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

[mark777]

Anagram:

You can get 'Wrong sewer-like tub-thumper.' from 'Kent Ertugrul Phorm Webwise'

Posted by sassenach on Badphorm, i've not checked it, but it sounds ok!

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Florence

on a second thougth IO noticed one book was over £100 would Cable forum mods set up a small payment fund so those with less money can still donate and the final would be the dearest book on Alexanders list? It would only take about 12 people to pay for the book as a token of appreciation for his hard work and a helping hand into him getting through to the end with a little less financial burden on himself.

Hi Florence,

This is a great idea, by the the time I got to the list all the books remaining were out of my price range. I'd love to give towards one of the other books for Alexander if this could be set up.

[davidb24v]

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

[bishbosh]

Originally Posted by davidb24v

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

is it this - i posted the link before (3048)

Anti file-sharing laws considered

"He said: "However, ISPs cannot monitor or record the type of information passed over their network. ISPs are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope."

"ISPs deal with many more packets of data each day than postal services and data protection legislation actually prevents ISPs from looking at the content of the packets sent," he added. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7059881.stm

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by davidb24v

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

Is this the one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm

I particularly like this bit

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) said the 2002 E-Commerce Regulations defined net firms as "mere conduits" and not responsible for the contents of the traffic flowing across their networks.

He added that other laws on surveillance explicitly prohibited ISPs from inspecting the contents of data packets unless forced to do so by a warrant.

Kent ???

[Tharrick]

Hi, everyone. Short-time lurker (started reading this a few weeks back when I first discovered the issue) and first-time poster.

While I've only just registered on this forum, I certainly haven't been sitting on my (alas) overweight rear twiddling my thumbs... I'm glad to say that I've written to my MP and also to Viviane Reding, EC for Information Society and Media, expressing my concerns.
I even went so far as to email CNNMoney, correcting them on some of their more blatant mistakes in that report.

Originally Posted by davidb24v

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

Ah, no, if you're looking for child porn and terrorism you won't find it - the article was about the BPI demanding that ISPs be held liable for their customers pirating music. One of the arguments against it, as I recall, was 'if you're willing to waste all that time and money hunting for music pirates, why not spend it tracking down child pornographers and terrorists instead?' - but the main focus of the initiative was to curb music piracy.




Edit: Hmm, looks like you guys beat me to it. I blame the head-start you all had by already being registered :P

[Winston Smith]

Time to don the tin-foil hat but..

This Govenrment has shown no interest in investigating this, despite all the emails, letters etc.
I can only assume that they want to see this succeed, as it gives the potential to monitor everyones surfing.
My forum name should say it all, but I thought it would be at least another 5/10 years before it became reality.
I am seriously thinking about emigrating, any suggestions where I can avoid this in terms of countries that will protect my privacy?

In terms of languages, I speak French, German, Arabic, Attic Greek and Latin (not overly useful) and basic Japanese.

[Heed]

Hey all.

I've noticed something weird tonight. I'm having real problems connecting to most websites when I have phorm.com and associated IP's blocked via my firewall (Comodo). If I unblock them I get normal operation.

It looks like a DNS issue and that's what I thought it was (hangs on "looking up hostname"), but unblocking the phorm addresses solves it.

Anyone else seeing this?

I should add that if I unblock the addresses and visit a site which was unreachable with the addresses blocked, then after visiting I can visit again no problem with the addresses blocked.

I have the following blocked:

88.208.248.102 - 88.208.250.85
phorm.com

Hmm, I can't even get to my modem configuration page (192.168.100.1) with those blocks.

Not just http, but ftp as well.

[jcardiff]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

I am seriously thinking about emigrating, any suggestions where I can avoid this in terms of countries that will protect my privacy?

France, Canada

[Cogster]

Hello all.... longtime lurker... mostly post on badphorm..

currently contributing by way of Mac request mission.. 54 and counting

..keep up the good work alex and all...

oh btw seems we have a certain UKPRteam browsing our user profiles.. worth keeping an eye out eh?

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...pic.php?4097.0

Cog

Originally Posted by Chroma

Long time lurker, 1st time poster.

Not meaning to get off topic here in any regard but i find it reminiscant of the largest company on the face of the earth [who] wished to build a store in the district of california and was met with a less than warm response from the community.</offtopic>

Yep, off topic, but you make a good point in one way. However I would say that interestingly, that large company you refer to has done an awful lot of good as well as lost battles it has gone into which it underestimated. Like the 3 or 4 biggest players in the UK, they have fans and they don't, they have people asking, "Why can't we have X brand supermarket near us?" And others say, "We don't want X near us." It would be wrong to suggest that the company you mention have not made goods and services cheaper (accepting challenges on ethics which are sometimes found in all companies including the retailers in the UK which are 5th or 6th biggest so it's not just the big boys). They are primarily responsible for maintaining lower prices in the retail industry at times of inflation/credit crunch (like now in the US & UK). And posting links to films sponsored by those who are also having their pockets lined by those against them... well, all I'm saying is, it's harder for those at the top to stay there because they are an easier target. So to anyone who might take that on face value... don't believe the hype.

On Phorm, it's not WM trying to open a new general merchandise store. This is very different. The type of store Phorm wants to open is where they put YOU on the shelf and sell you to the highest bidder. That is not democratisation of products (making them more affordable for the masses, taking a lower gross profit and selling lots) - oh no, this is not about democracy AT ALL.

We agree on so much apart from the supermarket stuff (let's continue that off line if needed - you can PM me if you want) and here's where I have got to on Phorm and comms with people:

- Email to the Labour MP on the Non-Exec board of BT - Replied, taking comments on board and will discuss with colleagues in government and BT

- Email to my MP - replied, waiting for detail response from Home Office Minister (that'll be interesting reading when it comes in!)

- Earl Of Northesk - I wrote expressing thanks and support, but did state that I understood he is not an MP (they often have no secretary, offices or team to deal with replies etc)

- Repsonse from BT - pretty standard as you would expect although others who have had the standard response a few days after mine had a few lines of different text due to issues with what they were saying originally being slightly bending the truth (shock horror!)

Post when you get resonses, I'll do the same and we can compare...

Hank

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Hank

Post when you get resonses, I'll do the same and we can compare...

Hank

Hank, you may have already seen that the Earl of Northesk was kind enough to reply to me even though he is out of the country. Tomorrow, time and work allowing, I'll be replying to him. Anything I do get in reply from him will (with his permission, of course) be posted here.

Again, realism, not triumphalism.

---------- Post added at 23:59 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

Who's being triumphalist? I'm just having a good mickey take after spending ages working on the public meeting videos. I've already said what I'd like to see and that's what people need to work towards. However, much of that is dependent on other people (BT customers affected by the trials for example) taking actions that I cannot.

We need to continue to pressure the legislators to investigate Phorm and BT and to keep highlighting to as many people as we can the lack of government action and why Phorm is wrong.

The videos have been posted because a wider audience needs to be reached. That's not triumphalism, that's realism.

Now, is it just a coincidence that the ICO has started responding to complaints about Phorm? The complaint mentioned here was four days before mine. Both answered at the same sort of time.

Pressure from above or a decision to whitewash all the Phorm complaints in one foul swoop?

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Hank, you may have already seen that the Earl of Northesk was kind enough to reply to me even though he is out of the country. Tomorrow, time and work allowing, I'll be replying to him. Anything I do get in reply from him will (with his permission, of course) be posted here.

Yes Cap'n - good reply Hope you get some more exchange from him on his views and it would be great to understand how we can actually take the investigation of the interceptions forward becaus it seems so wrong (and just weird!) that the Police and Home Office both don't think it's their job to follow it up (if it's a crime, whose job is it then?!)

Hank

[AlexanderHanff]

Another point worth revisiting is the 32M GBP they are expecting to raise in share deals with Morgan Stanley. The deal was I think 1.6M shares at 32M with Canaccord Adams Ltd. and Morgan Stanley with shares placed at 20GBP per share. At the moment the market price is about £12.80 per share.

I wonder how these two new investors are feeling given they entered a deal which has devalued by 40% before it has even been finalised. Do we still think these 2 investors are going to go through with it? Given that the money raised is earmarked for actually setting up the system in the UK, it could prove disastrous for Phorm if they back out at the last hurdle.

Alexander Hanff

My ISP has responded to concerns I addressed to them about my details on web pages being scanned when people other than me are reading them. Here is the response... Can it be right that I exclude details on a social networking site from being viewed by anyone but my accepted friends and that this leads to my ISP assuming "implied consent of
website owners such as Bebo etc"??

"we completely understand the potential concerns
of some website owners, who have sensitive/private/password protected
websites or areas on their website, and are taking the necessary steps
to ensure that password protected sites are excluded from this service
and no information will be scanned from these pages. We are also
excluding a range of more sensitive categories for example medical,
religious and gambling websites. Finally we are also taking steps to
ensure that those websites that do not want search engines to 'crawl'
them (by the use of robots.txt) will also be excluded from the Webwise
service. Otherwise we assume that we have the implied consent of
website owners such as Bebo etc."

Thoughts? Have I read it wrong? Am I misunderstanding the ISP's statement there?

Hank