UK ISPs to track websites visited (67)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

1 Mar 08, 6:16 PM
Sir_Simo
UK, 11 mths
Y! This entire thing is worrying. What I would like to know is where the logging servers will be on the network. There are 3 major networks in the UK - BT Wholesale, Cable & Wireless and Opal - nearly all internet traffic in the UK goes over these networks.
Check out this link to see how ADSL works, and pay particular attention to where the BT's ATM Network is located - Between your computer and your ISP, so whether you are using Tiscali, Orange, AOL, or whatever, you are probably going through the BT ATM Network, provided by BT Wholesale.
Opal is owned by Carphone Warehouse, and ISP such as Talk Talk and Opal themselves.
Virgin Media runs over Cable & Wireless cable networks.
So, is it just the ISP that is collecting the data, or is it on the network. If it is on the network we are all screwed no matter what ISP you go with.
If I am incorrect in any of this please let me know, though I have been dealing with the major networks for the past few years now in my job and I feel that I am pretty correct in what I say.
edited cos I forgot the link!
You teach best what you most need to learn - Richard Bach
Contrary to popular belief, IT people ARE organic
Edited 1 Mar 08, 6:17 PM by Sir_Simo

1 Mar 08, 6:17 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(M), 2 yrs

Sir_Simo wrote:
It is the person that signs the contract for their connection to the ISP that is responsible in whole.

Do you have a citation for that? I do not think for one momnet that in a criminal case your ISP's contract has very much bearing in apportioning blame for a criminal activity.
In a civil case a dispute between you and say EMI music, where EMIs case against you is based upon a contract between you and a 3rd party ISP would likely not fly.... unless there were something else to go with it.
Your ISP can of course kick you for an AUP violation... but they also can't bring a charge on behalf of another organisation that claims losses as a result of your actions because they have not incurred a loss themselves.
M
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

1 Mar 08, 6:28 PM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!

Gauthaur wrote:

Sir_Simo wrote:
It is the person that signs the contract for their connection to the ISP that is responsible in whole.

Do you have a citation for that? I do not think for one momnet that in a criminal case your ISP's contract has very much bearing in apportioning blame for a criminal activity.
In a civil case a dispute between you and say EMI music, where EMIs case against you is based upon a contract between you and a 3rd party ISP would likely not fly.... unless there were something else to go with it.
Your ISP can of course kick you for an AUP violation... but they also can't bring a charge on behalf of another organisation that claims losses as a result of your actions because they have not incurred a loss themselves.
M

Not the actual story, but demonstrate the possibilty http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2723
Nobody said it was the ISP that launched the prosection.
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.

1 Mar 08, 6:39 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
kisses_for_me wrote:
Not the actual story, but demonstrate the possibilty http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2723
Note that it says "Parents are held responsible for their children's access to the internet if they are under 18. ", so this doesn't necessarily apply to adults sharing a connection.
And I thought downloading copyrighted materials without permission was a civil issue, not a criminal one...?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

1 Mar 08, 6:43 PM
infernal1
11 mths
Sir_Simo wrote:

infernal1 wrote:

kisses_for_me wrote:

infernal1 wrote:
I am slightly mystified by this: In my home, for instance, 3 or 4 people surf behind my firewall, but I have only one public address. In addition, I have deliberately left my wireless open, so if anyone surfs dodgy sites, they would never be able to prove it was me. My signal is usable by about 5 households (although I am monitoring it to check that usage is reasonable). Many others are in exactly the same situation, so I am slightly mystified as to how they can collect this data. If they are planning to use MAC addresses, these can also easily be spoofed.
All they would get from my network is that someone on that network surfs a large number of spanking sites, but they would never be able to say it was me. (Ahem).. Still, if I start getting spanking ads, I won't complain.
I think you may find, that if you really dig into the T&C of your contract that the person named on the contract is deemed responsible.
Personally, I wouldnt allow anyone outside my house to access my network, so I use a secure protocol as well as MAC lists to restrict usage.

My point is, I would just plead ignorance, and then there would be very little that could be done. Having said that, I never surf sites which would be illegal anyway: I think there is now tolerance of all things spanking, as long as the people involved are adults, so I don't really have a problem.

Pleading ignorance is not an option. There was recently a case where a mother was convicted of downloading illegal music that her daughter was downloading. The mother didn't have a clue about what her daughter was doing until she was up in court and the logs were read/handed out as proof. Subsequently she was fined about �3000 and banned from her ISP at the time.
It is the person that signs the contract for their connection to the ISP that is responsible in whole.
Also infernal1, you say that you don't visit illegal sites, do you know what your neighbours are doing on the internet, using your connection that has your name on the ISP logs?
I strongly disagree with having others share anyone's internet connection unless you know 110% of what they are doing on the net. This also stems to other things like downloading torrents, messenger services, chat rooms etc. If you are keeping logs, what logs are you keeping and checking? Do you know every key press from their computer(s)? Do you have the ability to log everything from within a java or flash chat room?
What you are doing is an extreme risk to yourself.
Edited for grammer
Thanks for that, and it is indeed worrying. If I just say I don't understand the technology, which is complicated, then I would have a good argument in court. In the case of the mother and daughter, the mother would have had some responsibility for what happens in her home, but if someone illegally hacks in to my network, (It is illegal to use someone else's internet connection) then I am just a victim of crime.
In fact, nobody has logged in (I have a log file in my router) but I could always say they did. In fact, someone with a laptop could hack in and use the connection, and as far as I know I have no responsibility to secure my network in my ISP TOS.
So, if anything illegal happens using my network I have a good defence.
I am pleased to see that Phorm is cookie based. It is very easy to restrict cookies, and hence prevent this. Not a problem at all, I would have thought.

1 Mar 08, 9:33 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(M), 2 yrs

emark wrote:

kisses_for_me wrote:
Not the actual story, but demonstrate the possibilty http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2723
Note that it says "Parents are held responsible for their children's access to the internet if they are under 18. ", so this doesn't necessarily apply to adults sharing a connection.
And I thought downloading copyrighted materials without permission was a civil issue, not a criminal one...?
I believe that there is a subtle distinction between profiting and not profiting from the endeavour. Copying and selling can attract a crimninal prosecution. My understanding is that if there is not a profiteering element, then a civil case can be brought for damages as a result of lost sales. That then falls to the prosecution to a) prove the validity of the ammount sought and b) prove that you were the person what did it (on the balance of probability).
If you presented a defense that "It could have been the guy next door because I didn't secure my network" then be aware that as your stated defense, if it gets knocked down (none of your neighbours own a computer or like the Smashing Pumpkins) then yer fucked.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

6 Mar 08, 10:26 PM
the_kilted_one
UK(FK), 2 yrs First saw this on The Register (theregister.co.uk)
It's deeply unpleasant stuff once you get through the froth. alot of the comments above miss many of the more salient features.
1) The system has already been tested though BT publicly denied they had any links with Phorm at the time. (SysAdmins began detecting unusual traffic that was traced to Phorm via BT however BT repeatedly denied any links of any sort. Because of the threat of possible malware sysadmins began to spend time rebuilding servers and attempting to work out what the unwanted traffic was.)
2) Phorm is headed by individuals with a backstory rooted in spyware. This is one of the reasons that sysadmins were concerned when the traffic was first detected.
3) There are rumours that the data servers will be hosted in China.
4) Phorm/BT have yet to clarify if "Opting out" will mean your data will not be collected or whether it will be collected but not sold.
On a more technical note using SSL/encryption is only possible where the server is willing to accept an SSL/encrypted connection, most servers (including this one) do not run https.
In addition even if https is used the IP adresses of the sender and receiver are still visible even if the underlying data is not.
It was considered to be illegal under RIPA to harvest and pimp the data that Phorm intends to collect and most ISP T&C's also state they will not do so...so stand by for some lawyerly gravy training.
the_kilted_one

6 Mar 08, 11:24 PM
Sirebel
UK(N), 24 mths

I lost interest when this thread wandered off into conspiracy theory but check out the following link (on the bbc website) for more info. Setting your cookie security right should stop this rubbish.
"Phrom works by placing a cookie on a user's machine that contains a randomised identifying number. That cookie tracks websites visited and draws conclusions about a user's behaviour in order to target more relevant adverts."
PS. The only caught my eye because of the "Informed Consent" paragraph. Tanos, you should sue for breach of copyright...
Ad Quod Damnum

6 Mar 08, 11:25 PM
SueMtv
UK(NG), 4 yrs
Y!

the_kilted_one wrote:
First saw this on The Register (theregister.co.uk)
It's deeply unpleasant stuff once you get through the froth. alot of the comments above miss many of the more salient features.
4) Phorm/BT have yet to clarify if "Opting out" will mean your data will not be collected or whether it will be collected but not sold.
the_kilted_one
From what I have read on The Register, opting out just stops the targeted ads being served up - your browsing is still tracked, just nothing done with it. But it is still as clear as mud.
Changing ISP might not help much as all the 'big 6' are looking at this tech.
One useful extra add-on for Firefox users is TrackMeNot. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173 Claims "Protects users against search data profiling by issuing randomized queries to popular search-engines." Might not help much here but it is a start..

7 Mar 08, 1:52 PM
steve1966
UK(GL), 3 yrs

There is a petition on the Number10 website:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
The idea that "we'll still parse your surfing habits - every single page will be mirrored and scanned and keyworded - even if you opt out" is frankly the thin end of the wedge.
People on Virgin. BT or Talk Talk should move to another ISP and tell them that the reason you want to move is that you don't want your surfing habits monitored and used by a company who are very very dodgy.
Oddly enough BT subsidiaries like PlusNet have said they have no intention of using this technology.
Oh : and boycott Myspace as their adverts are served by OIX who are part of phorm. If people avoid sites which use that company for their advertising then the message might get across.
And of course we need to push our favourite sites to move to HTTPS which is NOT scraped.
Edited 7 Mar 08, 1:53 PM by steve1966

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent