42 posts • joined 10 Apr 2008
At last, an admission!
"We wanted people to say 'yes, they've done something right for a change'." said Marc Burgess
I thought everyone loved Phorm and it was just Alex Hanff and El Reg who hated them? Surely if everyone loved them (as their hilarious propoganda website would have you believe) then that quote shoild be
"We wanted people to say 'yes, they've done something right AGAIN'"
Is this a subtle admission from Phorm that they are actually as popular as an independent auditor in the House of Commons Fees Office?
Pirate because I'm a proud privacy pirate!
Sarah Bee for "Moderator in Chief"!
Can anyone think of a good reason why not?
Calm down a minute sir, England & Wales IS a seperate jurisdiction to Scotland, they have different rules north of the border, as can be seen by the different approach to DNA retention. It is perfectly acceptable that they've been seperated out and is not indicative of some cryptohippie based conspiracy to rank us worse than the US. UK.gov is perfectly capable of conspiring to place us higher than the US without any outside help!
Final proof (if ever more were needed) that the next series is going to be Dr Who 90210. Steven "Unhealthy fetish for bananas" Mofatt will be unable to resist slipping back to his sitcom roots. Bad, bad choice. They needed an older companion to balance out the younger Doctor, and ideally they should've been a guy, so there was no temptation to play on the romance potential, as they seem to have been doing quite a lot recently
I hope the irony of you stating that we have no expectation of privacy in public and then posting anonymously on a public website is not lost on you. What do you have to hide I wonder?
Look for an album by Dean Gray, called "American Edit", which contains many mashed up tracks and is, IMHO much better than American Idiot that it was based on. Oh, and by the way, sampling other peoples music to use on a track of your own isn't theft, even if you don't get the right holders permission, as long as the clip that's sampled is under a certain length (3 seconds IIRC)
@Steve (Re HamsterWheel)
According to HamsterWheel's post's on the BBC Technology blog, he's not a Phorm employee, just a shareholder. However he does have a habit of aggressively referring comments to moderators (including mine when I asked the very question you've asked) and he seems to believe that anyone who doesn't support Phorm (which he claims is a British company that will provide British jobs) is a traitor (his words, not mine) so I suspect (and in the interest of fairness I have no proof) he actually works for one of the myriad PR companies that Phorm have employed to spin themselves in a good light. Maybe they gave him shares instead of paying him a wage?
Yaar, I be a Privacy Pirate!
Read EUDRD as EUTARD? The genericitemtard comment is becoming so common my eyes must've slipped. More coffee!
OK, I'll get mine now...
Were was Amanfrommars?
Does he have an alibi? This has his fingerprints all over it?
(Alien for obvious reason)
@@ the all-DM-readers-deserve-to-die-posters...
I believe that these comments are being made to show the usual attitudes of DM readers to be the knee-jerk, baying mob reactions they are. This is a process called "satire", which is part of a wider cultural phenomenom called "humour"
On a serious note, if this can be done to one advertising network, what's to stop it being done to another (ie phorm)?
I'd agree with you, except MP's have shown repeatedly that they're NOT going to be subject to snooping laws. Their children aren't going to be on the Child Protection Database, and who remembers the bruhaha a few months ago when an MP had his conversation with a constituent in prison recorded for "The purposes of solving crime"? They didn't like it then and I'm sure there will be more loopholes for them in other legislation that gets passed. The fact that their children won't be on the database is evidence enough that they KNOW how abhorrent their draconian "Social ordering" legislation is, and they don't want to be part of it. After all, they know thet're not terrorists, so all MP's can be trusted, it's just everyone else their not so sure about
"Seriously, I know that sounds flippant, but what actually *could* you do?"
Scroll the text in the URL bar perhaps?
@Phuck Phorm, Bugger BT and Drown Brown, @Excellent Stuff
"What happens if the EU parliament decides that the UK effectively has not implemented the statutory requirements since it has not included an investigatory body?"
AFAIK they have the powers to impose a daily fine on the UK for each day that goes by and they dont comply with the law. This amounts to little more than a joke with a bad punchline, there's one EU country (it may even be UK. Or Greece. Let's be honest, I don't know) that is constantly being fined for something (again, I don't know what for) and they just pay the fine and keep doing whatever it was.
"The fact that the (unelected) EU is taking action to protect its citizens - unlike our *democratically elected* government - is just TOO wierd."
I know, like a Tory MP taking steps to draw attention to the erosion of our liberties, and the (Equally unelected) house of lords stepping in to protect the common man from 42 days.
Alien, because I feel like I'm living in a virtual reality while I'm being probed
@Phorm shot JFK
I assume that you'll be volunteering for the next phase of BT trials then?
"The argument that a forged card will allow people to pass through security checks is not really valid"
You may have a point, we don't really have a way of testing how easy they are to forge at the moment. I think the idea that they may lead to a false sense of security is that they don't provide a safeguard against home grown terrorists (As I think most of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers were). These people would already have ID cards beacuse they were British. So plod would see them, see they've got ID cards and wave them on their way. This means that ID cards would serve no benefit, but people would believe they were safer. So if they serve no benefit, why bring them in? Why spend £19bn on a scheme that most commentators agree will not achieve the stated aims? Because there are obviously unstated aims that it WILL achieve. Alternatively they're going to start coding religion/political preference on the card and using that as a basis for arrests
A view from the real world
Just to muck in with my 2 pence worth, why should I, as an innocent person, have my DNA submitted to a database. Why does the state presume that I'm going to commit a crime in the future? And can all those people who say it's going to solve rape cases get a clue please. My girlfriend was raped, submitted to a DNA test and everything, and the scumbag piece of $hit just claimed that she consented, so the police didn't bother prosecuting. DNA won't get round the consent issue so why bother tarring everyone with the "you might be a criminal" brush if they can't even use it to convict *real* criminals. By all means if people have been found guilty keep the DNA. Approx 90% of crimes are committed by a prior offender so it'll be a good deterrant but don't put innocent people on the database. And if someone goes in to *voluntarily* submit DNA don't keep that, they've helped the police with their inquiries and their DNA gets kept, same as a criminal? What sort of message does that send out? "Thanks for proving that you didn't commit *this* crime, we'll hold on to this just in case" would anyone who's committed a crime be so stupid as to give DNA, even if they hadn't committed the crime that was being investigated?
And just in case any trolls try and flame me, my girlfriend is also dead against a DNA database. Pretty understandable considering how it let her down.
"Is it me or is the UK becoming more and more like China in its privacy practices?"
Actually, UK is a lot worse. China is using *our* CCTV strategy as a successful model. I'll say that again for the dimwitted Labourites. China (not the most "free" country in the world) is using the UK's (supposedly a champion of democracy) CCTV camera strategy as an effective model. So we're better at spying on our citizens than China. We're number 1!
@re: missing industry standard features
So what your basically saying is that if apple don't have a feature, then people don't need to use it any more? Sorry, but I DO use all the features that are missing from the iphone, video calling may be a bit of a novelty, but I like it, as do my friends. It's great if we're out on different nights out to see the carnage we're all inflicting. Same for MMS. Not all of my friends are technologically minded enough to read emails on their phone, and to be honest they probably wouldn't bother even if they could. So a funny picture sent by email would just sit there until they could be bothered to read it, where as an MMS would grab their attention straight away. As for the lack of a memory card slot, I'm sorry, but that is essential nowadays. The more functions your phone claims to have, the more storage space it requires, especially as the iphone claims to do away for the need for a seperate mp3 player. Yes you could just load it up with the songs you want to listen to, but then why not have some crap 500 meg mp3 player. If you shell out for the iphone you should expect to be able to fit your entire collection on there and 16gb doesn't cut it.
BTW, CD's/DVD's aren't a thing of the past, not yet anyway, just because a macbook air doesn't have them because if it did it couldn't make its purely-marketing-driven claim to be the thinest laptop ever, doesn't mean they aren't used the world over. Sounds to me like you've brought an air because you're a fanboy and are now trying to justify it's lack of features.
I think of the iphone as a "concept phone". In the same way the motor industry creates concept cars to show us what cars will be like in 20 years time, so the iphone has shown us what will be commonplace with phones in 5 years. Thing is though, no one buys concept cars, and I can see no compelling reason to buy an iphone.
Stop for Stop the Bloody Hype around what is a middle table smartphone!
Your response to my post demonstrates perfectly why cyclists are held in such contempt by motorists
1. "thats down to the lack of a cycle lane on the inside at every traffic light"
And that's the fault of motorists how exactly? Write to your council if you feel there should be more roads, don't antagonise drivers about it. My journey to work would be a hell of a lot easier if ther were roads instead of fields. Does that mean I drive over the fields to make it easier? No. I make do with the situation.
2. "awww poor paintwork /sob"
Congratulations, you missed my point entirely, but you made yourself look a prick in the process so it's not all bad. It's not about my paintwork (Well not entirely), it's about showing respect for other road users. You know, that thing your always bleating on that we should show you. It works both ways.
3. "Cyclists actually accelerate faster than cars for the first few feet given the space to do so"
Are you seriously suggesting that your bike, powered by your legs can outaccelerate my car, powered by an engine? They obviously didn't test any cyclist I've ever been caught behind in that survey. Are you sure the cars just seem to be moving slowly because they're stuck behind you? Maybe if you include the time it takes to realise the lights have changed, put the car into 1st, find the bite and take the handbrake off, but I wait at the lights in 1st and am ready to go. (After I've lit my fag of course)
4. "no cyclist ignores traffic lights, that would be fatal for the cyclist noone else"
I'm going to assume you didn't see the Episode of Top Gear where Hammond rode across London. They showed footage of cyclists repeatedly ignoring lights. And it's not only cyclists you could get hurt, pedestrians could be crossing (but lets not bring that argument up again). As for cars going the wrong way down one way streets, I've never seen that. The number of cyclists I've seen doing it however...
5. "you're making them up now"
Making it up? Why would I want to make anything up? Life's depressing enough as it is without inventing more of it. Drive down any country road on any given Sunday (Assuming the reason that your not so anti-motorist isn't because you can't pass a driving test) and you'll see cyclists side by side, refusing to pull over (and before you ask I dont "encourage" them with my horn) because they're under the mistaken impression that I can see round corners and know if it's safe to overtake or not
6. "The current list has been a riveting read"
Clearly it has been, not only did you read it all the way through but you felt compelled to write a rebuttal to it.
Drop the self superior attitude and realise that just because your bike doesn't produce any pollution doesn't mean you have a greater right to the roads of Britain. If nothing else, try engaging a bit of survival instinct. "That car will do a lot more damage to me than I will to it, therefore I will treat it with a bit of respect"
@ Pretty much every rant
@Martin. Here Here! I use the cigarette lighter in my car to light my fags (See, it's not just for powering the satnav!) I can do it one handed, never need to take my eyes off the road and it takes less effort than changing gear (or scratching your balls, as Martin so eloquently put it).
@Stef. I think anyone who wants to cycle should be made to drive for a month, so they can see just how selfish and inconsiderate cyclists are. Slaloming in and out of traffic waiting at lights, scraping within inches of my paintwork when I give them several feet, pulling in front of cars at that bit where the cycle lane stratches over the whole lane at traffic lights, not to turn right, just because they can, ignoring traffic lights, riding side by side so no cars can get past them, I could go on.
@anti pot people. As has been mentioned, people smoking pot are three times LESS likely to have an accident than straight people. I will conceed that this is slightly akin to saying that, by driving at 25mph wherever they go makes old people 3 times less likely to have an accident, but winds up every other road user and makes them more likely to cause an accident, so it's still bad and a little bit stupid, but please try and get your facts straight before going on a rant, it makes it so much easier to get your point across
What's an Oyster Card? Jeremy Clarkson summed it up best on an episode of Top Gear
"It's useful, if you have no understanding of *money*"
Did I read that correctly?!?
Bottom of Page 4
Allow Single Mothers to check out the sexual history of their new partners
While it's understandable (if a little overly paranoid) that you don't want to start dating someone who's only after you for your kids, what does that say about the state of Britain today? You want to go out with a yummy mummy so you're automatically a pervert? I assume any single dads out there will be allowed to check on the history of their new girlfriend's to make sure they're not prone to displays of Munchausen syndrome? Of course not, because that hasn't (if you'll pardon the expression) been "sexed up" by the tabloids to make people more accepting of the big brotherness that's highjacked the NuLabour manifesto. Can't think of an intelligent way to solve this problem, lets spy on people! It's for their own good (and we cant blame everything on terrorists)
Apparently Pineapple Juice contains enzymes that digests your fingerprints, prolonged exposure can remove them permanently. I say apparently because I heard that fact on QI. Worth a try though
Err, you've completely misread what I said, but seeing as your an angry prat that doesn't surprise me. I never said DONT have a bank account, I just said be aware of the fact that there are ID fraudsters out there and take some responisbility for your personal data. The fact that you claim to shred your docs suggested to me that you understood that. As you say it's YOUR money so YOU should take responsibility for it where you can. How is it the banks responsibility if YOU don't shred your docs in keeping WITH YOUR OWN POLICY???? Banks don't blame you if they get help up at gunpoint, so why should you blame them if you can't keep your information secure?
@Blame The Victim AC
Your arguement seems a little flawed. You say you regularly shred your bills. Why? Is it because you know that cyberscum look through people's rubbish to get personal info? It's not like it hasn't been widely reported, and Im guessing you were shredding your docs because you didn't want to take the risk of it happeniong to you. Then on the one time you forget to shred your stuff, you get your ID ripped off. Unlucky for sure, but not unexpected.
If the bank can be proved to be at fault then for sure, they should pay, and someone in management should see the inside of a prison cell, to hammer home the message to the arrogant bankers that this is our money they're dicking about with. If it's just a case of someone's put their details into a phishing website, or not taken care with their personal details then how is the bank to blame? It's not their fault you weren't careful with your data is it. I also think it's a little ludicrous that you think criminals will sellotape all your shredded documents together, but just to be on the safe side, I've never thrown away a single bill or bank statement I've ever recieved. You never know when you might need them
I'm with you, always have been. 11 years is too long in power, it makes you lose sight of the people you're supposed to represent. 11 years in the Westminster village and it would seem that you forget that there are people out there who *don't* have 6 figure salaries and massive expense accounts
So having tried to convince us that every piece of information they collected was "essential and would only be used for a specified purpose" they now have to have a *competition* to find a use for it! So either they didn't need to collect it in the first plcae, in which case they were lying when they said it was essential, or they're looking at new ways to use it, so they were lying when they said it was only going to be used for the specified purpose. Gordon, I trust you about as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat.
Gone to the Zoo
I third/fourth the motion to refer to all outages as "Going to the Zoo". For what it's worth, FB mobile seems to be working as normal, and by that I mean it's unreliable, and every so often decides that you've got no friends
My understanding ot the process (and IANAL) is that the only way a British citizen can be extradited to the US using that farce of a treaty, is if there is no comprable charge that he can be tried with in the UK. The UK has some pretty strict hacking laws, and at least some of the crime was committed in the UK. He can be tried in the UK and should be. I'm fed up of us Kow-towing to the Americans when they do nothing for us in return, and in fact hinder us.
I read an interview with him last year, apparently he did find something, he didn't elaborate, just described it as "crazy sh1t". Make of that what you will, I'm staying open minded (while preparing my "Welcome Alien Overloads" banner, just in case)
Angles most certainly do exist, I've seen them. Angel's on the other hand...
BT say he had a spyware infection...
... Err, they were right surely?
Made me chuckle(because I can't cry at work) that the ICO felt that because BT couldn't explain to them what phorm was actually doing, it seems to me that no-one who's supporting phorm have *actually seen it working*. If you read back through all the previous statments from ISP's, Home Office, ICO, 80/20 etc, they all say the same thing "phorm assure us" and "phorm tell us" and "phorm ensure this". Here's a news flash for you people, ... Dramatic pause... *Advertisers Lie!* It's their only reason for existing. That and to grab as much cash as possible with F**k all regard to the consequences. As if they're going to tell the truth about their own product.
This is an open call to BT. You may think we're ignorant and can't possibly understand the legal complexities of just *how* what you've done is legal, so what have you got to worry about putting *All* your internal documents relating to phorm (and I mean every letter, every memo, every email, since k*nt and his c*nts first got in contact with you) and let us judge for ourselves. If by some laughable chance you're worried about the privacy of your staff, assign them all a unique number to replace their names. I mean, apparently you can never figure out a persons name from a unique number
Re:RE: New York
How about "The York Strikes Back"?
It's STILL down
So it's now 2 days later, and I still cant top up. How long can it take to sort out these problems? Was thinking about a move away from 3, this has made up my mind.
Paris, because she also goes down and stays down
@What Free Speech
Sorry to be pedantic, but Freedom of Speech WAS enshrined in UK law with the Human Rights Act 1998 (can't remember the exact Article, but it's one of the early ones) that NuLab signed us up to, so they should be very familiar with it. I say should because, well, look around!
There's a link for the Scientology channel on YouTube at the bottom of this story, that I assume they paid for. After the Google fiasco, that makes me all happy inside
Nope, it's the BBC as a whole. Reality shows, reality shows, reality shows, followed by a "best of the week's reality shows". I can actually feel my IQ dropping everytime I watch one of them. BBC does make a few good shows, but they're so few and far between as to make no difference. To paraphrase Bill Hicks "Go back to bed Britain, your government is in control. Here, here's 'strictly come dancing', watch this, shut up."
Paris, cuz she's no stranger to "reality tv"
"For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised."
Oh my god, are you actually comparing smoking weed with rape? You really are a Daily Mail reading, truth distorting f**kwit aren't you! Rape is a crime that HAS A VICTIM!! The only victim from smoking weed is the person toking it, and any negative side effects that may result from that are THEIR choice. No one choses to be raped, that's the definition of it! Try engaging your common sense and seeing that Alchohol causes more HARM than weed, and don't just boil this down to lethality. I don't care that's not a word, honest to god people like you with your false arguements get me so angry, if you can't create a rational argument, stay out of it
Duckin' and Weavin'
Every time I hear something from Phorm's side of things I just get more and more pi55ed off. They claim that the home office advice means that their "service" is legal, HO says that it's probably legal (if consent is obtained, which it wasn't for the trials), what the hell kind of advice is that? It might be legal, it might not? Either way, both the HO and Phorm say we should drop the legality issue, even though the the HO's and phorm's interpretation of the "advice" differs dramtically, at the very least no consent was obtained for the trial so even by the HO's (admittedly weak a55) poistion, both bt and phorm have done something wrong and need to be investigated further, and I mean properly investigated, not just given a tour of phorms offices, shown a computer and told "that's where our software goes, it isn't bad. What, no of course you can't look at it, don't you trust us? Why would we lie to you? Here, let me take you to a lapdancing bar, on me". The tinfoil hat part of me thinks that the uk.gov knew all along what phorm were planning on, and hoped that it would be implemented without being noticed.
And another thing, whenever I hear someone describe their business as a "legitimate" business, I immediately think that it isn't. If you saw a 2nd hand car dealership called "honest" K(u)nt's quality motors, you wouldn't go there would you? What was the Mafia club in the Simpsons called?
Paris, coz not even she could swallow all these whoppers
Bravo sir, Bravo! Now if more people take your lead...
When the music stops, you're the one who has to deal with phorm...
What a surptise, this has been a whitewashing of concerns by every interested party. BT and phorm tell us this thing won't invade privacy, but give us conflicting reasons as to why not, at the FAQ session Simon Davies acknowledges that the big issue is legality, but then asks everyone not to talk about it, and now HMG (Who I've suspected always wanted this kind of access) won't take action on it.
It's the ISP's responsibility to make sure they don't break RIPA? That may be, but it's sure as hell this governments responsibility to intervene when they do! This is farcical, if it had been a teenager downloading a few songs that the BPI had asked them to investigate then you can guarantee they would've been knocking down his bedroom door before you could say "hasty search warrant", but because it's the citizens (who MP's are supposed to represent) complaining against big business, nothing gets done! I guess we know who makes the bigger campaign contributions!
PS, why no coverage of the phorm Q&A session?
Helicopter because, well, look around.
@ I emailed my MP about the lack of a criminal investigation...
I wouldn't hold your breath, the government isn't going to do anything, they WANT phorm like access so they can track down child molesters/terrorists/people who aren't going to vote labour, and if a private company brings it in then Herr Brown can say "look, it wasn't me being a Stalinist control phreak, it was these naughty people, we just used the information they'd already collected". The ONLY way to stop this dead is a mass exodus from BT/Virgin, don't threaten to do it IF they bring in phorm, actually do it now, just for even contemplating to treat you like an exploitable resource to earn them more £££'s. hat's the only message these pimp's 'n' whores understand.
Helicopter, coz not even Orwell could see this shit coming
Lies, Damn Lies and Phorm PR
Just read K(u)nt's response to the ICO's report
"We now have a statement from the Home Office and the Information Commissioner saying not only is there no privacy issue but there is no interception issue either." ...
..."The more people understand what we are doing the more comfortable they get with it,"
Now I know I don't do doublespeak as well as him, but to my untrained eye it says nothing of the sort, at best it says that there could be privacy issues and interception issues. As for people getting more comfortable with the idea, surely the ICO growing a spine and coming out against phorm, as well as Richard Clayton's comments, are proof that people are getting LESS comfortable with phorm's disgusting plan's. I always hoped the advertising industry would destroy itself, I never thought I'd get to see it happen!