ask if all that was explained to the ICO - and I suspect the correspondence might dry up - or end with the "it's all legal cos Ernst and Young said so". And Ernst and Young of course are honourable men too, just got some dodgy friends and a few US judges who don't like them.

Originally Posted by vicz

Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).

In order to guarantee that they have not visited a Password Protected Site, I believe they would have to look at the Form Fields.

I thought I read or heard in one of the interviews, that this is something this system is supposed to avoid? (could be wrong though, it's difficult to keep up with this thread & others.)

Yes, they claim not to look at form fields. But then of course if that is turned into an http GET request, (like on a google search box) then they DO look at that, because they have admitted collecting google search strings that way.

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

Exactly so that is what happened on the BT beta forum and finnished with bans an thread closure but thanks to the few that remained they kept it rolling and I am pleased to see that it is once again gaining momentum .Many thanks to the many contributers to all the main forums especially the cross posters as it gives a more united appearance to those who are against this privacy intrusion.

Where can I but an anorak anyone?

Tarquin

What about anoraks as the official uniform for the demo?

[AlexanderHanff]

Added a few things to the NoDPI website including a Poll on whether or not people think BT should be prosecuted. Please complete the poll.

Privacy Policy is now up also.

Can someone who has a forum account please check what cookies you have on your system for NoDPI.Org

You should have no more than 2-3 cookies from the site as follows:

Poll Cookie (only if you participate in a poll)

Name voted_2
Value 6
Host nodpi.org
Path /
Secure No
Expires Wed, 20 May 2009 16:48:31 GMT (that's my expiry date yours will be different)

Login Cookie (if you are registered for the forums)

Name wordpress_[some hash]
Value username%[some hash]
Host nodpi.org
Path /
Secure No
Expires At End Of Session

Test Cookie

Name wordpress_test_cookie
Value WP+Cookie+check
Host nodpi.org
Path /
Secure No
Expires At End Of Session

If people can let me know what they get for situations where they are not registered members and have not taken part in a poll, it will help me to confirm the cookie policy, which I will add to the privacy policy.

Thanks

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Just going for a bit of a nap, I will be back later.