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

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Interesting that online payments have cropped up. The new banking code takes a lot of the responsibility off the banks and places it firmly on the shoulders of the public with regards to privacy and security.

Under the new code customers will be liable for identity theft/fraud if they do not have:

Upto date Anti-Virus
Upto date firewall
Upto date OS patches

And a whole bunch of other things. I can't wait for the day when someone tries to put in a fraud claim and the Bank say "Sorry but you use a Phorm enabled ISP therefore you have not taken adequate measures to protect your privacy and as such are liable for any losses as a result of the fraud."

Alexander Hanff

This has been a concern of mine since this whole Phorm thing came to light, but I've not really known how best to describe it.

As there would be another tier between user and ISP/bank on a phorm enabled ISP the risk of fraud increses increases, in the event of a substantial increase of fraud on a Phorm enabled ISP could the ISP/Phorm be held accountable?

[mark777]

Originally Posted by unicus

I also thought about this and questioned it here #2176 though I had initially forgotten about certification. After subsequent reading, including this, I have come to the conclusion that using this deep packet equipment would make a 'man-in-the-middle' attack possible. Now if someone working for Phorm were not trustworthy...

This is the "Thick" end of the wedge, the things they could do. We don't trust them, so we think they might. I agree.

We do need to be careful though about how we challenge them now.

We need to differentiate, particulary at the meeting, between this (what they could do) and what the have done and are known to be planning.

Otherwise they will lump all accusations into the same category of "no evidence".

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Draby

@Ravenheart
I suppose all this does then, is establish that you have the "physical" card in your posession and not just the numbers.

Richard.

I must admit when Barclays first said they were introducing it, there was loads of complaints about people not getting the readers or their old debit cards not working in them so they were unable to log into their online banking.

having the little reader isn't too much of a problem, and with the whole privacy debate that the Phorm issue has raised I'm actually pleased that I've got this extra layer of security available.

[AlexanderHanff]

What people need to remember is we only have Phorm's word on how they are going to use the technology and unfortunately that word is tainted not just by their history in Spyware, not just by the unethical behaviour they have displayed in the name of PR (misquoting R Clayton, wikifiddling), not just by the lie they told regarding Privacy International BUT also their patent application and the entry on the ICO data register.

Make no mistake, this technology CAN be used very easily to do anything they want to and with your http traffic (and through man in the middle attacks even https) and the reality is, it would be very very difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove if done correctly.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

I wonder if packets which Phorm phiddle with could now be classified as malphormed packets?

We should come up with a new category for companies like Phorm akin to the phrase used for child abusers. From this point forward I classify Phorm and related technologies as "Privacy Fiddlers"

Alexander Hanff

[Bobby's-Nutz]

Oh before ye all jump down my throat saying he can't use American law in the UK you are wrong, he can, he's american I believe, Russian involvement and we using EU law, under those circumstances any law from any of those countries are allowed into the British jurisdiction under the British 'Conflict of Law' act... Sorry lads but just trying to suss out what the *******'s up to. When a loser won't give up he got something up his sleeve however I still say he don't have the grounds to appeal, 'Victimisation' he could try it but that will only esure his certain imprisonment as we counter claim the same thing.. haaaaaaa

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

What people need to remember is we only have Phorm's word on how they are going to use the technology and unfortunately that word is tainted not just by their history in Spyware, not just by the unethical behaviour they have displayed in the name of PR (misquoting R Clayton, wikifiddling), not just by the lie they told regarding Privacy International BUT also their patent application and the entry on the ICO data register.

Make no mistake, this technology CAN be used very easily to do anything they want to and with your http traffic (and through man in the middle attacks even https) and the reality is, it would be very very difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove if done correctly.

Alexander Hanff

I think this really hits the nail on the head, its what the system they propose
CAN do that scares the sh*t out of me.

Its why it MUST be stopped NOW.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

What people need to remember is we only have Phorm's word on how they are going to use the technology and unfortunately that word is tainted not just by their history in Spyware, not just by the unethical behaviour they have displayed in the name of PR (misquoting R Clayton, wikifiddling), not just by the lie they told regarding Privacy International BUT also their patent application and the entry on the ICO data register.

Make no mistake, this technology CAN be used very easily to do anything they want to and with your http traffic (and through man in the middle attacks even https) and the reality is, it would be very very difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove if done correctly.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

I wonder if packets which Phorm phiddle with could now be classified as malphormed packets?

We should come up with a new category for companies like Phorm akin to the phrase used for child abusers. From this point forward I classify Phorm and related technologies as "Privacy Fiddlers"

Alexander Hanff

Agreed, but the arguments at the moment, particularly on Tuesday, should centre on what they have done (BT trials and 121media history) and what they are planning to do (breach all the laws you have outlined etc).

What they could do needs to be laid out then left alone, as the thin end of the wedge.

I'm just saying concentrate on the things that we know are wrong now, rather than the things that may go wrong in the future. There are strong arguments about what we know now.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by mark777

Agreed, but the arguments at the moment, particularly on Tuesday, should centre on what they have done (BT trials and 121media history) and what they are planning to do (breach all the laws you have outlined etc).

What they could do needs to be laid out then left alone, as the thin end of the wedge.

I'm just saying concentrate on the things that we know are wrong now, rather than the things that may go wrong in the future. There are strong arguments about what we know now.

I will be focusing completely on the 2006/2007 trials whilst making sure to mention which laws would still be broken if they deployed the current model in the present day (Fraud Act 2006, RIPA, Copyright, DPA, PECR).

That doesn't mean man in the middle attacks or any other uses of the technology shouldn't be debated in this thread. I don't recall anyone saying they were going to raise the issue of Man in the Middle attacks at the public meeting.

Of course, if as we expect this is just another PR arena, I doubt I will be given the opportunity to ask any questions, because that would be a really stupid thing for them to do.

With regards the comment someone made about a QC, QCs don't scare me, I have dressed down more than one top legal professional in front of a Judge before now (barristers) and utterly embarrassed them in the process (much to the amusement of the presiding Judge).

Alexander Hanff

[Bobby's-Nutz]

Ok guys beat me up now, Kents boys are looking in and I just put them wise to the 'conflict of law act' ... Bang! That's me blowing my brains out... hehehe...

Bye the ways, wrong again, Phorm can read through your new bank cards, don't you get it yet, they are you as if in person, you sign over everything on trust to them?.

Don't worry it's over, Phorm are finished thanks to the good work the ICO did. Believe me they are done and dusted with no solid grounds for appeal.. They'll try of course but they'll fail in the end coz god is on our side, haaaaaaaaaa...

Hey anyone heard from Bt lately, the silence is killing me... lmfao...

---------- Post added at 23:53 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------

The pr stunt was set up prior to the revised ico page so don't feel intimidated by a bunch of losers and do not play into their evil hands.. I think Bent Kent's gonna use this stuff in his future pr battles in the US.. Play thick and constantly bombard him with questions why he hacked our computers? Hit him hard with what you know but lay off on what you might suspect. Make a mockery of that ******* once and for all.. Be firm about the fact he should be in prison instead of at large still trying his Russian brain washing skills on us... hehehe..

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I will be focusing completely on the 2006/2007 trials whilst making sure to mention which laws would still be broken if they deployed the current model in the present day (Fraud Act 2006, RIPA, Copyright, DPA, PECR).

That doesn't mean man in the middle attacks or any other uses of the technology shouldn't be debated in this thread. I don't recall anyone saying they were going to raise the issue of Man in the Middle attacks at the public meeting.

Of course, if as we expect this is just another PR arena, I doubt I will be given the opportunity to ask any questions, because that would be a really stupid thing for them to do.

With regards the comment someone made about a QC, QCs don't scare me, I have dressed down more than one top legal professional in front of a Judge before now (barristers) and utterly embarrassed them in the process (much to the amusement of the presiding Judge).

Alexander Hanff

On the events page at 80/20 Thinking's website it does say "Panel discussion with audience". Of course, discussions can be misled by the panellists and the chair needs to be seen to be active against such things. Especially as I'm sure there will be people there who will report on any things transpiring that prevent proper discussion of the issues.

If it is just a PR stunt then it will be reported and exposed as such. Spin is always best countered with well presented facts.

I've personally bitchslapped a former Lord Mayor twice (he didn't learn the first time) and one very well known leader in his sector, as well as kicked quite a few backsides elsewhere.

There's plenty of ar5e kicking power here on the forum as we've already seen - titles mean nothing.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

Ok guys beat me up now, Kents boys are looking in and I just put them wise to the 'conflict of law act' ... Bang! That's me blowing my brains out... hehehe...

Bye the ways, wrong again, Phorm can read through your new bank cards, don't you get it yet, they are you as if in person, you sign over everything on trust to them?.

Don't worry it's over, Phorm are finished thanks to the good work the ICO did. Believe me they are done and dusted with no solid grounds for appeal.. They'll try of course but they'll fail in the end coz god is on our side, haaaaaaaaaa...

Hey anyone heard from Bt lately, the silence is killing me... lmfao...

---------- Post added at 23:53 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------

The pr stunt was set up prior to the revised ico page so don't feel intimidated by a bunch of losers and do not play into their evil hands.. I think Bent Kent's gonna use this stuff in his future pr battles in the US.. Play thick and constantly bombard him with questions why he hacked our computers? Hit him hard with what you know but lay off on what you might suspect. Make a mockery of that ******* once and for all.. Be firm about the fact he should be in prison instead of at large still trying his Russian brain washing skills on us... hehehe..

No offence intended bobby, but you need to lay off the nuts. there is no such legislation in the UK called Conflicts of Law Act nor in Europe (that I can find). I am not sure where you are getting the information from but it would appear to be inaccurate.

Furthermore US Law does not set precedents in UK Law -or- European Law (only the High Court can do that) UK Law is normally determined through case law (where it exists).

Russia has nothing to do with this, the offence was committed on UK soil, the company has registered offices in the UK, therefore they fall under the jurisdiction of UK law, not Russian, not US and in most cases not EU. EU law does not supersede sovereign law. EU directives/conventions are ratified into existing UK law. Even in the case of incompatibility with European Convention on Human Rights a Judge (or Jury) cannot be forced to issue a judgement which is compatible; they can issue a judgement with the note that it is incompatible with the ECHR.

Maybe you could try explain exactly what you mean?

Alexander Hanff

[manxminx]

It's interesting to see how the dynamics of the great Phorm PR machine has changed over the past couple of months. First, they were quite proactive, then they became increasingly reactive (to the point where it became an embarrassment both for us and them), until, in the end they were restricted to being web monitors, there just to report back to HQ on what the likes of us were saying. Their PR role has been replaced, Alex having taken over.

It's obvious that Phorm have either sacked their PR machine, or reduced it to one or two people who have been well and truly gagged.

To be honest, the gagging order is probably the first thing the Phorm management team have got right!

I wonder who will be more pleased to say goodbye to the marriage, Phorm, or their PR teams? Did Phorm sack their PR or did the PR walk out? I'd like to think it was the latter. . .

What's been happening over the past few months will be taught in business studies classes for years to come. After all, what better example will there ever be of how NOT to manage a product launch?

[Bobby's-Nutz]

I do have the 'Conflict of Law' act somewhere in print upstairs and with respect if you have no knowledge of the law then keep your mouth shut, after all we are on the same side and I am lost for a reason to appeal the legal decisions already made against Phorm..
Phorm International, 18/20 international, registered offices in many countries, Uk law is prominent here but on legal request you can divert any British court into international law under 'conflict of laws act' .. Oh, it's civil law only pending.. Criminal conflict of law is normally down to parlimentary debate...

I know conflict of law because I used it to win a court case stretching from 1993 - 2001... 3 different courts by the way including the Royal...

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

I do have the 'Conflict of Law' act somewhere in print upstairs and with respect if you have no knowledge of the law then keep your mouth shut, after all we are on the same side and I am lost for a reason to appeal the legal decisions already made against Phorm..
Phorm International, 18/20 international, registered offices in many countries, Uk law is prominent here but on legal request you can divert any British court into international law under 'conflict of laws act' .. Oh, it's civil law only pending.. Criminal conflict of law is normally down to parlimentary debate...

I know conflict of law because I used it to win a court case stretching from 1993 - 2001... 3 different courts by the way including the Royal...

With respect, I do know the law, I have studied it as a hobby and academically for many years, I am even in the process of writing my dissertation on the legal issues with the BT trials of Phorm in 2006/2007 and so far my analysis has been supported by the government and privacy watchdogs, so I can't be that far off the ball. Furthermore, I just put in an application to do a Masters of Law (LL.M) specialising in Privacy, Technology and related Human Rights.

I had a comprehensive analysis of PECR on paper almost an entire week before ICO even bothered to mention it.

As I said, there is no such law in the UK called "Conflict of Law Act" at least not according to OPSI. I was also unable to find such legislation within the EU either. Perhaps if you can provide a reference it might be easier for us to understand what you are talking about.

Alexander Hanff

[piggy]

Originally Posted by Bobby's-Nutz

I do have the 'Conflict of Law' act somewhere in print upstairs and with respect if you have no knowledge of the law then keep your mouth shut, after all we are on the same side and I am lost for a reason to appeal the legal decisions already made against Phorm..
Phorm International, 18/20 international, registered offices in many countries, Uk law is prominent here but on legal request you can divert any British court into international law under 'conflict of laws act' .. Oh, it's civil law only pending.. Criminal conflict of law is normally down to parlimentary debate...

I know conflict of law because I used it to win a court case stretching from 1993 - 2001... 3 different courts by the way including the Royal...

rambling drivel!!! i think someone will have a hangover in the morning (if not you have a more serious problem)