BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad!: Forums / Phorm Talk / Can someone explain what is going on here?

Forums

BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Phorm Talk		<< Previous thread \| Next thread >>
Can someone explain what is going on here?

Go to page <<
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy

Author

Post

felixcatuk

Tue Apr 14 2009, 11:04AM

felixcatuk

Registered Member #95

Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AM
Posts: 1656

PI wrote ...
Felix whoever you are, might want to actually read what I wrote. I said I support "opt in". Or is that too hard a concept for you to understand?

I read it all, every word of it.

Your report asserts that people such as me have no right to expect private communication services in the UK, unless we 'opt out' of surveillance (p19/22).

Here are the words you used;

"We believe that Phorm should also allow for website owners to opt-out"

Forgive me if I misread that, but I'm confident that says 'opt-out' not opt-in. Just after the words 'we believe'.

That's not acceptable.

[ Edited Tue Apr 14 2009, 11:05AM ]

[ image disabled ]
BT/Virgin/TalkTalk customers - you don't need Webwise and Phorm, pure and simple.
Regulators will not protect you from Phorm.
Protect your privacy. Protect your web content. Phorm must be stopped.
www.Dephormation.org.uk: Free Anti-Phorm Countermeasures for Firefox Users and Web Sites
21,000 people signed the No. 10 Downing Street Petition
Ready to leave BT? Call 0800 800 030 / 0800 328 6738, get your MAC code
PhormUKPRTeam/PhormUKTechTeam is a PR consultant from Citigate Dewe Rogerson.

Gordon

Tue Apr 14 2009, 01:06PM

Registered Member #287

Joined: Thu Apr 03 2008, 08:06PM
Posts: 201

Indeed - "opt-out" is not good enough.

Let us leave aside my concerns over whether or not I can trust BT and Phorm to keep their grubby mitts off password-protected (but not https) pages and so on.

The simple statement "Commercial use prohibited" at the foot of each page means exactly that. Frankly, I don't give a cuss what the *law* says - in my book, using my pages to build up a customer profile so that you can make *money* from an advertising scheme is *commercial use* - and if you wish to do that, then *you* should ask *me*.
I should not have to opt out and, on principle, will not do so - instead I will continue to block customers of BT, Carphone Warehouse (including resellers and subsidiaries) from my sites until such time as Phorm is dead and buried.

Give me one good reason, if you can, why I should allow Phorm, or any other comercial outfit, to *profit financially* from my years of hard work (and a fair bit of expenditure) that I make absolutely no money whatsoever out of.

Are Phorm going to pay a contribution towards my web hosting costs?
Are Phorm going to pay a contribution towards the cost of travelling to various archives to study and obtain copies of relevant documents?
Are Phorm going to make a contribution towards the cost of the A3 scanner that I had to buy because some of the old out of copyright stuff that I own and have put online is too big for an ordinary A4 scanner?
Am I going to get *any* benefit at all from Phorm's *commercial use* of my material?

I'm not, am I?

Midnight_Voice

Tue Apr 14 2009, 04:51PM

Registered Member #180

Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PM
Posts: 503

Cowherd wrote ...
Simon,
You should also make it clear that the traffic of ISP customers that are not explicitly opted-in should not pass through any Phorm equipment.

As Phorm have already played the 'not our equipment' card by splitting hairs about ownership, the standard I am looking for is:-

No equipment owned by Phorm
No equipment supplied by Phorm
No equipment configured by Phorm
No equipment running code written or supplied by Phorm
where 'code' includes but is not limited to executables, dlls, drivers and scripts

I'm a nonconPhormist; I won't be conned by Phorm

warescouse

Tue Apr 14 2009, 06:07PM

Registered Member #452

Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 02:16PM
Posts: 11

Simon, my worst fears were not met and for that reason I say thankyou. I sincerly hope that time will be a great healer and that PI can soon get back the respect it deserved before this sorry mess that 80/20 allowed themselves to get into. It was never going to work IMHO and the 80/20 conflict of interest claims from larger organisations than we 'tinhats' recently proved it so. These points were raised more than twelve months ago by many of us and for what ever reason, you could not see what I felt was the obvious. I actually can believe your intent was good even though I and others felt in that instance the overall judgment was lacking.

I'm told your a nice guy Simon and that I have no reason to doubt. I hope that you can put this matter behind you and PI can start once again be seen to objectively look at privacy in a neutral manner. I look forward to PI once again being seen to be able to venture everywhere on the privacy map without fear of negative claims from likeminded privacy supporters.

Today we hear the EC has started some legal action over Phorm. In reference to that, hopefully the very last negative thing I will ever have cause to say to you in reference to PI and Phorm. Please also take off those Phorm tinted spectacles and start listening to what other neutral privacy supporters are saying.

[ Edited Tue Apr 14 2009, 07:54PM ]