Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Tips |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| How to remove your websites from Phorm | ||
| Go to page >> | |
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy, revrob
|
| Author | Post | ||
| skyuser.co.uk |
| ||
 Registered Member #207 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:54AMPosts: 21 | I spoke to Mark Burgess on the phone this afternoon with my concerns and request for removing our domains from Phorm / Associated companies, first off Mark assured me, that the Network was not live yet and that there was no option or ability to remove / blacklist any websites in their eyes. Ten minutes later, Mark Burgess rang myself back, with a clarification, that this is possible. To remove your websites from Phorm etc you have to write in and request this info. I asked why the U-Turn and Mark replied that he had checked legally. I asked if I could email this request in and was told yes. So there you go folks, email your requests in now. [email protected] I have already sent ours in. [ Edited Mon Apr 28 2008, 05:57PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Sammy |
| ||
Sammy   Registered Member #143 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 08:36PMPosts: 637 | Thanks Sky I'm posting this allover the shop | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Mel |
| ||
 Registered Member #137 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 06:00PMPosts: 322 | Does this blacklist apply to both sides of the communication, or will they still intercept the user's requests to the site, but not profile the responses? If it does apply to the user's requests to the site, then quick, someone contact Google and the other search engines and get them to demand to be put on this list of non-profiled connections :) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| skyuser.co.uk |
| ||
| Registered Member #207 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:54AMPosts: 21 | I asked specifically to block any communication with our websites, when I spoke to Mark. I told him we want nothing to do with Phorm whatsoever. It was suggested to me that Phorm was not too bad and that the requests for Phorm served adverts to be blocked was to be made to the Ad Agencies that use it. I also asked a direct question on principles, ie Do you have principles and would you go against them? Mark answered yes that he would go against them. Which is the biggest difference between myself and Mark, my principles tell me that Phorm is bad, I do not agree with interception, and if it mean't we broke our advertising contract to stop people from being subjected to Phorm served ads etc then so be it. Principles are something that should not be able to be bought out, purely for the chance to make some income from adverts. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| skyuser.co.uk |
| ||
| Registered Member #207 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:54AMPosts: 21 | Just had a phone call from Phorm again with a request to change the personal email address I gave out. I have now amended my first post. Phorm are happy to accept requests on this new email address. Mel. I also asked Mark Burgess the question, Does this blacklist apply to both sides of the communication, or will they still intercept the user's requests to the site, but not profile the responses? He has asked me to email this question in for an answer. Which I have now done. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Phormic Acid |
| ||
 Registered Member #22 Joined: Mon Feb 25 2008, 11:11PMPosts: 240 | Thanks skyuser, this is very interesting. It certainly confirms madslug’s position that expecting all website owners to use robots.txt is inadequate from a legal standpoint; many website owners do not have access to that file. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 134 | Nooooooo Please do not do this! This is very bad. It gives them a possible argument for a defence when someone who has not asked to be added tot he blacklist but explicitly denies Phorm access in their site's terms and conditions, takes them to court for interception. Phorm could use the argument that the content provider could have opted out by sending details to be blacklisted. I have to stress, it is not your responsibility to opt out, the law requires you to actively opt in before this technology is legal. Don't make their work any easier. Alexander Hanff [ Edited Tue Apr 29 2008, 07:28AM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Cogster |
| ||
 Registered Member #255 Joined: Wed Mar 26 2008, 05:52PMPosts: 103 | Spot on... this is playing into their hands. I will NOT be inphorming PHORM BT or any Phormed ISP as to the whereabout of my sites.. I have notices on each page that consent for interception is NOT given or inferred. Rest assured I WILL be watching traffic VERY CAREFULLY when/if this trial goes live.! Breach my RIPA notices at your peril. [ Edited Tue Apr 29 2008, 08:13AM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Jim Murray |
| ||
  Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Feb 21 2008, 08:29PMPosts: 350 | I strongly suspect that provision of an 'opt-out'list alone will not be seen as sufficient to comply with RIPA or any other legislation, based simply on practicality. In an arena where there are literally millions of websites it cannot be seen as reasonable to require those not consenting to interception to opt-out. Just how do you pre-notify EVERY webmaster of your intentions? How do you manage an opt-out list when sites appear and disappear by the minute, and not always on an entirely unique URL? I can't see any judge with even half a clue about the internet accepting the existence of an opt-out list for websites as being a realistic attempt to comply with the RIPA requirement for informed consent of both parties PRIOR to interception. Then again, I am not a lawyer.... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Simplepieman |
| ||
| Registered Member #296 Joined: Sat Apr 05 2008, 02:42PMPosts: 86 | Jim Murray wrote ... Just how do you pre-notify EVERY webmaster of your intentions? mailto: [email protected] ;) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System