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

[AlexanderHanff]

What a BUNCH of BS! I just got this email back from the PM Petitions Web Team:

Hi,

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Duplicate - this is similar to and/or overlaps with an
existing petition or petitions

Further information: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BTCrimina...hKUBpe7FzAMWa4

You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'Order the
Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings against BT for
their secret trial of Phorm in July 2007'

BT have admitted to running secret trials of Phorm technology
in July 2007 and have further admitted to lying to the media,
press and their customers when questioned about this at the
time.

In carrying out this trial without receiving consent from their
customers and the web sites they visited, BT appear to be in
criminal breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000; as this (as defined by the Act) is classified as an
Unlawful Interception.

The number of counts for this offence potentially runs into
millions dependent on how many communications they intercepted
over the period of the trial.

Whether the data was discarded or anonymised after the fact is
irrelevant and does not alter the fact that all these
interceptions were in fact Unlawful as defined by the Act.

-- the ePetitions team

How the hell is my petition -anything- like the original ISPPHORM petition? Not impressed at all. My petition is asking for direct action by the Home Office to start criminal proceedings against BT, the ISPPHORM petition is asking the government to intervene and stop Phorm from being deployed. The two are both very very different in their goals and purpose.

Time to go on a ranting spree...

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 03:13 ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 ----------

My reply:

Hello,

I think you actually need to read the ISPPHORM petition. It is completely different in its purpose to the petition I added on Friday; my petition is asking the PM to ask the Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings against BT for running criminally illegal trials of Phorm in July 2007, the ISPPHORM petition has the purpose of asking the PM to stop Phorm from being deployed in UK ISPs -in the future-. They are both entirely different.

I have published your response on the following URL:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post1951.html

I can guarantee you it is going to cause an absolute outrage and I will personally be writing to the PM himself by registered post to complain about the decision to reject this petition. It amounts to nothing more than trying to protect BT executives from prosecution and it WILL NOT be tolerated. Could I ask you how many shares of BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and Phorm you have in your stock portfolio or do I need to put in a Freedom of Information Act Request for those details?

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

thats outrageous, i wonder if they were running it past their lawyers today given you got the reply so late, is there other options open to force this through i wonder?

rememeber the date though, perhaps they thought it might be fun to fool around....

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Could I ask you how many shares of BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and Phorm you have in your stock portfolio or do I need to put in a Freedom of Information Act Request for those details?

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

And what about all those cushy, lucrative part-time directorships at BT so beloved of government ministers? (Patricia Hewitt....) Maybe it's time someone took a close look at the Parliamentary Members Register of Interests and compiled a list of exactly who has a finger in the Phorm/BT/VM/TT pie?

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by TraxData

Although this isnt meant to be public, and im not giving dates out or who was involved for various reasons but....there was a meeting about VM's future with phorm not so long ago

Oooh you tease

---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 ----------

The rejection of Alex's petition highlights that some people simply don't understand the whole Phorm issue. As already stated the two petitions are completely different and I suspect the government has taken this step to protect BT.

Mind you government bodies don't have a good record of late with regard to privacy of data.

[Yozzer]

Sadly, writing to anybody in the government about pretty much anything is not going to work. I have a rough justice type site and the feeback I have had over the years has shown that the ability to make legitimate complaints about most things has been turned into a sham.
There have been government reports about the situation, but the bottom line is that the various Ombudsmans and departments set up to fend off, (for years if necessary), complaints by the public, has become honed to perfection.
Each minister has a department to handle such letters, so if you want a reply (of sorts), you have to go through your MP, and if he decides to agree with you, he will write to the relavant minister, who will usually answer to him.

[AlexanderHanff]

Plenty of April Fools buying Phorm stock today.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Nowhere near enough to bail them out of their sinking ship though bwahahahaha

[OF1975]

That is absolutely outrageous. The two petitions are totally different and distinct in my opinion. First the police refuse to issue a Crime Reference Number then the petition site refuses the second petition. This is annoying. Resubmit the petition Alexander.

[3x2]

AH - You are correct. Your petition is pretty clear to anyone reading it.

Just to remind anyone reading

(RIPA)

1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

BT have admitted publicly that they did indeed intercept communications last summer. What's the problem? Part 1, Chapter 1, Item 1. Why do we even require a petition? BT at least have clearly crossed the line.


Something else I have not seen any questions about is the Patent aspect that Phorm are selling. My understanding was that you could not patent a computer program or a business method in the UK. (Phorm's patent seems to be a hybrid computer program and business method) What's going on there? Patent applied for but not yet granted? PhormTeam?

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

BT and Phorm secretly tracked 18,000 customers in 2006
Spied on, profiled, and targeted for credit cards

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

Just in time for AH's petition

[CaptJamieHunter]

I'm hoping this isn't an April Fool.

From The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

"BT secretly intercepted and profiled the web browsing of 18,000 of its broadband customers in 2006 using advertising technology provided by 121Media, the alleged spyware company that changed its name to Phorm last year.

BT Retail ran the "stealth" pilot without customer consent between 23 September and 6 October 2006. The technology was approved, pending a further trial.....

We asked Phorm on Monday how it squares such claims with the fact that it participated in tracking and profiling 18,000 BT customers without their consent. 'Does Phorm believe its actions were ethical and if so, why?', we asked. Rather than answer the question, the company chose to send us this retort..."

I'm not going to give space here to Phorm's petty attempt at a flame war. Suffice to say it's typical Phorm, failing to answer the question and making the same claims which have been challenged and not answered wholly, openly and honestly.

Emboldening is mine. The Register assures that this story is not an April Fool and points out a number of caveats in Phorm's "argument".


The full report is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

I believe it is dishonest to refuse to answer openly, honestly and in the public domain technical questions and challenges which have been placed in the public domain.

I believe it is unethical to secretly track without customers' consent their web browsing habits.

I believe it is unethical to mount a PR campaign consisting of spin and obfuscation on the forums and websites of knowledgeable customers who reject Phorm and challenge its claims.

I believe it is unprofessional to try to engage in a flame war when your claims have been challenged and those challenges have not been satisfactorily answered.

[3x2]

Absolute Dynamite Will you need a petition or will someone in HMG step up

[OF1975]

Assuming that isnt some kind of twisted April Fools joke, then that there is the smoking gun we needed.

On another note I have just received the following email from one of the MEPs I wrote to:

Dear Mr *******,

Thank you for your very interesting email. If I may, I will pass it on
to my colleagues who work in this field and to the Commission experts
who work on privacy law and information technology, and await a response
from them.

Kind regards,

Timothy KIRKHOPE MEP

[AlexanderHanff]

As I commented on El Reg even I didn't see this coming, for once I am lost for words.

Alexander Hanff

[3x2]

BT has not answered The Register's question, posed on Friday morning, over whether it believes intercepting and profiling the web traffic of 18,000 customers without telling them was a lawful act.

RIPA does not have a "get out clause" except for those relating to criminal/state investigation. It does not matter if BT and Phorm later sent their users data on an all expenses paid holiday to Disneyland. It was intercepted illegally in breach of criminal law.

However, an email written by Virgin Media director of corporate affairs Paul Richmond suggests the cable operator could yet pull out of its own deal with Phorm. He wrote: "We understand our legal position here [is that] we effectively have a MOU [memorandum of understanding]. We will work with this technology through trials and by sharing our understandings with the other large ISPs."

In plain English "we can back out at anytime we are just waiting to see what BT gets away with"

Just what I want from VM - a nice non-committal weasel statement

TIME TO TAKE A SIDE VM

[OF1975]

The BT and Phorm executives in charge of that trial should start googling countries with no extradition treaty with the UK

[AlexanderHanff]

ok I can't be speechless too long. I have resubmitted the petition after adding the new information as below:

BT have admitted to running secret trials of Phorm technology between 23 September and 6 October 2006 and July 2007. They have further admitted to lying to the media, press and their customers when questioned about this at the time.

In carrying out this trial without receiving consent from their customers and the web sites they visited, BT appear to be in criminal breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; as this (as defined by the Act) is classified as an Unlawful Interception.

The number of counts for this offence potentially runs into millions dependent on how many communications they intercepted over the period of the trials.

Whether the data was discarded or anonymised after the fact is irrelevant and does not alter the fact that all these interceptions were in fact Unlawful as defined by the Act.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

If it gets rejected this time, I respectfully request everyone goes and submits the exact same petition over and over again until it is accepted. Oh and don't forget the opening paragraph from the first edition I didn't cut it all in the above amendments.