Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Media Sightings |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| ICO survey | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| PhormUKPRteam |
| ||
 Registered Member #110 Joined: Thu Mar 06 2008, 05:05PMPosts: 47 | The architecture of individual deployment is down to the ISP so it is hard for me to guarantee that should you opt out your data will not be sent to the Profiler because the ISP owns the Profiler. But the system is designed so if you opt out then Phorm has no data to process | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
 Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | So your lawyers are ready to contest the view of Nicholas Bohm and the FIPR on their interpretation of the law over what constitutes interception? It doesn't matter who owns the equipment, you can't even look at my data for any purpose other than what is necessary to route it. Furthermore, whatever claims are made, it will be one hell of a job to prove that Phorm ignores all non-public communications, so even if the Home Office's assumption that public website owners implictly consent to intercept, you would still fall at the hurdle under RIPA. Maybe you should get PhormLegalTeam to answer. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| SqueakyWheel |
| ||
| Registered Member #37 Joined: Wed Feb 27 2008, 03:58PMPosts: 17 | PhormUKPRteam wrote ... The architecture of individual deployment is down to the ISP so it is hard for me to guarantee that should you opt out your data will not be sent to the Profiler because the ISP owns the Profiler. But the system is designed so if you opt out then Phorm has no data to process So going by the above comment I believe your condensed answer would be "yes, we scan information even on opt-out". The profiler may be owned by the ISP but it is still part of the process and runs Phorm software. Correct? From what I understand it the ISPs network level opt-out is their own doing and nothing to do with Phorm and is basically down to the huge public backlash. Would you care to correct me on this point as well? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| PhormUKPRteam |
| ||
| Registered Member #110 Joined: Thu Mar 06 2008, 05:05PMPosts: 47 | We have already stated don't agree with FIPR's analysis. The law is untested and the FiPR description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We've sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Strategic Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Phormic Acid |
| ||
| Registered Member #22 Joined: Mon Feb 25 2008, 11:11PMPosts: 93 | PhormUKPRteam wrote ... We have already stated don't agree with FIPR's analysis. The law is untested and the FiPR description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. I don’t see how it’s not going to court. Elsewhere, I’ve already suggested that one or more parties will step in and try to get an injunction. The Register has pointed out that Google are likely to be very unhappy about Phorm. Peter Fairbrother, in one of the comment sections, even suggested it could be Google who step in with a legal challenge. It certainly won’t do their public image any harm; they may only be acting in their own self interest, but there’d be much kudos in the perception that they were helping the little guy. Neither side is going to be happy with any decission from the lower courts. It’s such an important legal principle, I see it going all the way to the House of Lords. I don’t think a business can go to the European Court of Human Rights, so taking it that far may require a privacy rights organisation. Midnight_Voice wrote ... …if we still want life as we know it, the least we will have to do is change ISPs; and for me at least, that means my nice BT Vision box will have to go back, and I'm rather attached to it. I’m rather attached to my piece of Virgin Media cable. Technically, it’s far superior to trying to force megabits of data per second down something that was never designed to support that sort of bandwidth. I’m even more attached to it, now that it seems we have Virgin Media in premium rate U-turn. But, if Virgin Media introduce the Phorm hardware to their network, I will leave and I will encourage others to do the same. Maybe, just maybe, Virgin Media are in a general U-turning mood. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| MarkH |
| ||
| Registered Member #183 Joined: Fri Mar 14 2008, 11:31AMPosts: 15 | PhormUKPRteam wrote ... We have already stated don't agree with FIPR's analysis. The law is untested and the FiPR description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We've sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Strategic Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). __________________ So your opinion (or phorms (whichever)) is that this spying will be legally compliant within UK legislation? You say that FiPR are incorrect, why should we value your opinion rather than that of FiPR? FiPR have not got a history of being involved in the adware/spyware business, and you expect us to take your word over theirs? With regard to laws though, how does your product stand up to all EU legislation regarding data privacy and communications privacy? Why have phorm been so quiet about EU legislation? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| BadPhormula |
| ||
| Registered Member #188 Joined: Sun Mar 16 2008, 05:00PMPosts: 21 | Apologies I got carried away. I should not have used words like *Skanker *Thick Skull *Greedy *money scheming *exploitation *parasite they were uncalled for, I'm glad the Moderator intervened with his careful snipping, I don't think I would have slept well tonight knowing the sensitive souls at Phorm had read them. ****************** PhormUKPRteam (Phorm Spin-Guy) wrote ... With regards to the comment: "scan it all in the first place even if they opt-out" I would say (again) if you opt out, the Phorm system is off. No data is passed to us to process. "opt-out" should mean no piece of wire/connector going from BT equipment to Phorm equipment! This is a physical equivelant of your spying box not being there at all. Weasel words like "No data is passed to us to process" will not do. We don't want your software bypass that can be flicked back 'ON' into snoop mode when Phorm move the goal posts at some point in the near future with mission creep. NO ONE wants your equipment inside the ISP, period. no one in the UK wants you or your spying box aside from your Advert partners. (mod edit: PLEASE think before posting and do not post offensive, libelous or malicious material to the forums.) [ Edited Thu Mar 20 2008, 04:10PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | PhormUKPRteam wrote ... We have already stated don't agree with FIPR's analysis. The law is untested and the FiPR description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We've sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Strategic Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Do I remember a time when individuals and companies alike were proud to operate firmly within the law? Doesn't the fact that one influential body has expressed doubts that your technology is legal should be enough to make any reputable company think twice? There are many things that are technically legal, or you can get away with, but you don't catch mainstream companies doing this because of public perception. Doorstep hassle-selling, flyposting. Things that reputable companies just don't do because they are borderline illegal and if they get found out and there was public perception that the activity was at least antisocial, then their reputation will suffer. Well reading my email is antisocial. And don't you DARE come back and tell me you ignore email until you tell me you operate a whitelist system of the entire web, because blacklist of yahoo and hotmail won't protect my access. And if you start to tell me about "proprietary methods" then I will start to tell you about a book by Joseph Heller, in which he describes a situation where he wanted to ignore certain parts of the data but he had to analyse the data first to work out if it was data which shouldn't be analyzed. But the very act of intercepting said data was illegal without consent so he was stuck. Yossarian and Orr har to fly, there's no get-out. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | And if you tell me you DO whitelist the entire web then how quickly when I add a private section to my website do you update the list? You come here with flawed arguments and I can't wait to see the day this does get tested in court. As you can tell I have quite a bit of time on my hands. It will be better than a good test series. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
| Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | Can the profiler from here on be known as "the machine owned by the ISP formerly owned by Phorm" I'm tired and getting fed up with hearing "but the ISP owns the profiler blah blah". | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System