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

[oblonsky]

CALL FOR A TEST CASE

I have received a lukewarm response even from anti-phorm campaigners when I suggested we should make a call on the govt, BT and Phorm to have a test case on the legality of Phorm (to examine all aspects including but not limited to RIPA, DPA, CMA, PECR, CD&P etc).

I wonder if El Reg will make this call on our behalf? Why is it such a bad idea to make this call? Lord West of Spithead already made mention of a possible test case in the house of lords, and I hear from a good friend of mine that FIPR would be willing to work on the anti-Phorm case, although they don't want to pay for it (anyone from FIPR confirm this?).

It would be hard for BT to argue against a test case. If Phorm is illegal, then surely better to find out now? If it's legal as they belive, then what's the worry?

A test case, simple. El Reg - call on UK.gov for a test case - who could argue against this?

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

CALL FOR A TEST CASE

I have received a lukewarm response even from anti-phorm campaigners when I suggested we should make a call on the govt, BT and Phorm to have a test case on the legality of Phorm (to examine all aspects including but not limited to RIPA, DPA, CMA, PECR, CD&P etc).

I wonder if El Reg will make this call on our behalf? Why is it such a bad idea to make this call? Lord West of Spithead already made mention of a possible test case in the house of lords, and I hear from a good friend of mine that FIPR would be willing to work on the anti-Phorm case, although they don't want to pay for it (anyone from FIPR confirm this?).

It would be hard for BT to argue against a test case. If Phorm is illegal, then surely better to find out now? If it's legal as they belive, then what's the worry?

A test case, simple. El Reg - call on UK.gov for a test case - who could argue against this?

Rather premature when they haven't finished testing it yet. Would you crashtest a car before adding the airbags ?

[Rchivist]

I think they may have installed a teensy weensy bit of hardware as well. Like several thousand pounds worth of DPI hardware on BT Retail's side of the line. And all my data has to go through it,

It wasn't there three years ago (I think). It's there now. It'll be gone soon. I use the word "soon" advisedly. It's a BT word.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Except for a big dent in BT's reputation, Phorm losing millions off their share value, the ICO and the UK government being forced to explain their actions to the EU Commissioner and the shareholders who have lost a fortune, BT staff being forced to lie to customers...

...wait a minute - none of that would have happened if we hadn't discovered the secret trials.

That means it's all our fault. Oops.

What is the most disturbing is none are willing to be truely transparant, they all are hiding something in the closet.

1, BT are not 100% sure or Emma wouldn't have been so uncomfortable answering the questions. She did put on a good show but anyone can see certain questions made her feel uncomfortable. Leads people to belive there is some economy with truth possibly.

2. Actions since the trials hit the news leads most to think there is something not totally legal going on since at the start, all kept passing the book on this. Government, BT, Phorm, Police and the abscence of Privacy International would make most think there was large payments going around to make some look the other way.

3. Refusal by some to give all information on a FOI almost seals this method of thinking, that someone has something to hide. The excuse of PRIVACY doesn't cut when it includes that our Privacy is placed at risk.

4.Phorm's past history doesn't improve the situation since the links to illegal activity is very strong.

5. BT failed even after this was in the public eye to address the situation, with customers or shareholders.

[Dephormation]

Still, good news about European Commission eh?

UK.gov misses deadline on EU Phorm probe

"BERR's spokeswoman said she was unable to explain why the government has not responded yet."

What on earth might that mean?

Is it the same reason why the Home Office won't respond? Here too?
Or the same reason why West Mercia Police won't respond?

So what's going on?

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Rather premature when they haven't finished testing it yet. Would you crashtest a car before adding the airbags ?

Either you're incredibly naive or this is indeed a rather subtle and highly intelligent point. I will credit you with the latter and say that indeed it could be hard to try a technology in court when the technology itself is subject to change.

HOWEVER - it should still be possible to test the principle without finalising the technology, so I disagree with your point. The principle - that a piece of equipment sits in the ISP and monitors web browsing habits is illegal plain and simple - is not dependent on the final implementation or even on the method for opting in or out (it will be, in this instance at least, to quote Kent, a red herring).

I firmly believe that even with consent, Phorm will be illegal under RIPA, and CD&P, because it doesn't get the consent of the "other" party in the transmission. This is my view, IANAL, and it is in line with FIPRs view.

---------- Post added at 17:51 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

What is the most disturbing is none are willing to be truely transparant, they all are hiding something in the closet.

1, BT are not 100% sure or Emma wouldn't have been so uncomfortable answering the questions. She did put on a good show but anyone can see certain questions made her feel uncomfortable. Leads people to belive there is some economy with truth possibly.

Sorry Florence I diagree - I don't think she put on a good show. On live TV she said, in relation to the two secret trials BT have admitted to, "We absolutely were not spying on our customers..."

Now, considerind that the participants to the trials didn't know about the trials, and that the trials covertly watched their web browsing habits, anyone with a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary could have something to say about Ms Sanderson's assertion here.

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

The principal - that a piece of equipment sits in the ISP and monitors web browsing habits - is not dependent on the final implementation or even on the method for opting in or out (it will be, in this instance at least, to quote Kent, a red herring).

I firmly believe that even with consent, Phorm will be illegal under RIPA, and CD&P, because it doesn't get the consent of the "other" party in the transmission. This is my view, IANAL, and it is in line with FIPRs view.

.

Ah, but the principal is surely long established that monitoring anyone is legal as long as they are happy to be monitored.
Think you'll have to find a bit more specific complaint to hang a legal case on.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Ah, but the principal is surely long established that monitoring anyone is legal as long as they are happy to be monitored.
Think you'll have to find a bit more specific complaint to hang a legal case on.

The principle of RIPA is that both parties must consent to interception before interception (without a warrant) is legal.

Another principle is that it is technically not possible to pre-filter anyone's IP stream to remove all personal communications, with a multitude of web-based messaging services, therefore if Phorm captures communications it requires the consent of both parties. Not just one person. Not even just the remote website, but BOTH parties to EACH AND EVERY MESSAGE.

In my opinion, IANAL, Phorm can never be legal under RIPA, although a clever lawyer may put an opposing case and only a court can decide, hence my call for a test case.

Hammy - if you think it's legal, then let's have a test case and prove it. END.

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

The principle of RIPA is that both parties must consent to interception before interception (without a warrant) is legal.

Another principle is that it is technically not possible to pre-filter anyone's IP stream to remove all personal communications, with a multitude of web-based messaging services, therefore if Phorm captures communications it requires the consent of both parties. Not just one person. Not even just the remote website, but BOTH parties to EACH AND EVERY MESSAGE.

In my opinion, IANAL, Phorm can never be legal under RIPA, although a clever lawyer may put an opposing case and only a court can decide, hence my call for a test case.

Hammy - if you think it's legal, then let's have a test case and prove it. END.

If you want to sue, off you go and have a bash. Nothing stopping you except Webwise hasn't been introduced yet, so you'd be wasting your time and money as the Court would not be able to find even the semblance of an infringement for you to sue about.

Interesting that everytime there is an important news story or other piece of info certain people do their best to divert our attention.

This is the story that they are trying to bury.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

If you want to sue, off you go and have a bash. Nothing stopping you except Webwise hasn't been introduced yet, so you'd be wasting your time and money as the Court would not be able to find even the semblance of an infringement for you to sue about.

You know full well I can't sue as a private individual until the service is launched and a private prosecution under RIPA is hampered by 1(8)(a).

That is why I'm calling on BT, uk.gov to have a TEST CASE BEFORE the tech is rolled out. Perfectly possible. That way, BT will find out BEFORE they launch the service if FIPRs argument is valid.

They perhaps could also agree with gov before the test case that the slate would be wiped clean about previous trials. I'd be happy with that, although I know many out there are baying for blood.

Anyway, I've got you down as an intelligent type, so I'm sure you get where I'm coming from.

[phormwatch]

Guys -

Stop wasting time with hammy.

Why has the mainstreams press been so disgraceful? Is it time we write up a formal letter to send to newspapers? Time to protest? Start a petition?

Any ideas for doing something?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Interesting that everytime there is an important news story or other piece of info certain people do their best to divert our attention.

This is the story that they are trying to bury.

Yes - lets stick to the issues, and not go round and round and round again.

The only problem is that at the moment there are so MANY things happening at the same time, all of which are incredibly bad news for this new technology and those who are trying to introduce it and have probably illegally trialled it.

interception
interference
copyright
privacy of data
consent issues
misleading trading terms and misleading advertising
congressional questions
EU questions
delays to trials
AGM embarrassment
mainstream media coverage growing daily
BT getting desperately tetchy and trigger happy
BT Group plc beginning to spring little leaks and creak at the inter-group seams, mostly at the expense of BT Retail
VM being gradually brought into the spotlight
Businesses being informed of how it will affect them
Parliament getting a head of steam up for the new session.

No - I wouldn't want to be employed defending Webwise/Phorm by BT Retail or Phorm at the moment, not for all the bonuses in the City OR the tea in China.

Lots of issues to work on, none of them involving revolving wheels.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Interesting that everytime there is an important news story or other piece of info certain people do their best to divert our attention.

This is the story that they are trying to bury.

Yes, only about 4-5 hours of prime forum time wasted on arguments we have all heard and seen before on this forum by the same poster. EU releases something we have been waiting to read and what are we debating? Not that letter, its unimportant
I despair at our gullibility at times.

I prefer page 2
showing the actual EC correspondence

[Bonglet]

At least the EC seems to be standing up for human rights more than can be said about any tory or labour gov ever have or will do, this whole story shows how incompetent most government departments are now and how they try to cover it over .