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

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ah apologies, I was referring to the Phorm system with the biblical reference as a means to illustrate doomishly the potential for control and/or the possibility for abuse I wonder if the internet will ever become our only means to buy and sell...

Not so sure about that but that article about OFCOMs vision for the future and "in body networks" sure has got me thinking that in the future we will no longer use cash and will pay for everything using a body implant of some kind.

Going to go to make my tin foil hat now so I am ready LOL

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

You've got it..!

You can claim as much or as little as you like. And stay within the limits of the small claims court (initially).

Long term we've been chatting over on badphorm about a community billing system (like Peforming Rights)... creative people join and get a royalty cheque every month.

If you run a big site, eg cable forum, with thousands and thousands of hits a day... you need to talk to a proper lawyer because you could be due a very very big cheque.



Pete.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 ----------

One last push please, especially welcome clicks from talktalk users... haven't had any so far (or the script needs a twiddle). If you've clicked already, please click again, a few times for good measure...

http://www.dephormation.org.uk:8080/..._cdr/usage.php
http://www.dephormation.org.uk:8080/...ge.php?debug=y

To recap, this page demonstrates the ability to log royalty billing information for Phorming ISPs. The debug link sets a temporary Phormalike UID cookie (won't opt you into Phorm or anything nasty like that, don't worry) used to mimic Phormed users.

No invoices will follow.

I plan to provide public code shortly. Then retire to the Bahamas on the income from my web site (at £100/page impression for unauthorised commercial copyright violation).

many thanks.
Pete

Since Port 8080 is also a recognized Web Server Port I would assume that Phorm may well also try to remove any such cookie from this Port as or when the their system is tested.
It might be wise to test on other ports as well!

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by OF1975

.....using a body implant of some kind.

Darn it. We'll all have big boobs if they get their way

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Darn it. We'll all have big boobs if they get their way

Dilli may not necessarily see that as a problem...

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Since Port 8080 is also a recognized Web Server Port I would assume that Phorm may well also try to remove any such cookie from this Port as or when the their system is tested.
It might be wise to test on other ports as well!

They can't win (or be allowed to win)

They damn themselves if they do; let me explain why.

And so I move to 8088. And they start fiddling that about too. So I move to 8083. Or 7080. Or 6080. Today's value is 4080. Tomorrow will be 2080.

These guys haven't got a hope. So they start reading all traffic to try and suppress their leaking cookies? I can rewrite their cookie client side as '2008-05-11=PETESf4frjesa23a$FsVmH44e||COPY". Today. Tomorrow I'll write it as 'PETES=2008-05-11COPYf4frjesa23a$FsVmH44e||". Day after I apply a ROT13 algorithm. Day after that I split it, and join first x chars to last y chars.

And even if, they filter all traffic, all ports, accurately remove only their UIDs. including the rewritten and encoded copies I try to make.

Guess what? I sue them anyway using the evidence of BT/Virgin/TalkTalk visits. And they can dispute the bill on the basis of their actual usage (which I will compare with the stats they give advertisers saying "99% of our customers are signed up to Phorm").

They won't escape the royalty bill. Particularly so if I can show they are maliciously concealing the usage to avoid the liabilty. That will look very silly in court. "Are you trying to conceal your usage?" "Err yes" "Scorched earth on your house".

They really are screwed (in the engineering fasteners sense) by copyright. Utterly screwed. They might not realise it yet, but without a doubt, they're screwed.

Pete.

[BadPhormula]

Anti-Phorm Campaign





http://www.antiphormcampaign.org.uk/page0002.htm

[Wildie]

Just filled int he BT question thingy nice little bit of text in the box ref to them not answering anything on webise or phorm and locking off Q&A threads about it.
bet it end up virtual trashcan

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

[Bobcat]

Originally Posted by Wildie

Just filled int he BT question thingy nice little bit of text in the box ref to them not answering anything on webise or phorm and locking off Q&A threads about it.
bet it end up virtual trashcan

I did the same earlier and politely but firmly made my thoughts on the subject known. Especially mentioned that having staff (Adam Liversage) start a Q&A forum and then not A any Q's was a rather pointless and frustrating exercise and would they mind not doing it in the future as it rather upset their paying customers. As with yours, I expect it went straight in the bin. Ah well, every little bit ....

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

You don't have to do that Florence. Technology is available to us all, and that means we can build our own Internet without wiretap surveillance. It's just a network and that means we can build our own world wide interconnected network. All you need are a few determined people and some routing gear. The wires can be optical, RF wireless, fibre, copper, satellite... How do you think Africa is going to have widespread internet? through homebrew mesh networks.

Of course a simpler network that uses the existing system (while we build a new one) is the TOR network. We need more people willing to become 'exit nodes'.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29 [ LINK ]

http://www.torproject.org/ [ LINK ]

Tor is not the be all and end all of security. There have already been cases in the US and Germany where exit nodes were forced to give up their logs to the authorities.

The danger of tor is most of the exit nodes are out of UK jurisdiction and therefore subject to different laws. And of course government agencies and commercial ventures can easily setup exit nodes without your knowledge.

Tor also causes significant latency on your connection (and I mean significant) so it is not ideal under any circumstances. Furthermore wtf should we have to jump into sneakernets just to ensure our privacy, the law and our rights under those laws are supposed to do that.

Instead of jumping to Tor people should be fighting the principles of privacy erosion. I have been working on some stuff over the past couple of days which I can't disclose as of yet but hopefully early next week I should have some pretty big news from a publicity standpoint.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:12 ----------

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

It's quite easy really. Using existing PSTN phonelines, this is how the Internet started. A 56K modem is connected to the telephone line and a Linux server is setup with mgetty and pppd. IP over serial cable was what we used before broadband! To be an Internet provider all you need are a bank of telephone lines a number of servers and a thicker/faster cable to connect to the next upsteam Internet provider. And with the LLU (local loop unbundling) you to can become a communications provider.

Running a VPN based darknet on your existing broadband service is far easier and far cheaper, I have run several in the past with full domain name resolution and custom TLDs. But as I said above, we should not have to resort to sneakernets or darknets in order to be able to communicate "freely" (as in liberty not beer), by going underground all we do is turn our backs on the problem instead of fixing it.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

...hopefully early next week I should have some pretty big news from a publicity standpoint.

<SNIP>

Running a VPN based darknet on your existing broadband service is far easier and far cheaper, I have run several in the past with full domain name resolution and custom TLDs. But as I said above, we should not have to resort to sneakernets or darknets in order to be able to communicate "freely" (as in liberty not beer), by going underground all we do is turn our backs on the problem instead of fixing it.

Alexander Hanff

Oooh - looking forward to hearing what you've been up to Alex... hope we don't have to wait toooo long (we've been doing too much waiting already, not for you, but for others and you know what I mean... videos, PIA, BT trials...) - this is waiting I'm hoping turns out to be well worth it (especially if your past work was anything at all to judge by!!) - Can't wait

Good point on the 'going underground' suggestion. It is attractive but dead right that it is something nobody should even have to consider, not yet anyway, there's plenty of obstacles for old Kent to get over first and I trust you're just finding more nice big things to put in his way...

Hank

[Wild Oscar]

Originally Posted by Wild Oscar

I just stumbled into this via another web-site ... https://www.relakks.com/ ..

I posted about this back on page 408, but it got swallowed up in the 'heat of battle' .. I don't know anybody had a chance to have a look ... it might be useful as an anti-phorm measure!

any thoughts folks?

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Tor is not the be all and end all of security. There have already been cases in the US and Germany where exit nodes were forced to give up their logs to the authorities.

The danger of tor is most of the exit nodes are out of UK jurisdiction and therefore subject to different laws. And of course government agencies and commercial ventures can easily setup exit nodes without your knowledge.

Tor also causes significant latency on your connection (and I mean significant) so it is not ideal under any circumstances. Furthermore wtf should we have to jump into sneakernets just to ensure our privacy, the law and our rights under those laws are supposed to do that.

Instead of jumping to Tor people should be fighting the principles of privacy erosion. I have been working on some stuff over the past couple of days which I can't disclose as of yet but hopefully early next week I should have some pretty big news from a publicity standpoint.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:12 ----------



Running a VPN based darknet on your existing broadband service is far easier and far cheaper, I have run several in the past with full domain name resolution and custom TLDs. But as I said above, we should not have to resort to sneakernets or darknets in order to be able to communicate "freely" (as in liberty not beer), by going underground all we do is turn our backs on the problem instead of fixing it.

Alexander Hanff

Agreed there are problems with TOR.

but... with regard to your later comments.

It sounds like running for the hills the way you describe it. Laws can be broken, 128bit encryption cannot. Phorm is a wake up call and you are fighting to slow them down (and I sincerely wish you the best of luck) but those sneaky parasites will never stop exploiting this open system. Look what Mark Klein uncovered at AT&T if you don't believe they will break the law. What happens when you throw the law in their face and take them to court, they lie, they get away with it on a technicality, then they modify the law. Encryption will STOP them dead, and when they outlaw encryption we will resort to encrypted steganography.

It's not turning our backs on the problem it's finding ways to guarantee the communications have not been intercepted and looked at by unwanted parties. Even if you managed to get privacy laws to stop Phorm I doubt it will stop some devious entity out there from exploiting this open system.

[pseudonym]

I'm not convinced TOR is a good workaround - If you wanted to test a system like webwise, then it seems to me a free public proxy or a TOR exit node where you would find lots of "volunteers" could be a good place to start.

The javascript leaks from the 2006 tests contained a variable that appeared to indicate the ISP, and one of the plain text ones that cropped up was "PUBLICPROXY".

See the javascript in this forum post:- http://www.teens411.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=971