Does Phorm Exhibit Bad Form?

Those who will not police themselves must surely then be policed by others. They'd be far, far better off to curb their own enthuiasm than have government regulations invited in to strangle them. But I am cynic enough to anticipate greed will overcome logic once again, and Katie, bar the door...

its interesting the you say policeing ...

i dont understand why the Phorm Deep Packet Interception kit used to unlawfully intercept the users coprighted data streams are getting such PR written on the news reports copy, and not more of the real facts as can be read in several places.

heres some of the facts for you to read and take onboard.

in the UK and the EU were Phorm and BT have already run trials , they have infact broken the law and the users are asking hte question of why the police have not investigated.

see these url's for far more non PR (Phorm commissioned 5 top class PR firmes in the field and still messed it up see theRegister stories) written information:

FIPR are the officail advisors to the UK Govthttp://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/23/fipr-calls-on-home-office-to-withdraw-misleading-advice-on-phorm/

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/04/phorm-analysis-out/#comment-163549

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/24/home_office_phorm_fipr_bt/comments/

and the webs longest Phorm thread can be found at the cable forum

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated-page-331.html

I took a look, and LO! We seem to be much in agreement. I was saying in my post that Phorm should police themselves, but the real police already seem to need involvement in their activities. As I figured, greed won out over logic, and there they (Phorm) went...

Examples of what you speak of are becoming the norm on the WWW. Its almost time to ditch it and rebuild with some planning as the old one grew like a weed, care free and wild.

True, which was always most of the charm of it. Dunno, I am no big fan of resrtictions imposed from without, but if they cannot be imposed from within, then maybe... But I'll never LIKE it!

the odd thing is though, theres clear existing UK case law that shows the BT executive and personel involved in this unlawful RIPA interception are under direct threat of potentially receaveing a criminal Conviction in the future if and when a Police investigation is mounted.

see:

"remember RIPA criminal conviction for UK executives case law already exists.

the lost RIPA appeal of Stanford's
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
"
Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

3 February 2006

Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

...

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a defence to an individual who intercept a communication in the course of its transmission from a private telecommunication system, if they can establish:

a) that they are entitled to control the operation of the system; or

b) they have the express or implied consent of such a person to make the interception.

Stanford relied on the position that he had gained access to the emails through a company employee. The employee apparently was given access to usernames and passwords on the email server.

Therefore, Stanford argued, he was entitled to access the emails as "a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the system".

Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that
"right to control"
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation. [that mean YOU users as the owner of the data]

Stanford appealed the judge's decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin's view. It pointed out that the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford's sentence of 6 months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld.

Daniel Doherty"

Yes, Web companies should be regulated.

They should be regulated because it is not ethical of them to be extortionists.

I get notices from GlobalSpec, and CR4 because I like the place and am interested in the products.

So far GlobalSpec has operated in a completely ethical manner.

I would about suggest that the way GlobalSpec operated was a codified model for Web Companies.

All technology needs some guidlines, and I even believe that we need to enforce the rules of war, which depends on technology for success.

A man with a weapon is more powerful than one that is bare handed.

The unscrupulous will sell whatever they have to the buyer with money in hand.

I do not give out my address or information about what I do as a gift to third parties who are spying on me and my friends, so they can sell information about me and my friends.

It is not ethical to steal information about me, and sell it.

I am not trying to kill people or rob them. (Though I did declare war on Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

If I stole information about a company and sold it, I have a suspicion I might get in legal trouble somewhere in the world.

Using my computer to do your job without paying me, and without my consent is stealing from me.

Then you wreck my computer with every virus and worm and whatnot intended to prove what? You're clever?

I'll approve of Phorm's business plan when they pay for protecting my piece of crap computer from the people they sell information too. It is similiar to my opinion concerning the Catholic Church, & Vatican City. I'll think more well of them when they fund a Space Program that terraforms Venus and Mars.

"If I stole information about a company and sold it, I have a suspicion I might get in legal trouble somewhere in the world."

Concur to the point of voting a GA for your post - all factual to the best of my knowledge. The quoted portion above, however - happens every day. Do all the miscreants get in trouble? I suspect only if they are sloppy enough to get caught.