Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Media Sightings |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| Finally the 80/20 Thinking report | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
 Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the report says, or any other report for that matter. The fact remains Phorm -is- illegal under RIPA. They can argue about their intentions and their patents and their proprietary bodily waste as much as they like. RIPA is by far one of the most robust pieces of legislation to have been introduced in recent years simply because of the nature of the legislation. They couldn't afford any loopholes otherwise the British government might be in the same situation Bush is in currently for illegal wiretaps. The letter of the law is clear, RIPA is not contestable (as has been proven already in civil rights campaigns against RIPA). Up until now RIPA has been pretty much an anathema to the British people (see the addition of Mobile Phone data retention last October for example) and for once it is finally being used to protect the people as opposed to strip their rights. What a surprise that the Home Office doesn't like that idea eh? I am so confident that Phorm is illegal I have even gone so far as to call BT criminals on the DenyPhorm blog for their secret trials last year. So, lets start the bonfires and hogtie the bastards ready for the AntiPhorm Festival BBQ. Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
 Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | My one worry is the published material argument (website owners grant implicit consent by publishing) used by the Home Office. I totally agree with Paladine and with the academics at FIPR and over at ukcrypto, but testing it in court could be costly and tiring. We need the regulators to cut through the spin and ask themselves what precedent they want to set: allow this technology with safeguards, in which case we are at the mercy of oversight bodies as Phorm evolves or the next data-raper comes along, or we simply say no - intercept is illegal because safeguards and oversight is simply not practical. We can then move the fight onto the anti-piracy lobby who want scanners in all ISPs to detect copyright infringement. No, because that would be illegal. Sue them for conspiracy to commit unlawful intercept! [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:02PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | You are kinda missing the point here. RIPA is criminal law. So it won't cost us a penny to take this court as in the UK the plaintiff is the state (Crown Prosecution Service to be exact) and they provide their own lawyers. It will indirectly cost us, but then that goes for every single person in the UK who pays taxes for every single criminal case in the UK. You don't sue for criminal offences (well you can if you like I suppose), you have a trial. Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | But then you are putting your faith in a public prosecutor, so one would ask oneself why the ICO or any other public body failed to ban it. The point I'm making is that it will be up to the prosecution to prove as insufficient the mechnisms whereby Phorm ignore content they shouldn't see. Innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, it will be up to the complainant to offer proof before the DPS will make a case. Effectively the complainant will either need the help of specialist lawyer or be a specialist themselves in order to effectively make a claim. I'm sure this is the second time today someone has used catch 22-type arguments!! [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:13PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | Actually again, you need to understand RIPA. In actual fact most analysis of RIPA state that it is a presumed guilty act, in that you have to prove your innocence as opposed to the other way round. Don't forget Jack "nasty [READ THE AUP!]" Straw was responsible for the legislation. Breaches under the Act carry a 2 year prison sentence (mandatory) and there is even some dark humour on the net (see link below) which states if you complain about mistreatment under RIPA you get another 5 years. The public prosecutor has a duty of care and due diligence to do their job in a professional manner and to the best of their ability. The CPS do -not- like losing cases and as such have some of the country's best barristers on speed dial. If you have ever been involved in a criminal case you will have already experienced this. The prosecution will also have to call on the likes of FIPR for testimony or they would not be carrying out due diligence. Rest assured, if this ever gets into the criminal court, it will not be prosecuted by underpaid, inexperienced solicitors, it will be big wig barristers that earn more money for a single opinion than most people earn in 3 months. Furthermore, the victims who file their complaints with the Police (or even the CPS directly if they so wish) only need to provide the reports issued by the Home Office and FIPR which state consent is required for a lawful interception. Since they haven't consented to the secret trials (because the trials by BTs own admission were secret) they have all the evidence they need to win the case beyond a shadow of doubt, so there is little chance the CPS will not pursue the prosecution. If the CPS did fail to take up the case, complaints can be made to the relevant bodies. If all else fails (which is unlikely) and individual can file criminal charges in court themselves, without the use of the CPS; at this point yes costs would be a factor, but this is a very very very rare scenario. Alexander Hanff (Read this for a dark look at RIPA - http://www.stand.org.uk/commentary.php3) [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:28PM ] Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EtherDreams |
| ||
| Registered Member #185 Joined: Fri Mar 14 2008, 09:27PMPosts: 33 | TheOtherSteve wrote ... I think it's interesting that the article says it's an "interim report", e.g that it isn't finished yet. Also that all the quoted parts seem to be questions to Phorm, rather than endorsements of it. I actually stopped reading shortly after I encountered "Can cookies lead back to users in any way?" question. Hoping to jump right to the report and find that was just a lead in question followed by numerous specific ones designed to prove they can't. As knowledgeable as these dudes may be on the subject of privacy, policy, and law... the system (also) needs to be reviewed by people who themselves could properly implement and secure such a system. I have some doubts that would include this them, and if that is the case, I sure hope they bring in some help. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Paladine - I'd stop reading alarmist articles and get back to the facts. Presumption of innocence, the ancient right bestowed by the Magna Carta, is still intact except, as in the piece you pointed to, where failure to disclose encryption keys becomes an offence. No mandatory prison sentences - Demon founder Cliff Stanford got 6 months suspended for his transgression. The complainant WOULD need to present evidence. The defendent WOULD be presumed innocent - i.e. the protection they claimed was in place would have to be disproved by the prosecution. [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:44PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Report is here Started a new topic under tips [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 07:01PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | Oblonsky wrote ... Paladine - I'd stop reading alarmist articles and get back to the facts. Presumption of innocence, the ancient right bestowed by the Magna Carta, is still intact except, as in the piece you pointed to, where failure to disclose encryption keys becomes an offence. No mandatory prison sentences - Demon founder Cliff Stanford got 6 months suspended for his transgression. The complainant WOULD need to present evidence. The defendent WOULD be presumed innocent - i.e. the protection they claimed was in place would have to be disproved by the prosecution. No offence intended, but have you actually read the Act and the government guidelines regarding the Act? As I already stated, the evidence for the victim is already publicly available through BT's admission and FIPR and Home Office reports. It is not the victims job to prove guilt, it is the victims job to report the crime and give a statement. That statement is then passed to the CPS if there is -any- evidence whatsoever supporting the statement (which in this case there clearly is). You are of course correct there is no "mandatory" sentence (although Jack Straw would argue otherwise based on his various speeches on the legislation) however, the Act does clearly state the following: (7) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable— (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both; (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. The guidelines/notes which accompany the legislation clarify this a little further in that should a case go to Crown Court (which is what we would want given the number of victims in the secret trials making this a significant and serious breach of the Act which a magistrates court would be unable to rule on) increases the custodial penalty to a maximum of 5 years with no upper limit on fines. You can read all about it on OPSI. I have read RIPA and the accompanying notes extensively over the past 5 years so this is not the first time I have come across it. Alexander Hanff [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:57PM ] Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Yes, in relation to last summer's trials it seems pretty clear, however BT maintain that no personal information was analyzed. Maybe it was just a cookie-setting exercise, maybe they'll claim a loophole under "traffic information" provisions rather than message content being intercepted, and it may still be up to the complainant to prove otherwise. How many times do you read in the paper about court cases threatened but not going ahead? It's a lot of worry and stress for the complainant as well as the defendant, believe me I've been there. [ Edited Tue Mar 18 2008, 07:02PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System