UK ISPs to track websites visited (66)

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!

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.

And I thought downloading copyrighted materials without permission was a civil issue, not a criminal one...?

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

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.

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!

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

"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

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/3... 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..

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