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

[Dephormation]

Those test results are fine.

Don't run the test with redirection... (you'll get redirected by design ;o) an an alert will be displayed.. its only for demo).

Just run the normal test.

On the normal speed trap test I'd expect to see a message that says 'you are probably not being intercepted', and on the cookie test, a yellow image.

*However* if Phorm put that site on a black list, you might also expect the same result.

So if it detects Phorm it is very bad, but it may simply fail to detect Phorm too... if you see what I mean.

(You're welcome to copy the code and adapt for other sites btw)

[kt88man]

Hang on... don't be too quick to jump to conclusions...

May help if anyone else who goes through: midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com could try

@heed

as ravenheart said... just press go... what do you get then?

[Heed]

Okay, the normal test (just pressed go) shows a JS popup saying the page was intercepted with a follow up text message saying I probably was not intercepted.

Bonglet, I'm a VM customer.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Heed

Okay, just the normal test shows a JS popup saying the page was intercepted with a follow up text message saying I probably was not intercepted.

Bonglet, I'm a VM customer.

Heed can you run with FF2? (I think versions of IE may struggle with the AJAX code).

[Heed]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Heed can you run with FF2? (I think versions of IE may struggle with the AJAX code).

I just have Opera installed. I'll try IE and grab a FF download.

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by Heed

Okay, just the normal test (just pressed go) shows a JS popup saying the page was intercepted with a follow up text message saying I probably was not intercepted.

Bonglet, I'm a VM customer.

I don't see the first popup, just the text I posted earlier... over to Pete... ( edit: who beat me to it... )

[popper]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Over the past few days, Florence and I have been in a detailed and I think very productive email exchange with Simon Watkin and Andrew Knight at the Home Office, specifically covering their view of RIPA in relation to the Phorm trials and the proposed Phorm implementation. They were keen to ensure that the points could be established without a free for all, otherwise a conclusion may never be reached.

I recognise there is a danger arising from just a couple of posters being involved in this process. However I think it is justified by the substantial progress we have made, and that quite soon the points formulated will be open for public debate.

The aim is to bring them to a position where they can issue some further public opinions on Phorm and the RIPA, whether via a press release or on here (that's effectively up to them). I hope that we'll have achieved this by early next week.

We're covering about ten points, but as I think we are agreed on the first three I thought I'd share these with you. Please bear in mind that this information is my interpretation of the email exchange, and although I have every reason to believe it is accurate, the Home Office has not approved the wording and so the final version may differ.

1. RIPA provides a statutory framework for regulating the conduct of public authorities which may interfere with individuals’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

2. RIPA provides for lawful authority for intercepting communications but also provides for an offence of unlawful interception which any person, absolutely anyone, is able to commit.

3. The Home Office (outside of its immigration functions) is not an investigatory body. It is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception.

we trust that you and Florence will be fine go-betweens, the only thought right now, as im busy and overworked lol, so i may miss some points, is what are these 10 points as an overview?.

not to concerned with the exact text right now,just the outline, but given Alexanders outlines and the relationships with the EU regulations the RIPA is based on there might be more points to raise for clarity.

remember, in court one side always losses....so we want to be clear s we can be given the collective here contributing, and on the same page, we should be fine generally.

it would be good to know if all the points needing to be raised were clear and covered in the general terms, before they issue any quick text in the hope of keeping the readership quiet.

if you can outline the other missing 7 points we can consider if there are infact more that need raising before the next set of emails get sent by you both, i think its better to take a day and be clear, rather than having you keep sending emails round-robin.

point 1 , sure we all conceed public authorities have powers with legal review and the right paperwork inplace, so that is null and void for most things, and not aparty to the totally seperate and required clarification of the ISP or Phorm parnership as a profit making party agreement.


2a the same.

2b sure it seems the rules clearly cover this and to the FULL LETTER OF THE LAW....

this is the part we need them to state as fact in their opinion, and their responsibility to pass on any and all facts to the right people in scotland yard for instance, and an undertaking that they will without any more delay.... do so.

just as a few first thoughts you understand, theres probably more, Alexander?, others?.....

3: im not so sure about that but i cant think of exactly why right now, minds a little foggy ATM, all those PDFs over a long timeframe are bad for the logic and total recall ;(

[Heed]

No JS popup with IE and a success message.

Yellow image on second test.

EDIT:

No JS popup with FF2 and a success message.

Yellow image on second test.


The popup might be the way Opera is handling the page code?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Heed can you run with FF2? (I think versions of IE may struggle with the AJAX code).

Just ran the test here with FF2 and IE7. Both are fine, no alerts displayed by the AJAX code etc. Same result "You are probably not being intercepted".

So if you're using the same browsers as I am, I would not expect you to see alerts at all on the normal speed trap test (ie, no redirection).

If you are running the normal test (without redirection) and you get an alert in FF2/IE7, you do need to investigate that further.

[Bonglet]

Same as what i had under IE which browser were you using before that?

nvm opera i saw ;s

strange how you get the timeout on the 3rd hop with a know phorm ip blocked though ;s

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Heed

I just have Opera installed. I'll try IE and grab a FF download.

Ahh Opera. Yes you might see strange stuff with Opera. Each one of the browsers does AJAX sliiiiiiightly differently. Its a real pain - classic client side coding problems... all browsers except the one the user has.

Sorry, I'll update the text to state that Opera may not work.

Never the less, still sounds like there is something odd going on with blocking Phorm.com n'est pas?

[dav]

Could I politely ask that members take discussions about strange browser behaviour to another thread?

I'm finding it difficult to follow this thread now two subjects are being discussed.
Thanks.

[Heed]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Ahh Opera. Yes you might see strange stuff with Opera. Each one of the browsers does AJAX sliiiiiiightly differently. Its a real pain - classic client side coding problems... all browsers except the one the user has.

Sorry, I'll update the text to state that Opera may not work.

Never the less, still sounds like there is something odd going on with blocking Phorm.com n'est pas?

Indeed. It almost seems that phorm.com is acting like a DNS. I just get "page unreachable"/"could not resolve host name" messages when phorm.com is blocked. Doesn't matter the app or the protocol.

Also, I mentioned this in my first post, but if I visit a site (like this one) and then block phorm.com after visiting, the site will generally then function fine.

EDIT: dav, this "strange browsing behaviour" is directly related to me blocking phorm.com. That's not relevant here?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Heed

Indeed. It almost seems that phorm.com is acting like a DNS. I just get "page unreachable" messages when phorm.com is blocked. Doesn't matter the app or the protocol.

Also, I mentioned this in my first post, but if I visit a site (like this one) and then block phorm.com after visiting, the site will generally then function fine.

EDIT: dav, this "strange browsing behaviour" is directly related to me blocking phorm.com. That's not relevant here?

What are your DNS servers set to?

ipconfig /all ?

Is the DNS server the same as Phorm.com?

Mine (on VM); DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 62.31.176.39, 194.117.134.19, 195.188.53.175

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by kt88man

Hang on... don't be too quick to jump to conclusions...

May help if anyone else who goes through: midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com could try

I may be wrong but i seem to vaguely recall someone else on here having similar problems with the middlesboro(?) servers a couple of weeks ago.