SO - is Phorm legal......or not?
Phorm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm)
I thought it had already been decided that it is. :dunno:
Maybe could have worded that better Simon - maybe it was the trials already carried out (without consent from the punters) that could be challenged. they have admitted to 2 secret trials - how many more did they do?
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), intercepting Internet traffic without a warrant or consent is considered an offence, so they have clearly gone against that, and will continue to do so if they go for the "opt out" method of conscription rather than "opt in".
This bit did amuse me though:
"both companies have said the technology complies with UK law as customers have to give informed consent to use the technology.
BT has said that customers will be issued with amended terms and conditions before any eventual roll out of the technology. "
The peeps in the trial certainly didn't give informed consent - where were BTs "amended terms and conditions" for them?
I really really hope that some of those very peeps band together and give BT a right royal kick up the backside. :)
As far as I can tell, the trials were illegal under RIPA as there was no consultation or consent, in fact BT say they didn't tell people deliberately. I would love to see that come to court.
Quote from: Rik on Apr 02, 2008, 08:50:21
I would love to see that come to court.
Me too - it's time the high and mighty BT was taken down a peg or three... >:(
Maybe we should all write to our MPs. I'm sure they'd like to divert attention from themselves. >:D
On the other hand, they wouldn't want to upset big business would they?
That depends on how much interest we are taking in their expenses at the time. :)
Good thinking Batman - right - let's do some digging ;D
Pass me that FoIA application form. ;D
If you want to watch some good squirming, then:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/bt+spies+on+customers/1933047
Emma Sanderson being interviewed on Channel 4. ;D
:rofl:
priceless
errr errrrm errrrrrr ;D
Pathetic, I bet she is on over a £100,000 a year. :rant2:
She'll be promoted after that performance! ::)
Surely BT could have found a credible individual for an interview amongst their masses.
Erm er erm er ;D
Isn't that an oxymoron, In? :o
Probably Rik, dam fine washing powder as well.. ;D
;D
Amazing stuff, that white powder...
Our age is showing Rik. ;)
I know. It's when I remember all the words to the Pepsodent jingle I really begin to feel it. :'(
Ditto.. ( and I can ). ;)
... and Hoover! :'(
Can't remember that one in total, just beats as it sweeps as it cleans.. ;)
That's the bit I remember too - odd how one sticks in the entirety, the other only partially. OTOH, both have stuck with us for the best part of 50 years, which is probably longer than any modern ad will.
Strangely, the interview seems to have disappeared.
I just watched the squirm - it's still there
HHMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - another vote for illegal here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7331493.stm)
Should IDNet be following this example?
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpZkAyAAEpjMnLTqK.html
;)
Definitely In - the tide is turning :)
Probably BT have blocked it from coming across the network. :mad:
Quote from: madasahatter on Apr 05, 2008, 08:17:47
Definitely In - the tide is turning :)
I agree Mad, the more that take a public stand against it, the better. :)
Quote from: Inactive on Apr 05, 2008, 00:35:23
Should IDNet be following this example?
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpZkAyAAEpjMnLTqK.html
;)
Without a doubt, yes. ;)
Perhaps some kind member of Admin may suggest it to them. ;)
You mean Rik or Lance, then. :laugh:
Simon's already said he's against it, iirc, but I'll see what can be done. :)
Quote from: Sebby on Apr 05, 2008, 10:15:57
You mean Rik or Lance, then. :laugh:
Or you, or Simon, and I seem to recall some guy called Adam. :duck: :out:
I'm just a poor old mod. :pat:
:rofl:
Quote from: Rik on Apr 05, 2008, 10:21:34
Simon's already said he's against it, iirc, but I'll see what can be done. :)
Thanks Rik, I reckon that would be a good move, the more ISP's that make a public stand the better.
I doubt IDNet would welcome it with open arms to be honest. :)
Quote from: Sebby on Apr 05, 2008, 10:27:51
I'm just a poor old mod. :pat:
:rofl:
Lets get this clear Seb, you are an accountant, so not poor.
You ain't old by my standards, and you are part of the Admin Team. ;D ;D
He's not old either. :)
Quote from: Sebby on Apr 05, 2008, 10:30:10
I doubt IDNet would welcome it with open arms to be honest. :)
As Rik has said, I am fairly sure that SimonD has said that they will not have anything to do with it.
Just needs confirming in public. ;)
Quote from: Simon on Apr 04, 2008, 21:37:46
Strangely, the interview seems to have disappeared.
It's there for me, Simon.
Hi All
Just a quick note about IDNet's stance on Phorm, for those particularly concerned about the issue - I can confirm that IDNet will not be employing Phorm's services on our network.
Tim
Thanks, Tim. I'm sure we're all very pleased (but not surprised) to hear that. :thumb: :karma:
Thanks, Tim. I thought that would be the case, but it's always nice to know for sure. :)
Thanks Tim. Reassuring for when I finally get back to you :)
Thanks for the update, Tim :thumb:
Thanks for the info' Tim, great news. :thumb:
Thanks for the clarification, Tim. :thumb:
Quote from: Tim_idnet on Apr 07, 2008, 17:46:56
Hi All
Just a quick note about IDNet's stance on Phorm, for those particularly concerned about the issue - I can confirm that IDNet will not be employing Phorm's services on our network.
Tim
Thanks Tim, confirmation of that on the IDNet Web Site may be helpful to potential and existing customers. ;)
Anyone seen this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/phorm_censors_wikipedia/)? :eek4:
Yeah, for 'over-zealous' read 'you caught us'. :mad:
How right you are, Rik. ::)
That's the trouble with Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't trust it for anything other than trivia.
Quote from: Sebby on Apr 08, 2008, 19:26:27
Anyone seen this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/phorm_censors_wikipedia/)? :eek4:
That's just taking the p$%^ - makes them even more shady than they did before if that were possible. :mad:
Shows they are running scared a bit though, which has got to be good news :thumb:
Some good news:
Phorm must be opt in (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm)
That's good news. :thumb:
Not for Phorm though - can't see many peeps actually opting in - can you? ;D
I can't see anyone opting in! ;D
Quote from: Sebby on Apr 10, 2008, 13:55:02
I can't see anyone opting in! ;D
Great innit? :thumb:
Actually, I can see people opting in. They'll be the same people who don't think they need anti-virus, and who give out their email addresses on public boards. They probably think they've won lotteries they never entered to.
:iagree: There's no doubt Phorm will sell its services to the customers of the ISP's who sign up, touting various benefits to the service, entry into a prize draw, that sort of thing. Wouldn't surprise me either if there are a series of tick-boxes much like one online publisher who's PC newsletters I subscribe to, where in order to properly ensure you're "opted out", some of the boxes have to be ticked, some have to be empty.
Call me a cynic, but..... :whistle:
I agree with you, Bruce. Not only do they make some opt out and some opt in, but they then use wording which requires careful thought about just what the tick signifies.