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 | Oblonsky wrote ... Yes, in relation to last summer's trials it seems pretty clear, however BT maintain that no person information was analyzed. Maybe it was just a cookie-setting exercise, maybe they'll claim a loophole under "traffic information" rather than message content being intercepted, and it may still be up to the complainant. 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. Have you read the detailed analysis through tcpdump and tcptraceroute which was carried out by one of the victims last year? It clearly shows that the system being trialled was close to if not identical to the system Phorm is currently looking to deploy. Read here for more info: http://www.spikelab.org/blog/btProxyHorror.html I am an IT professional who has worked in the IT sector for 17 years so I understand what the author of the above web page is talking about. I do however also understand that some people may find the page difficult to comprehend, so if you are not a technical person and would like me to answer any questions you have on the above information, please just ask. Alexander Hanff Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| TheOtherSteve |
| ||
| Registered Member #178 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 03:55PMPosts: 46 | The "No personal information" claim may (or may not) get them off the hook with regards to the DPA, it has no bearing on any case brought under RIPA, which relates to the interception. BT ought to be prosecuted under both, IMHO | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
 Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment or even the conclusion. I'm just pointing out that practicalities may be a convenient obstruction for the ISPs. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Paladine wrote ... Have you read the detailed analysis through tcpdump and tcptraceroute which was carried out by one of the victims last year? ... ... if you are not a technical person and would like me to answer any questions you have on the above information, please just ask. I wrote several threads in the tech section on these subjects. You're only supporting my case - that defendants can hide behind spin and the technical complexities. Bringing a case like this to court would of course be possible but would not be a walk in the park. Better focus now on campaiging to the regulators and increasing public awareness. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Midnight_Voice |
| ||
| Registered Member #180 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PMPosts: 41 | 'Interim Report' means "Hey poodles, I wanted an E&Y from you and that's what I paid for. WTPH is this and you really think I'm gonna release it to the press?" Big Brother: a programme people watch, or a program watching people? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | Oblonsky wrote ... Paladine wrote ... Have you read the detailed analysis through tcpdump and tcptraceroute which was carried out by one of the victims last year? ... ... if you are not a technical person and would like me to answer any questions you have on the above information, please just ask. I wrote several threads in the tech section on these subjects. You're only supporting my case - that defendants can hide behind spin and the technical complexities. Bringing a case like this to court would of course be possible but would not be a walk in the park. Better focus now on campaiging to the regulators and increasing public awareness. I can't agree wit that statement simply because the only people who -know- they were victims of this crime so far -are- technically minded people and have already gathered the evidence they need to bring this case to the police. See the link I provided in my previous post as an example of this. Alexander Hanff Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Midnight_Voice |
| ||
| Registered Member #180 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PMPosts: 41 | There's a 'not' missing in the antepenultimate paragraph of page 11 of the report. This happened once in a Bible, thereafter called the 'Wicked Bible', as the 'not' was missed from one of the Ten Commandments, and the adultery one at that. I shall take this to show the level of care taken in both cases.... Big Brother: a programme people watch, or a program watching people? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Bob W |
| ||
| Registered Member #10 Joined: Sat Feb 23 2008, 06:39PMPosts: 10 | PDF of 80/20 report via The Gardian | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| felixcatuk |
| ||
  Registered Member #95 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AMPosts: 239 | That 80/20 is so poor... its hard to know where to start taking issue with it. I'm really disappointed with the level of technical accuracy, and lack of any apparent technical analysis or testing. The report was only conducted out last month. No mention of the background to Phorm/121Media and the invasive tools they supplied. Regarding data protection; Based on the information and documentation we have reviewed, we believe that Phorm Technology does not make use of personal data as defined in the UK Data Protection Act Seems they didn't read Phorms Data Protect Act registration then (available here). available here - search for Phorm, see purpose 2 for details). This line struck a chord; We believe it will be crucial to devise a system based on both transparency and embedded technological safeguards How long have we been waiting for stuff like the cookie specifications, black lists, white lists, explanations of the filtering that somehow ignores names in all languages, the method of ignoring identifiers which are not email/telephone/numeric, acknowledgement of problems like Office apps including Outlook being vulnerable, and on and on. Transparency there isn't. Very disappointing overall, however 80/20 nearly got one important thing right; any system that processes personal information must require consent on an opt-in basis. Phorm should be stopped. ISP customers; you don't need Phorm, pure and simple. Don't be a passive recipient of Phorm cookies. Until Phorm can be stopped, use the Dephormation Firefox Add On. http://www.dephormation.org.uk The user called PhormUKPRTeam/PhormUKTechTeam is a PR consultant from Citigate Drew Rogerson. RIPA: ISPs HAVE NO CONSENT FOR INTERCEPTION OF THIS TRANSMISSION ;o) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| RichieISPs |
| ||
| Registered Member #145 Joined: Mon Mar 10 2008, 05:26AMPosts: 65 | Does the report even mention RIPA? Obviously crucial to the debate. I heard a rumour that the bulls at BT were all set to go live with this quietly last year, but someone brought up the subject of due dilligence and legal issues with respect to data protection. So they comissioned 80/20 - so Simon Davies, why are you so impressed at the openness shown when Phorm were given a clear choice - due dilligence or no contract. If this was done quietly last summer then we may never have found out. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System