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

[GeoffW]

Is there any precedence for BT suing an individual?

I was wondering Ms Sanderson had overstepped the mark with this tactic. In the bigger scheme of BT they have the corporate brand image to protect.

[JackSon]

It's actually a good way of rounding off the revenue stream. Profile the blogger's internet usage, and punt it. Profile the blogs webserver and generate kewords, punt advertising based upon it, and lastly, sue the blogger.

[Privacy_Matters]

Hey Alex

Just checked the cookies (Forum Member) and all are as you have above

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Hey Alex

Just checked the cookies (Forum Member) and all are as you have above

Me too, Alex.

Cookies are as you said. HTH

Does Emma S. have a case against you?
Did BT not assure the ICO that no personal data was collected? The report shows they did harvest and use people's IP addresses, which is personal data.

Where's the defamation?

OB

[Privacy_Matters]

More on www.webwise.bt.com etc

The sites listed in the IPv4 Assignment, note 3 BTwebwise sites.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted...89.145.113.255

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Well to get back on topic I have a bit of an update re: the legal threats.

It seems Phorm are happy with my retraction and apology although they reserve the right to revisit the threat at any time.

Emma Sanderson on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand what no means. She asked me to remove the section of my article questioning whether BT misled ICO and has stated it is defamatory; I will not remove this section as it is personal opinion based on evidence and it is my right to have that opinion under law.

So I have told her that if they are going to sue me for defamation I expect to hear from their lawyers by 2pm on Monday otherwise I will be forced to conclude they are menacing me with a plan to gag me and force my withdrawal from the debate.

I will update you all on Monday once I have more news.

Alexander Hanff

I suspect you already know what the situation is, but just to spell it out to the wider readership -- the BT/Phorm crooks are playing a war of attrition with Alexander they have got no intention of going to court with him because although they could probably get a £1Million judgement against him for defamation (which they would never collect), the damage to them would be 10's if not 100's of millions £££ in the providing the catalyst to their collective demise.

BT are on a hiding to nothing with this Phorm relationship, their risky gamble is that the British consumers will accept the Intra-ISP Rootkit spying. Phase 1 of the project has already failed, namely to roll out WebLies and no one notice or bother. Phase 2 continue the trial phase and hope they can ride the storm: Failing already -- delayed/setback trial dates, legal team clearly worried, BT Echelons clearly worried, cannot find 10,000 willing reliable dupes to fake a positive outcome.

Alex you should have just let them continue to threaten to take you to court for defamation, we would have seen the collapse of Phorm and several BT execs out on their ear and your future as an advocate guaranteed. Anyway you're in charge of what you do so I guess you'll have this all figured out in your own mind. If stuttering Emma continues to be a pain give her the last warning and quote the 1997 Harassment Act at her. 'Big grin'


Incidently Oro PM'd me regarding the mystery post about the legal threats maybe s/he will PM you.

[icsys]

R Jones. Those thirteen points you posted on the BT forum (note direct link) are spot on. Unfortunately I sent another letter to my MP before I saw them.
Any objection to those being cross-posted on other forums?


NOTE:
Link to a BT forum post by changing the &start=xxx where xxx is the post count.
(post is placed first on the page)
Works even if not a BT customer and therefore not registered with the BT forums .
E.g:
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...t=801&tstart=0

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by vicz

Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).

If you visit a site using Access authentication, then your browser sends an "Authorization:" header with an obfusticated username:password (something like Authorization: Basic r3y1r45DCB67E89BOZbdAV==) with every request after you've logged on - they can check for that header and ignore your request and the server's response.

If a site uses other methods such as cookies to verify that you've logged in then I can't see them checking, although I suppose it might be possible to check for common cookie names used to store log-ins by forum software. They can also check the robots.txt to see if google is disallowed from indexing the pages.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

If you visit a site using Access authentication, then your browser sends an "Authorization:" header with an obfusticated username:password (something like Authorization: Basic r3y1r45DCB67E89BOZbdAV==) with every request after you've logged on - they can check for that header and ignore your request and the server's response.

If a site uses other methods such as cookies to verify that you've logged in then I can't see them checking, although I suppose it might be possible to check for common cookie names used to store log-ins by forum software. They can also check the robots.txt to see if google is allowed to index the pages.

Somehow I can't see them doing anything but the last unless pushed.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by icsys

R Jones. Those thirteen points you posted on the BT forum (note direct link) are spot on. Unfortunately I sent another letter to my MP before I saw them.
Any objection to those being cross-posted on other forums?


NOTE:
Link to a BT forum post by changing the &start=xxx where xxx is the post count.
(post is placed first on the page)
Works even if not a BT customer and therefore not registered with the BT forums .
E.g:
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...t=801&tstart=0

As I've said before - very happy if that post is used - that's what it's there for. If possible use it, attribute it and link. If you use it to write to Emma Sanderson, do quote my name and tell her you appreciate my "voracious appetite for detail". In fact you can even refer to me as "the holy man with the voracious appetite for detail" (One of her recent criticisms of me - I can see why she doesn't appreciate it. If only some more at BT had such a voracious appetite for detail they might not be in this mess.) The holy man bit refers to my day job - and the fact that a BT manager once included me on the Cc list of a mail which was about me but not meant to be TO me - luckily it was saying I was right, so wasn't defamatory - after all we can't have any defamation can we?

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by vicz

Somehow I can't see them doing anything but the last unless pushed.

I'm sure they include code that can check for the Authorization header, as it would allow them to make the claim that they don't profile [some] password protected sites and use this to satisfy less technical people (eg politicians). They can't rely solely on robots.txt as some sites that use passwords allow google to index them.

I think we can trust them to respect the authorization header every bit as much as we can trust them to respect their opt-out cookies.

[vicz]

Of course phorm can do whatever the f*ck they like because the muppets at BT clearly haven't got a clue what they are up to or the nous to understand it, and Earnst & Young and/or PI are going to run a mile from anything technical. No wonder the NPfIT is such a bloody shambles if the quality (I use the term loosely) of BT staff is anything like that we have seen first hand involved in the phorm fiasco. Sheer utter incompetence! How the devil can they try to sell their so-called expertise to others? Lets see BT try to sue me over that one then.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Added a few things to the NoDPI website including a Poll on whether or not people think BT should be prosecuted. Please complete the poll.

Privacy Policy is now up also.

Can someone who has a forum account please check what cookies you have on your system for NoDPI.Org

You should have no more than 2-3 cookies from the site as follows:

Poll Cookie (only if you participate in a poll)


Login Cookie (if you are registered for the forums)


Test Cookie


If people can let me know what they get for situations where they are not registered members and have not taken part in a poll, it will help me to confirm the cookie policy, which I will add to the privacy policy.

Thanks

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Just going for a bit of a nap, I will be back later.

Alex - Yawn - hope the nap went well. I've visited your new forums but it took me quite a while to find where to register till eventually I scrolled down on the right to "meta" and found a register link. I'm used to forum registration options coming up at the top of a forum screen view.

I've voted and registered and am still logged in and I have a
WordPress cookie
A wordpress test cookie
A voted cookie.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

I'm sure they include code that can check for the Authorization header, as it would allow them to make the claim that they don't profile [some] password protected sites and use this to satisfy less technical people (eg politicians). They can't rely solely on robots.txt as some sites that use passwords allow google to index them.

I think we can trust them to respect the authorization header every bit as much as we can trust them to respect their opt-out cookies.

I hate to say this but after rereading the leaked report while listening to Emma answering questions then onto Kent and his answers trust is a word I fail to see working, their word is worthless now, spoken or written. Their actions and responses tell more than they wished them to their actions towards Alex proves more than they wished to say.
a few words that mean a lot to customers that have this year with this been tested trailed and failed, respect, trust. BT was heading the right way trust and many respected but now they need to re-earn this back.

Phorm has to learn they cannot buy respectability it is earned, trust is also earned. Kents actions are what he is judged on to see how much or if we can sadly he has also failed mind he might have half tried but then I am cynical with him after his rootkit killed my sons computer.

MPO BT have jumped in bed with the devil, he tempted them offering money and BT sold their soul for the cash. The big problem is they also sold their customer’s souls and now need to find a stealth way to deliver without the customers finding out and fleeing to where they are safe.

[CWH]

Wouldn't it be nice, if the groups in this Country took a leaf out of the USA regarding Phorm et al. (As reported by The Register)

Colin