A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Phorm on Channel 5



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 26th 08, 09:44 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
John Livingston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Phorm on Channel 5

For info / update - posted also on BT.Beta groups -

Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone of
the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.

The initial pitch was on the expectation that ISPs should preserve their
customers' privacy, and that snooping on browsing would be unacceptable.
Phorm and its relationship with BT, Virgin and CPW was explained,
followed by a piece to camera from Kent Ertugrul. This was totally
unconvincing, and he appeared to put little effort into sounding upbeat
or credible. The claims he made were all those we have come to expect
("Totally anonymous" etc etc). Nothing new at all.

Next one on was Emma Sanderson who sounded every bit as unconvincing as
on her previous TV appearances. Again - nothing new, the same old
platitudes. Usual stuff about "Due diligence" and "legal advice". She
stated that "BT has signed an agreement with Phorm", so there clearly is
a contract of some sort. No surprise there.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.

In all, a balanced and alarming report which will raise the awareness of
many of those customers who have missed the significance of the debate
so far. The presenters deliberately took a neutral stance, but finished
the piece by reiterating the expectation that ISPs should have an
obligation to defend their customers' privacy. The parting shot was -
"We are keeping an eye on this, and will keep you posted".

If the trial is imminent, then this programme couldn't have come at a
worse time for BT.

I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the report - there was
quite a lot in it - did anyone else see this ?

John
  #2  
Old May 27th 08, 09:12 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Carl Waring
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 410
Default Phorm on Channel 5

John Livingston wrote:
Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.


A fair reporting of the ,erm, report there John.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.



You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions
and categorically say so.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495


  #3  
Old May 27th 08, 10:47 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Richard Tobin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Phorm on Channel 5

In article ,
Carl Waring wrote:

You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions
and categorically say so.


They don't have "convictions". They have an interpretation of a law
that hasn't been tested. It would be wrong of them to pretend to be
certain when they aren't.

You might as well ask an astronomer to stand by his convictions
and state categorically whether or not there has ever been life
on Mars.

-- Richard
--
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)
  #4  
Old May 27th 08, 10:57 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Invalid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Phorm on Channel 5

In message , Carl Waring
writes
John Livingston wrote:
Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.


A fair reporting of the ,erm, report there John.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.



You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions
and categorically say so.

Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not illegal
are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case. As an extreme
example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.

You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically
illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a
particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been found
illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive answer. Given
the state of case law on the Internet I suspect "probably" is as strong
as you will get.

http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.
--
Peter R Cook
  #5  
Old May 27th 08, 12:38 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
John Livingston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Phorm on Channel 5

Invalid wrote:
In message , Carl Waring
writes
John Livingston wrote:
Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.


A fair reporting of the ,erm, report there John.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.



You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it
will
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't
have
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their
convictions
and categorically say so.

Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not illegal
are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case. As an extreme
example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.

You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically
illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a
particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been found
illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive answer. Given
the state of case law on the Internet I suspect "probably" is as strong
as you will get.

http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.


Pertinent to a dogfight that has been raging on bt.broadband support.
This has been stirred up by a pair of trolls who are unwilling to
acknowledge the very points you have made on probably v definitely.

Nicholas Bohm's paper doesn't leave much doubt in my mind. I wonder what
BT Legal (or the Home Office) makes of it ?

John
  #6  
Old May 27th 08, 06:23 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Invalid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Phorm on Channel 5

In message , John Livingston
writes
Invalid wrote:
In message , Carl Waring
writes
John Livingston wrote:
Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.

A fair reporting of the ,erm, report there John.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.


You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies
it will
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they
don't have
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their
convictions
and categorically say so.

Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not
illegal are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case. As an
extreme example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.
You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically
illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a
particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been
found illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive
answer. Given the state of case law on the Internet I suspect
"probably" is as strong as you will get.
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.


Pertinent to a dogfight that has been raging on bt.broadband support.
This has been stirred up by a pair of trolls who are unwilling to
acknowledge the very points you have made on probably v definitely.

Nicholas Bohm's paper doesn't leave much doubt in my mind. I wonder
what BT Legal (or the Home Office) makes of it ?

John

Not sure about the Home office (checking the deniability of their
previous piece of advice springs to mind )

I suspect BT's are between a rock and a hard place (and seriously ****ed
off by operational and business managers who didn't check with them
first?). If they agree with Nicholas' position then their trial of the
technology last year could prove to have very painful consequences.

OTOH if Nicholas is wrong, and E-mail spam filtering does provide a
model that the courts would buy, then their "common carrier" defence
against the film & music industries leaks like a sieve.

Ho hum!!
--
Peter R Cook
  #7  
Old May 28th 08, 12:40 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Clive Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Phorm on Channel 5

On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:44:09 +0100, John Livingston
wrote:

For info / update - posted also on BT.Beta groups -

Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone of
the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.

[snip]

I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the report - there was
quite a lot in it - did anyone else see this ?

John


Yep, always watch the gadget show, even now that the studio video is
in compressed Film-o-vision...
Bye for now.

Clive.
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phorm detector website Graham. uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 April 29th 08 10:56 PM
Phorm and Webwise ? [email protected] uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 28 March 26th 08 12:33 PM
FIPR slams Phorm Jim Crowther uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 March 17th 08 08:16 PM
Phorm - new thread concerning the trials in March John uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 1 March 5th 08 02:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.