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

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

I agree. He has chosen the wrong analogy. I would expect my unencrypted Internet communications to be as secure as a postal letter. To view the contents of a letter you have to open it, which is illegal (except under very specific conditions) if you are a third party.

So ... who is volunteering to persuade Lord West to alter his position?

But what you expect and what it actually is are two different things, already, even before the most intrusive of inspection systems is put into place.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But what you expect and what it actually is are two different things, already, even before the most intrusive of inspection systems is put into place.

So would you share Lord West's view, or do you mean that we should behave as though Internet communications are no more secure than sending a postcard?

[Rchivist]

With permission from the guy who posted this on BT Beta and apologies if it has surfaced here before - there is a Wikipedia article here about the introduction of exchange telephone equipment which was introduced to solve the problem of telephone operators listening in to conversations (Father Ted comes to mind!).

The irony is that we now have some more equipment introduced into the heart of the modern equivalent - the internet exchange (RAS?) designed to reverse the effects of that original invention - to enable a man in the middle once again to intercept and monitor communications.

Might be an example worth using to REphorm the UNinphormed and DEphormed.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

I agree. He has chosen the wrong analogy. I would expect my unencrypted Internet communications to be as secure as a postal letter. To view the contents of a letter you have to open it, which is illegal (except under very specific conditions) if you are a third party.

So ... who is volunteering to persuade Lord West to alter his position?

I think Baroness Miller and Lord Northesk have been doing quite a good job in that direction, after taking the trouble to get herself REphormed and balance the Phorm PR with information from the people at the AGM demo.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Wildie

did they cover that in yes minister how to do the survey to get the results you want and not what the poeple want?

Just about EVERYTHING in politics is covered in Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. I re-read them every two or three years just to stay alert!

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But what you expect and what it actually is are two different things, already, even before the most intrusive of inspection systems is put into place.

Its easy to burgle a house (allegedly).

But, never the less, you have a right to expect your house won't be burgled. The law says people who burgle houses are criminals.

Its easy for Post Office staff to intercept your mail. But it is criminal to do so.

Likewise people who illegally intercept electronic communications are criminals.

Just because it would be easy for an ISP to intercept your communications, doesn't make it any less criminal.

Pete.

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

So would you share Lord West's view, or do you mean that we should behave as though Internet communications are no more secure than sending a postcard?

as far as the internet is concerned about id and personal stuff, that`s you the user if you want to fill in stuff on web sites with full consent from the user, places like face book my space and others but that is not the same as intercepting is it.

Even a postcard should be treated with respect by the postal service. Viewing the picture or the saucey joke on the front is very different fron reading the writing on the reverse.

Sherlock Holmes always said that he saw the same things as Watson - it was the act of observing rather than just seeing and the way that he used what he observed that was different.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Hey Guys

In regards to my post about receiving a letter form my MP, Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, a few days ago - I emailed him and received another response today, touching on the view from BERR:

"Thank you for you email. Looking at Mr Hutton's letter again, he doesn't say that he has no real concerns about the Phorm system at all. He does say that the Government is committed to ensuring that people's privacy is protected. That's why the Information Commissioner's Office has been looking at these proposals and that it is compliant with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Howver, I shall ask Mr Hutton to deal with the other points in your email and write to you again as soon as I can."

I thought it prudent to post this, as it clearly shows there is concern within BERR, and Mr Darling clearly wished to indicate this as soon as he could.

Again, Mr Darling is very hands on and I trust him to gain the information I requested.

Of course Mr Darling clearly doesn't understand the issues either if he thinks ICO are giving recomendations based on RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Of course Mr Darling clearly doesn't understand the issues either if he thinks ICO are giving recomendations based on RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

Indeed Mr Hanff... Who is actually responsible for the enforcement of RIPA and who is responsible for prosecutions is unclear even today (unless I missed something? Apart from an acceptance by the London Police of your case file?)

According to RIPA itself, the one thing we do know is that the Interception of Communications Commissioner is responsible for ensuring that the effectiveness of the Act is monitored and reported on to the Government. And according to the ICC man's office (office of Sir Paul Kennedy I think it is), the people responsible for investigating alleged breeches of the Act are the Police and as regards prosecuting that's the role of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Of course, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, Lord West of Spithead is not so clear. No. He answered the Earl of Northesk's question a little ambiguously...:

EoN: "Which law enforcement agency, Department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of ... the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000?" [from HO HL3267]

LWoS: "Investigation of breaches of RIPA would be investigated by the police or other relevant law enforcement agency; any subsequent prosecution would be taken forward by the CPS or other relevant prosecuting agency."


It's that use of "other relevant enforcement/prosecuting agency" which helps ensure that there is wriggle room left to mess around in! It keeps the water muddy so no one can quite see through - a masterly answer which Sir Humphrey Applebee would have been proud of!!

Hank

It makes sense once you realise that RIPA was never intended for corporate cases. The armed forces and some areas of the public services are allowed to run their own cases outside of the usual courts and away from the police and the CPS.

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by Wildie

did they cover that in yes minister how to do the survey to get the results you want and not what the poeple want?

They sure did and you can read in it this very thread, actually; I posted the whole thing a while back.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post10063.html

Enjoy!

OB

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by OldBear

They sure did and you can read in it this very thread, actually; I posted the whole thing a while back.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post10063.html

Enjoy!

OB

Yes Minister... on the topic of Big Brother...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDJv3U9RlWQ

[vicz]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Of course Mr Darling clearly doesn't understand the issues either if he thinks ICO are giving recomendations based on RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

I expect he's a bit busy right now..

[phormwatch]

Hi guys. Made it to Italy.

Have you guys seen this yet?:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...lating_to_line

Originally posted on BadPhorm

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Hi guys. Made it to Italy.

Have you guys seen this yet?:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...lating_to_line

Originally posted on BadPhorm

Odd... "Considering a qualified exemption/s and the Public Interest Test."?

So the Force Solicitor may have issued a legal opinion on the actions by BT and Phorm whilst conducting the 'Phorm Trials' in 2006 and 2007, but what that opinion actually is might not be shared because to do so might not be in the public interest?

So if the Force Solicitor thought it was legal what might that cause in terms of issues against the public interest? Answers on a postcard (or maybe you should seal your answers in an envelope for privacy reasons)

Or, what if the solicitor said it was illegal as per the papers by our eminent colleagues in this campaign? How would disclosing that under FOI be against the public interest? (Other than showing that the police may have ignored something which their force solicitor said could be against the law?)

Looking forward to seeing the answers...

[phormwatch]

Also, Kent and Phorm make the summer issue of Focus magazine (bought at airport). That's BBC Focus magazine issue #192:

For and Against:

Is using data mining to target ads a step too far?

No
Kent Ertugrul
Ceo, Phorm (data mining firm that aims to 'deliver the right ads to the right people')

THere are several problems with the web today. It doesn't adequately address people's privacy concerns and there's no obvious way to pay for a better, faster browsing experience. In addition, only a handful of internet publishers make any money online and it's hard for offline publishers to move online successfully.

Phorm's technology helps address those needs. It improves customer protection against fraudulent internet sites and reduces the number of irrelevant ads people see -- all without storing any personal information, making it simply impossible to reverse engineer the anonymisation process. Users benefit because the adds will be far more relevant to them. Also, because of its greater accuracyt, more money overall will be spent on internet advertising, and even small websites can now get a much larget slice of the £2.8 billion spent on internet advertising last year. That will allow greater investment in the content and services that people enjoy today - mostly for free. Our technology is a groundbreaking step forward in online privacy, and has the potential to radically improve the internet.



Yes
Becky Hogge
Executive Director, Open Rights Group

We are used to websites setting cookies so they can track our behaviour, but what the company Phorm proposes is to track your online activity not just at the browsing level, but at hte network level, by tracking the activities associated with your internet connection. If you think about how much of life people now conduct on the internet - everything from banking to private email, to online support groups for health conditions - a lot of that material is deeply private.
Phorm has been careful to explain some of the steps it is taking to exclude private material like email, but these aren't going to exclude everything. In the end, why would consumers consent to risk their privacy in this manner? What are they getting in return? It's like letting the Royal Mail open all your letters just so it can send you a better class of junk mail.
Until there is a qualified regulator, we simply have to trust that the software does what it says it does.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

You can send in letters to:

focus -at- bbcmagazinesbristol -dot- com

Yes, that's magazineS