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

[bluecar1]

you have to love BT,

not a scooby, have they

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

you have to love BT,

not a scooby, have they

At the moment the list includes:

loss of BT Webwise http://webwise.bt.com servers when Fasthosts went down (now back)

loss of BT Webwise www.webwise.bt.com servers in Houston - still down
broken links all over their site because of the BT Webwise pages changing to php but links not being updated from old *.html format

BT webwise contact forms sending contact form data via ww3.phorm.com or 121media.com complete with BT customer details and bt.com userid full email address because of poor cookie security on bt.com

reorganising the hosting and branding of the BT Webwise contact forms into custhelp.com in a panic last weekend but not solving the cookie problem

having overseas US partners for the BT Webwise and customer help operation, but neglecting to get them to sign up to the Safe Harbor agreement (Phorm, 121Media, ThePlanet.com, RightNowTech, GoDaddy)

Webwise trials about three months delayed, each time a date is given they don't make it in time.

No answers to any of the above or at least, none that they care to make public or even tell their customers.

Yes - I think you could say - they don't have a scooby.

[Florence]

How many BT shares will be in our control I will be representing 220

[Dephormation]

Forgive me if this has already been noted.

This reply to Earl of Northesk refers to a PDF file I hadn't seen before.

http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf (previously, I was only aware of this extract http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm). The text seems identical.

What is the Home Office link to cryptome.org? Why do Home Office documents seem to 'magically' appear on this site and nowhere else? (not even the Home Office own FoI pages).

The reply to the Earl of Northesk states
"However, a copy of that note has been published at http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf."

Published? That site is registered in the USA. Cryptome, 251 West 89th Street , New York. What about the Home Office site for heavens sake?

Pete.

[Fluffykins]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

* * * ICO will NOT take action over the 2007 trials * * *

The ICO have written to me in relation to the complaint I had made about the 2007 trials (re: BT intercepted my communications - told me I had a virus)

So: One had reason to be suspicious of unusual activity on one's Internet connection.

One had sought advice from one's provider (BT)

That advice had been that one had a virus or had experienced some other failure

BT had, for whatever reason, NOT advised that one had been used in any kind of trial programme and there may be otherwise unexplained activity on one's connection.

BT had, for whatever reason, NOT advised that the efects seen were due to the workings of the trial programme.

One had, as a response to the advice from BT specifically given in answer to one's questions, spent money on professional services to diagnose and correct the fault, on the basis of the information from BT.

This money was needlessly wasted.

One has therefore suffered a demonstrable material loss as a result of BT's activities.

Sue the buggers!

[Dephormation]

What the **** are the Home Office doing publishing documents on Cryptome?

"Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those."

I feel another FoI request, and a letter to my MP flying out of the printer.

The Home Office should not be using Cryptome.org as their publishing mechanism.

Pete.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Forgive me if this has already been noted.

This reply to Earl of Northesk refers to a PDF file I hadn't seen before.

http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf (previously, I was only aware of this extract http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm). The text seems identical.

What is the Home Office link to cryptome.org? Why do Home Office documents seem to 'magically' appear on this site and nowhere else? (not even the Home Office own FoI pages).

The reply to the Earl of Northesk states
"However, a copy of that note has been published at http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf."

Published? That site is registered in the USA. Cryptome, 251 West 89th Street , New York. What about the Home Office site for heavens sake?

Pete.

You also need to find out whether this Website is covered under the Safe Harbor Rules, if not then I think a direct complaint to the Relevant Minister is necessary!

[Florence]

fluffykins I am sure BT will get the message since their share prices are falling aswell as Phorm and some shareholders are aobut to start asking questions BT would rather they didn't.

Already had a few email replies from Ian at BT just waiting for the reply he said Emma would send me if it fails to arive will contact him again asking why.

[Frank Rizzo]

Dephormation: cryptome were not leaked that information. The site is just referencing a post made on the chiark mailing list here:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/

The message is in the March 2008 archive.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

fluffykins I am sure BT will get the message since their share prices are falling aswell as Phorm and some shareholders are aobut to start asking questions BT would rather they didn't.

Already had a few email replies from Ian at BT just waiting for the reply he said Emma would send me if it fails to arive will contact him again asking why.

I hope those attending INside the shareholder meeting are well briefed as to the tactics that are likely to be used by the board to avoid any difficult questions and even remove those who may be thought to be disrupting the proceedings.

I suggest contact with other "protest" groups like Greenpeace who have experience of such things at oil company AGM's or those who have disrupted Bank AGMs. You have to decide whether you want to "ask the questions" or just get bounced out of the meeting in a publicity worthy way, or simply be out-manouevered by the board, in a way that is not at all news-worthy.

I'm sure they will have some tips about how to get the result you are after.

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by Wildie

you know what they keep on saying if you got nothing to hide why worry about it all, who ever came up with that spin needs to wake up cos now its spread about and taken as the norm it`s already to late.

The usual attack by one of the drones is "Have you got something to hide?"

Answer: "Yes my dignity, you obviously don't have any"

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------







WATCH THIS IF YOU DARE!

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

I just watched the 1st hour. I feel you are dead right about the apathy of people leading to their virtual slavery. The apathetic response of many people both on and offline to the dpi for profit issue has made me dispair at times.

You should try and force yourself to watch the 2nd and 3rd parts of the presentation. Episode 3 is mostly a Q & A session which is very interesting.


Privacy is Dead: Get Over It presentation given to the 2600.com-HOPE conference

Presented by Steven Rambam, licensed private investigator


Part1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1634316293369601334&q=&hl=en

Part2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7465299647843576329&q=&hl=en

Part3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5301393266084289975&q=&hl=en



!Warning! Video hosted on the enemies server, and they will profile you! ( use a proxy)

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

The usual attack by one of the drones is "Have you got something to hide?"

I've said this before, I think that's slander...any lawyers reading this?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Dephormation: cryptome were not leaked that information.

They must have been leaked that info, else how would they have it?

Take your point about the earlier mention in the ukcrypto lists.

Never the less, the wording of the reply to Earl of Northesk's question suggests that the Home Office are aware the document was published to Cryptome, even referring the Earl of Northesk to it, yet the same document is not published on their own FoI pages.

I'd like an explanation please.

Update; Re-reading ukcrypto... So this doc was allegedly initially circulated by Simon Watkin, but not published on the HO FoI site. It magically 'appears' on Cryptome, and the HO now refer enquiries to Cryptome? Hmmm.
Update 2; 'HEAD' request to Cryptome suggests it was last updated Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:38:37, GMT shortly before it was mentioned on the UK Crypto mailing list.

Pete.

[bluecar1]

?

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadPhormula
The usual attack by one of the drones is "Have you got something to hide?"


I've said this before, I think that's slander...any lawyers reading this?

my answer is "NO i have nothing to hide, I JUST OBJECT TO BEING SPIED ON"

peter

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

You should try and force yourself to watch the 2nd and 3rd parts of the presentation. Episode 3 is mostly a Q & A session which is very interesting.

Sorry BF I meant i'd only just watched the 1st hr. Intend to watch tthe others when i've got time. SCARY STUFF!