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

[Ravenheart]

I've had a reply this morning from the British Bankers Association, I wrote to them and highlighted the potential of Phorm and how it could affect the new Banking Code.

They thanked me for my concerns, and have passed my letter on to the trade association for internet banking APACS, and have asked them to reply to me directly.

As soon as I hear any more I'll keep you posted.

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by JackSon

I guess we need a snappy URL for an OIX member name 'n shame webpage. Creative caps on please.

Theinphormer.co.uk?

Spysites?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Theinphormer.co.uk?

Spysites?

I will be keeping a list on privacyonline.org.uk

Alexander Hanff

[Rchivist]

I have sent the following off to my list of BT managers, and posted also on the BT Beta forum Webwise discussion thread.

Start...
BT have publicly stated their confidence on air, and in print, that the Phorm/Webwise system is legal.
They have equally clearly indicated that in their opinion the secret, initially denied, trials of 2006 and 2007 were legal.

In the light of the latest FIPR thinking on Phorm/Webwise http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf which was published yesterday:

Is Phorm/Webwise legal under RIPA 2000?
Is Phorm/Webwise legal under DPA 1998?
Is Phorm/Webwise legal under Fraud Act 2006?
Is Phorm/Webwise exposing ISP's and their users to civil action when they visit websites such as that operated by the Bank of England?

If BT are confident that the answer to the above four questions is still an unequivocal YES, could we please have a firm starting date for the trials of Webwise that were due in mid-March please? The latest prediction I heard was late April, and it's late April now.

Just to focus the mind - here is the relevant extract of the summary paragraph 4, on the first page of the [latest legal analysis from FIPR (Nicholas Bohm)
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

"This paper concludes that deployment by an ISP of the Phorm architecture will
involve the following illegalities (for which ISPs will be primarily liable and for
which Phorm Inc will be liable as an inciter):
• interception of communications, an offence contrary to section 1 of the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
• fraud, an offence contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006
• unlawful processing of sensitive personal data, contrary to the Data
Protection Act 1998
• risks of committing civil wrongs actionable at the suit of website owners
such as the Bank of England."

If we do not get a firm starting date for the trials, can we assume that their is doubt in the minds of BT about the legality of Phorm/Webwise?

If there is no doubt, then why the continual slippage in that trial starting date?

Or can BT simply repeat the public statements about the legality of Phorm?

You will appreciate that in the light of FIPR's report it is no longer simply a matter of our opinions about what we do and don't like. As BT customers, opted in or opted out, we are alarmed at the prospect of being prosecuted, should BT implement this reputedly illegal technology. With 75% of the country's ISP customers potentially affected this is an extremely serious matter.

Also posted on the only current Webwise discussion thread on BT Beta forums, the Q&A thread having been summarily closed down some weeks ago, also posted on Cableforum discussion forum on the same topic.

Please note that I would like to publish any replies to this email on those forums, removing names if requested.
Finish...

I'll come back with any replies I get.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Won't be around much today (unless things here in the hangar prove easier to fix than I think they might be) but before I get the overalls on I'm wondering why The Register hasn't written anything on these latest developments yet?

I'll be posting a full print out of Nicholas Bohm's document to Neil Berkett some time today.

See you all later.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Won't be around much today (unless things here in the hangar prove easier to fix than I think they might be) but before I get the overalls on I'm wondering why The Register hasn't written anything on these latest developments yet?

I'll be posting a full print out of Nicholas Bohm's document to Neil Berkett some time today.

See you all later.

I expect Chris is working on an article. I will be surprised if we don't see something posted today.

Alexander Hanff

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by R Jones

letter sent via writetothem.com to my MEP's,
Neil Parish MEP
Graham Booth MEP
Glyn Ford MEP
Roger Knapman MEP
Graham Watson MEP

Reply received from Roger Knapman's PA, (UKIP) mostly focussing on an anti-European agenda, as per party line, and rather ignoring the main issues.

[Deko]

Guys this was posted to ADVFN MEssage board for PHRM



Goto article no:
Simon Cawkwell - 24 Apr'08 - 10:16 - 1583 of 1592


Gentlemen,

I have been approached by Phorm's PR person, a Simon Rigby of Citigate Dewe Rogerson.

His purpose is to get me to look favourably at Phorm. But, so far, I cannot. The letter that follows may or may not achieve a reply. If so, I will let this board know.

Simon Cawkwell

24th April 2008

Dear Mr Rigby,

I have not yet got hold of this Dr Richard Clayton who, I think, maintains that Phorm's business is unlawful. If he does, I am in no position to judge whether he is right or not.

I think it inconceivable that some sort of nosey creep should be allowed to inspect other people's mail (and that is true of the state let alone Phorm) merely for commercial advantage. And I cannot imagine that any sane ISP user would take a different view. In that sense, Phorm is, to my mind, completely dead.

The opt-in approach is pretty cheeky. And I see no chance of the average Briton tolerating it.After all, why would any sentient human being permit his private affairs to be inspected even if (allegedly) only to commercial advantage? Will he really accept money to have his inbox cluttered up with presumptuous junk mail? I think that only a penniless subjugated peasant would tolerate it.

The opt-out approach is just outright cheek. Any ISP imposing this obligation upon its customers will deeply damage its business.

Where Phorm may be able successfully to get up people's noses is in other jurisdictions/cultures. I simply do not know.

What have I missed out?

If you read the Charles Stanley note, it is undeniably airy fairy. The Canaccord note is just promotion speak and, therefore, entirely worthless in the eyes of the dispassionate investor.


Yours sincerely,
Simon Cawkwell


its the Famous shorter AKA Evil Knievil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Cawkwell
http://www.financial-gurus.com/gurus...imon-Cawkwell/


Much love.

[AlexanderHanff]

They are obviously very concerned about their share price. I can't understand why, I mean it has only dropped about 60% in the last 2 months, they should be celebrating; if we had our way they would already be using their options for toilet paper. Also makes you wonder if/how they managed to persuade Charles Stanley to promote them, few quid in his back pocket maybe?

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 ----------

Bettypoos on iii really makes me laugh:

"They had a really good idea...." the fact that in order for their idea to work they have to break the law seems lost on her.

Tell you what, I have a really good idea to make money quick, maybe Bettypoos can come in on the deal. My plan is, walk into a bank with a shotgun and ask them for all the money in their registers. Should work great. What do you mean it's illegal, it's such a good idea?!?!?!

I bet bettypoos is the one who approached me on the stage directly after the PIA public meeting and claimed only 250 people had signed the PM petition and that I had no right to be at the meeting because I was not representing any official body.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

They are obviously very concerned about their share price. I can't understand why, I mean it has only dropped about 60% in the last 2 months, they should be celebrating; if we had our way they would already be using their options for toilet paper. Also makes you wonder if/how they managed to persuade Charles Stanley to promote them, few quid in his back pocket maybe?

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 ----------

Bettypoos on iii really makes me laugh:

"They had a really good idea...." the fact that in order for their idea to work they have to break the law seems lost on her.

Tell you what, I have a really good idea to make money quick, maybe Bettypoos can come in on the deal. My plan is, walk into a bank with a shotgun and ask them for all the money in their registers. Should work great. What do you mean it's illegal, it's such a good idea?!?!?!

I bet bettypoos is the one who approached me on the stage directly after the PIA public meeting and claimed only 250 people had signed the PM petition and that I had no right to be at the meeting because I was not representing any official body.

Alexander Hanff

For some reason when I read bettypoo's posts it grates at me and dumb blonde shouts out...

Maybe she will volunteer to be a trialist for Phorm I mean with all her share dealings phorm would love insider information on which are the best shares to buy to earn a quick buck..

OK enough of that back to target...

See they didn't reply again seems phormukprteam have been downgraded to spy of the year...

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Bettypoos on iii really makes me laugh:

"They had a really good idea...." the fact that in order for their idea to work they have to break the law seems lost on her.

Tell you what, I have a really good idea to make money quick, maybe Bettypoos can come in on the deal. My plan is, walk into a bank with a shotgun and ask them for all the money in their registers. Should work great. What do you mean it's illegal, it's such a good idea?!?!?!

S(he'd) probably just post the bank's entire T&C.... several times

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Florence

For some reason when I read bettypoo's posts it grates at me and dumb blonde shouts out...

Maybe she will volunteer to be a trialist for Phorm I mean with all her share dealings phorm would love insider information on which are the best shares to buy to earn a quick buck..

OK enough of that back to target...

See they didn't reply again seems phormukprteam have been downgraded to spy of the year...

bettypoos claims they were at the meeting and since the only members of the fairer sex present were all there from privacy groups, I doubt bettypoos was one of them. So it leads me to the conclusion that bettypoos is male.

Alexander Hanff

[NTLVictim]

Just adding Simon Rigby's name to the d-I mean, list of people not to like.

Wouldn't it be a shame if unedited footage of kent slagging off that nice Mr Hanff somehow leaked onto Youtube, Usenet, and a few Bittorrent sites?

[jca111]

Their name is Brettypoos - nothing to do with betty.

I also have a sneaky suspicion I know them from their description about what they do (I used to work in the very field that they currently do) - and it ties in with their nickname and attitude!

Woudn't that be ironic if their browsing/message board habits gave them away when they were trying to be anonymous! I would laugh!

[3x2]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...esses_private/

Not Phorm related but you have to wonder what the same court would think of Phorm

The Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey said that information about a person's use of the internet was so private that police there cannot order ISPs to release surfing details of suspects with a municipal court subpoena. They must receive a grand jury subpoena, it said.

However, when users surf the web from the privacy of their homes, they have reason to expect that their actions are confidential