UK ISPs to track websites visited (67)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

7 Mar 08, 2:19 PM
Gibbon1
UK(WC), 4 yrs
Y!
Latest on the register gives Phorm's side of the argument. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/07/phorm_in...

8 Mar 08, 5:37 PM
the_kilted_one
UK(FK), 2 yrs Unfortunately if one looks closely at the tech side of things one finds that things are not as they seem.
Re the cookies side of things, as proposed one has a unique cookie....which also identifies whether you are opted in or out.
Since the ISP's line is that one is "opted in" by default then one has to keep the Phorm cookie in order to be opted out. clearing ones cookie jar will result in one being "opted in" again.
Deleting/refusing the cookie will likewise result in the default opt in though the data Phorm collects will be of less use to the advertisers.....however it does mean ones data stream will be read, precessed and possibly partially stored.
the kilted one

8 Mar 08, 6:10 PM
Flogher
UK, 6 yrs
Y!

cheekymonkee wrote:
It just so happens that both WTC building were designed specifically to withstand a direct impact from large aircraft - and indeed insurance for this happening was taken out 2 months beforehand.

Yes and no. They were designed to take a hit from an in-bound plane with hardly any fuel on board. An aircraft with tanks empty after a trans-Atlantic flight.
What they were hit by were two almost fully fuelled jets just after take-off, which were virtual flying gas stations. The architects designed for a speed of impact which was expected to be landing or 'cruise' speed at worst. The WTC was hit at almost full speed and in a slight diving flight path... mass X velocity = kinetic energy of an unimaginable amount.
All three attacks (2 x WTC and 1 x Pentagon) were determined kamikazes of the worst type, not casual collisions with a cruising airliner low on fuel and flown by tired crew lost in a fog.
At the WTC it has been determined that the sprayed-on fire-proofing on the steel was not up to either the impact of the jets nor the great intensity of the fire. The fire-proofing was simply stripped off in the first few seconds. There is also some evidence that at least one jet burst through to the lift shafts and these functioned like huge chimneys. Chimney + fuel = blast furnace conditions.
The end result was that the steel in the centre of each structure softened and, because of the 'house of cards' nature of their construction and the vast weight above which the softened steel was trying to support, they collapsed.
The only 'conspiracy' was the team of terrorists who carried out the attack and the only failings on the part of 'the state' were the CIA and FBI in ignoring the fact that the terrorists' aircrew training was carried out in the United States.
How many real commercial aircrew want to be trained to fly a jet in mid-air but refuse training for take-offs and landings?
The USA was caught out by Pearl Harbor on 7/12/41 despite many warnings.
9/11 was simply another Pearl Harbor - and with similar warnings.
Flogher - I cane, I whip, I cuddle
east London munch - first Monday in every month: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eastlondonmunch/
Edited 8 Mar 08, 6:19 PM by Flogher

17 Mar 08, 11:14 AM
Sirebel
UK(N), 24 mths

the_kilted_one wrote:
Unfortunately if one looks closely at the tech side of things one finds that things are not as they seem.
Re the cookies side of things, as proposed one has a unique cookie....which also identifies whether you are opted in or out.
Since the ISP's line is that one is "opted in" by default then one has to keep the Phorm cookie in order to be opted out. clearing ones cookie jar will result in one being "opted in" again.
Deleting/refusing the cookie will likewise result in the default opt in though the data Phorm collects will be of less use to the advertisers.....however it does mean ones data stream will be read, precessed and possibly partially stored.
the kilted one
I need to check with our data protection guru but I believe this is not allowed by the latest act (although I see many UK sites still flaunting it). The default must be opted out and you must be asked to opt in (and no amount of legalise can be used to "automatically" opt you in). I liked this bit of legalise because it basically insisted on Informed Consent. More of our statute book should be based on this concept.
I believe that Phorm are attempting to subvert this legilation by "anonomising" the cookie and therefore just tracking website statistics against a number which is used to target ads at that number. This way Phorm can tailor ads to you without knowing who you are. Personally, I'd rather they didn't know anything about my browsing habits.
Ad Quod Damnum

17 Mar 08, 12:18 PM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!

Sirebel wrote:
The default must be opted out and you must be asked to opt in (and no amount of legalise can be used to "automatically" opt you in).
Incorrect. There is a very simple not at all legalese workaround, its called the terms and conditions for the provision of service.
+++++
Notice to wafflejack broadband customers.
30 day notice of addition/amendement to T&C for provisions of service.
8.2.4 We can do what the hell we like with data crossing our network, including, but not limted to printing it out in hardcopy format and feeding it to camels.
++++++

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.

17 Mar 08, 12:58 PM
Der_Morgenstern
UK(LA), 4 yrs
Y!
BT has admitted that it has already carried out trials after previously saying that it hadn't.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/bt_phorm...
New Labour: Proof positive that 345 villages are missing their idiots.
"We're all living in a freakshow Man, it's called life. Buy a ticket and enjoy the ride." Foamy The Squirrel
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NW_UK_Whips/

20 Mar 08, 1:31 PM
Sir_Simo
UK, 11 mths
Y! Some more news on this:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/03/1...
You teach best what you most need to learn - Richard Bach
Contrary to popular belief, IT people ARE organic

20 Mar 08, 2:46 PM
Sirebel
UK(N), 24 mths

kisses_for_me wrote:

Sirebel wrote:
The default must be opted out and you must be asked to opt in (and no amount of legalise can be used to "automatically" opt you in).
Incorrect. There is a very simple not at all legalese workaround, its called the terms and conditions for the provision of service.
+++++
Notice to wafflejack broadband customers.
30 day notice of addition/amendement to T&C for provisions of service.
8.2.4 We can do what the hell we like with data crossing our network, including, but not limted to printing it out in hardcopy format and feeding it to camels.
++++++

I'm sorry but it isn't incorrect. You can't just set terms of service to get around the LAW. I quote from the references Computer Weekly article on the FIPR's optinion (i.e the only one that counts in this case). I checked with out data protection experts and they concur (fortunately).
I frequently get flamed and abused on here for providing information that is deemed incorrect but, strangely enough, I know a lot about information and the law. It is after all my job.

FIPR wrote:
The FIPR said that unless users had signed an "opt-in" contract, this would be illegal under European data protection law, adding that some people would still be identifiable because of the nature of their searches and site choices.
Ad Quod Damnum

20 Mar 08, 4:02 PM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!

Sirebel wrote:
I'm sorry but it isn't incorrect. You can't just set terms of service to get around the LAW. I quote from the references Computer Weekly article on the FIPR's optinion (i.e the only one that counts in this case). I checked with out data protection experts and they concur (fortunately).
I disagree here (as does a home office representative), RIPA prevents interception without consent or warrant. It is perfectly possible to make consent part of the T&Cs of service.
From a leaked email from the Home Office,

The provision of a targeted online advertising service to an ISP user who has consented to receive the service should be able to satisfy section 3(1)(a). Each service will have its own relevant user agreements.
Where consent to receive targeted advertising is included in the user's contract and the user should be alerted to the possibility of opting out of the targeted online advertising service at regular intervals, 3(1)(a) is arguably satisfied
from the final summary
Targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions.
full source email
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.

22 Mar 08, 6:10 PM
EroticNightmares
UK(BN), 22 mths

I don't know if its been said already, but I'll repeat it if it has
You can gain additional security by using three bits of software
1) Privoxy 2) Tor 3) Firefox w/ Flashblock
Privoxy is a filtering proxy that you run locally on your machine and feed it sets of rules that prevent stuff being rendered. For example my config file is set up so I hardly see any ads at all, I even have google ads filtered.
Tor is an anonymous network run by enthusiasts. This means that information about your web browsing is seen only as 'Tor' traffic, the entry and exit points (the website, for example) get lost. Tor is run by volunteers and it is considered bad manners to transfer large volumes of data (as you can imagine, most Tor traffic is porn!)
Flashblock plugin for Firefox is a godsend. Replaces all flash elements on a website with a box with an F in the middle. If you want to see it (like YouTube for example) then you simply click on the F and it will play, this way you get to know what parts of the site are adverts and you never get to see em
For the novice user, I can appreciate these steps might be a little daunting and maybe over paranoid. The internet on my machine is generally ad and crap free (I use the net on my sister's machine and forget exactly HOW many ads there are!)
Anyway, apologies for the waffle. Hope its useful to someone!

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent