Brussels to sue UK over Phorm failures The European Commission has revealed plans to sue the UK government over its failure to take any action against BT and Phorm for their secret broadband interception and profiling trials. Last year The Register revealed the pair had run covert wiretaps on tens of thousands of broadband lines in two trials in 2006 and 2007, to …
I assume you're just a Phorm disinformation stooge planted here to spread propaganda ... or else you haven't found the 'Joke Alert' icon yet.
The information upon which Brussels based their accusations is neither outdated nor uninformed. I'm not really sure what you base this opinion on. Phorm and BT openly admitted to the wiretaps retrospectively and even trotted out the fact that they took legal opinion on it; which hardly counts as disinformation 'spoonfed by the antis'. The fact that these acts took place is not disputed.
The nature of these acts, however, is wildly disputed. Anyone with a basic grasp of English knows that they were wrong and illegal, and everyone with a vested interest (or disinterest in the sake of the Police - who are they going to shoot/bash in the head if it all happens online?) is trying to obfuscate the issue by introducing irrelevancies .
Good for Viviene Reding - and a firm reminder to the UK government of what they should have done in the first place. I don't think, though, that the UK doesn't have the required laws - after all we've been listing for ages the four that Phorm breaks - RIPA, DPA, Copyright Act and Forgery Act.
So what's been missing, and what she's really fastened on, is that no-one in authority in the UK seems willing to enforce these laws, and that no-one who isn't in authority, like us ordinary citizens, seems to have any way to force them to act, or to act ourselves, or to impeach those whose public duty it is to act if they don't do it.
Though I agree it's a sad day for the UK when it takes the EU to reset its moral compass, it would be a sadder day if that compass were not to be reset. Thank goodness that Phorm and BT, etc., will be prevented from riding roughshod over our legal rights to privacy, and our attempts to protect those rights.
"The ICO accepted BT's argument that it would have been hard to explain Phorm's interception and profiling system to internet users whose communications it was being tested on."
I love that. That look at that defence else where.
My Plod: Why did you not get consent for doing that to her?
Rapist: It would be hard to explain what wanted to do and get consent for it. So I just like made love to her when she was asleep.
My Plod: Ow that why you did it, that is fine then.
NUTS!
This sounds like a bit of legislative boilerplate, going back a long way. The old "crossed line" in telephone exchanges is an unintentional interception of communications. Taking your VHF receiver and twiddling the knob until you pick up the police radios, that's intentional.
The tech has changed.
But what if Anne and Brenda are using IP addresses to exchange email (A DNS problem?), and Brenda's ADSL line goes down? Cathy connects, and gets Brenda's old IP address. Yes, I know that's contrived.
I'd rather have that explicitly in the law than rely on a politician telling me, "yes, that's illegal, but nobody would prosecute."
In the first post tim said that bt had explained it would be difficult to explain what phorm was to customers, and this was told to the ICO - and the ico accepted that?
What am i paying the ico for then? what do they do with my 35 quid and everyone elses.
Anyhow that aside - did bt actually mean it would be difficult to explain the concept or difficult to explain the concept and have any sane person actually agree?
As Ad Fundum says, perhaps you are a Phorm stooge, since you ignore the most pressing issues with regards to Phorm.
They are:
1. That BT and Phorm conducted two or more illegal trials back in 2006/2007. Interception without consent is a crime, and no consent was obtained. This has nothing to do with any Phorm system currently in operation, it has to do with actions taken by BT in those illegal trials. Thats why they are on trial, not because of currently deployed Phorm system.
2. Since current privacy laws require consent from both parties for interception to be legal, one can assume that websites must also give consent. Also, consent must by law be opt-in and not opt-out, which Phorm doesnt adequately cater for either in the case of intercepting user's data or website's data.
@Dervla - please tell me this is a joke on your part?
But in case it's not::
(i) Phorm has been tested three times by BT; twice illegally by stealth and once openly. But in any case, if the authorities have reason to believe that someone or some body is proposing to commit an illegal act or acts, then they can and must act to forestall it. This is the case here.
(ii) You forget the websites. A user may give permission to Phorm to read what he/she types in on the internet, but no user can give unilateral permission for Phorm to intercept the response from my website. And given that Phorm will use what it reads to, in effect, alert any of my competitors who use Phorm's OIX ad-serving system and try to wrench sales away from me, I don't *want* Phorm intercepting my responses. It's a very real privacy issue for me.
(iii) As it happens, we know *exactly* how Phorm is/was planned to be implemented. The details going forward may be done a little differently, but UK and EU law remain crystal clear on what is and what is not permitted. And currently, Phorm, rather than accepting those laws and trying to work within them, is in denial that they even apply to it.
Kent has suggested that us calling Phorm 'illegal' is 'emotive'. Which is very odd, as I doubt that he would regard the advice he purports to have sought as to Phorm's legality as 'emotive'.
Rather, he would think it an objective view; as indeed, is the FIPR's chapter-and-verse statement of the opposite view. IANAL, but their guy is.
But as I said above, we already have the laws we need; just not, apparently the will amongst the powers that be to enforce them. But if our new ally Viviene can administer the appropriate kick in the privates, perhaps they will learn that they should not expose themselves to this charge.
Yes Mr Brown it is...... the fact that ISP's will use this technology to monitor the websites I visit and then target me with adverts is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and mass rape. What next? Mr Brown and his henchmen killing all first born males in all households...... I will not stand by idly and let this happen.... Im going to write a stern letter to my MP....
I don't know what to think...
In one sense, thank you to our EU overlords at Brussels for actually saying that the law is the law and needs to be followed. they are protecting us at a time when our police and government failed to do so...
on the other hands, who will the fines impact? certainly not the people who carried out the crimes, the government will be fined and the tax payer will foot the bill, yet again the tax payer will be paying for the acts of big businesses trying to get a bit more money... so that's hardly protecting us is it?
As far as I can see the only good that will come of this is that *finally*the government and police *might* wake up and deal with their own law breakers, though the stark reality is probably that they won't, they can continue to snooze on the job now knowing that someone else will do all the law enforcing bits and they don't have to worry.
Strictly speaking, the answer is yes, we did give up our independence. As long as we remain in the EU, under current treaties, EU law has primacy over national law. Not that we can't withdraw, but that's the nuclear option.
Then again, I might argue that exactly the same thing happened to the US - worse in fact. In theory, the US is supposed to be a voluntary union of sovereign states. In practise, it stopped being that after the Union won the Civil War.
But if you really want to understand the EU, you have to remember that from the perspective of many Europeans, the institution of the individual sovereign nation-state did not emerge from WWII smelling of roses. The first half of the 20th century can be argued to be a direct result of the unbridled exercise of national sovereignty, so you can understand why, after two devastating wars, some Europeans are passionate about not allowing individual nations to do whatever they want ever again.
Its a shocking indictment to see how bad the UK has sunk. Dragged down by the very people in the UK government who should have been helping the UK. We now need legal action against our own utterly corrupt government to protect us from them and their rich friends in business who want to so mercilessly exploit us all.
In addition to the shocking depth of the Big Brother goals of Phorm, one of the most disturbing new things about Phorm is the fact that Phorm now have a once high up ex-MP as chairman (who also has political friends). It shows that Phorm wants to work with politicians. So what do the politicians get in return?. Phorm style technology is a major step towards Big Brother. Everything we say online can be profiled, (includes everything political we find of interest to read). Thats enough to profile what political interests and views everyone has. The UK isn't suppose to be a police state with such continuous, deep and widespread monitoring of everyone, yet we are leading the world in building a 21st century police state.
The government inaction against Phorm after so many people's protests against Phorm, shows the government doesn't want to act against Phorm.
I feel utterly betrayed by the most corrupt government I've ever seen. After so many examples, the shocking depth of corruption of NuLabour is getting way beyond tolerable.
NuLabour need to go and they need to go now. How many more examples of self righteous corruption and lack of empathy from NuLabour are we to endure.
Drag them off in chains! They have absolutely no conception of personal freedom - personally I blame the civil servants who are so used to riding roughshod over our data, but their political masters need to shoulder the blame too.
It is time the surveillance society was brought to heel, and proper privacy laws were enacted to protect ordinary citizens - the rich can look after themselves.
I'll get my coat because my IP address will be tracked and I will be hunted down as a dissenter...
Erf. So you use Adblock+ as an excuse for your xenophobia? Pathetic.
By not standing up for what you believe in, fighting for what you think is right, nor making your your voice heard and simply running away to another country (which may or may not have a more benign regime); I put it to you that your are part of what is wrong with the UK today.
You will not the *lack* of a joke icon.
I have in my possession a letter from a BERR official who after months of correspondence with me sent me the letter which states ' it is not BERR's responsibility to be satisfied or not with Phorm'
So who's telling porkies Mr. Ertugrul BERR did not approve Phorm neither did the Home Office
evasion, misdirection, half truths,spin etc etc etc.
If I can see even one visit to my site from a BT address during the time that they were trialling Phorm, can I sue them for illegally intercepting communications, right?
So Google and the other big boys of "on-line targeted ads" can almost certainly sue.
I wonder why they haven't done it already.
If any of the big boys get upset then Phorm are fucked.
Don't write to your MP or MEP, just write to MSN, Google, Yahoo...
It comes to something when the liberties of UK subjects (not citizens by the way, but that's another story) are protected by the EC, while the mainstream press, the so called third estate, stood by and virtually ignored the whole affair.
Could it have something to do with BT's substantial advertising budget...
Thank you EC, and well done the reg for keeping this one on the radar
Viviane,
It's the Labour Party you would need to be suing and not the British Government, for it is they, the former, who are responsible for any failing in the time frame shared. But pursuing an idiot will win you no friends and nothing can be won in such a futile exercise of a Self Serving Regional Quango Power in a National Domain. And methinks that Drunk with the Delusion of Power aptly describes the Phishing trip ..... although the EU has a History of such Phorm and thus is it no great Surprise .
I can agree that UK shouldn't be subservient to US, I would say that the UK has historically been pretty much the only allie that we could count on. (whether both agree or disagree with each other) and I think the past also shows it works the other way also (Falklans).
For Simon Ball (I almost said something similar, like you need your war of states rights, but we know how that worked).
Just to add to the above, any clause contract that has opt in as a mandatory condition would likely fall foul of the fair conditions provisions and precedents in English and Welsh Tort law.
Do your homework next time.
BTW, I hope you're wearing trackie-bottoms, that astroturf can be nasty when you get tackled
BT Webwise increases your protection against online fraud and makes ads that appear on participating websites more relevant to your interests. It's completely free for BT Total Broadband customers and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work.
BT Webwise automatically adds an additional layer of protection against online fraud by checking the sites you visit against a list of suspected fraudulent and untrustworthy websites. When you attempt to visit any website on the list, you'll see a warning, so you can choose whether or not to visit it. It's another way BT is helping to protect you online.
BT Webwise also personalises the online advertising you see when browsing on participating websites by linking ads to your interests. For example, if you search for a weekend trip to Paris or visit pages related to Paris, BT Webwise would replace the standard ads that would normally appear with advertising relating to travel or hotels information. You won't see any more adverts than you normally do - they'll simply be more relevant.
If BT pay, their costs and charges go up so people might consider using someone-else instead - a good outcome.
If the government pays, we all pay. Short of moving abroad there's not much that can be done about that.
Sadly, I suspect this will be a "UK.gov didn't make the rules clear and gets a fine," rather than looking directly at Phorm. If phorm haven't been prosecuted by now, I doubt they will ever be for crimes in the past. Lets face it, this sort of monitoring is precisely what nulab would love to have in place for its own benefit.
You could also encourage everyone you meet to move to a non-phorm isp. Come on Zen, how about a a short tv campaign about how you don't snoop on your customers!
Just because the EU got it right on this one, doesn't mean its a good idea to move power away from the UK. We need to punish the government ourselves, not rely on the french and germans to do it for us.
Good news from the EU tbh sometimes I feel they are the only group not asleep at the wheel.
Oh an before I go....
So no BT trial eh ... oh that must smart :)
Hmmm in a recession and no more easy money for Phorm.
Also the usa has put a block of this dpi interception idea.
Now the EU is doing the same.
The Begining of the End.
"our system offers un-missable notice and clear and persistent choice to consumers."
Not good enough. Should be an OPT IN . The law says an opt in not an unmissable notice. Must try harder to stop spinning things, it's getting to be a habit isn't it?
two little words OPT IN
hows the money holding up?
The profiling was aimed at collecting personal information regarding bank accounts and job titles, basically the sort of information about you people would buy. The data 121Media collected has "disappeared" we only know it was not destroyed and guess what, BT claim to have no idea who was profiled or where the data went.
This sound like unplausable deniability to me, especially when consider that 121Media were already known to the antivirus world as unscupulous malware authors and I believe under criminal investigation by the US authorities at the time of these "Trials"
"If you want privacy....... stay the fuck of the internet !!!"
Good day Mr Ertugrul. So glad you could join us. I'm sure the level of debate about your company's product will now rise substantially. Never send a stooge to do the CEO's bidding I say.
And I see you've made your first statement. What a finely crafted piece of prose it is. Marred only by the minor detail that I think you mean "off." Spell check <> proof read.
I'll be hanging on every one of your future utterances. TTFN.
Hiya, Norman. You know, you were just so-oo much better, singing in your bath-tub, or presiding over the UK economy's collapse, than you are at coming on here in disguise.
With a track record like yours, of course, it's no wonder the only commercial enterprise prepared to hire you is Phorm Inc. But that doesn't mean anyone here has to take any notice of your ramblings.
PS: 'Dervia' -- was that the name of a certain person you reportedly had difficulties with, evicting from one of your properties?
** Paris. Because unlike the British Government, she doesn't roll over for BT. **
Damn even over here in the states the sheep finally woke up and kicked the Republicans to the curb. Are Brits really so damn indifferent? Lol guess it just goes to show the end for V is for vendetta is all wrong. The Brits would never have left the pubs to put on the costumes and rebel. Way to much work and would cut in on their drinking and tele watching time.
"In theory, the US is supposed to be a voluntary union of sovereign states. In practise, it stopped being that after the Union won the Civil War."
It stopped being that a lot earlier. Are you not aware that the present Constitution of the US is "USA 2.0", having been preceded by the Articles of Confederation?
The Articles of Confederation are now a footnote in the history books, but they were replaced by the present Constitution for a very good reason: they didn't work; they left too much power in the hands of the states and too little in the hands of the national government.
Yes, 'tis true that the Civil War put an end to talk of states seceding and established by force the principle that once you're in, you're in for good and no backing out.
Notice that Puerto Rico remains an independent commonwealth associated closely with the US, but is not a state thereof. Thus Puerto Rico periodically has votes on breaking the link, or strengthening it via statehood, or leaving things alone; and so far the Puerto Ricans have chosen to simply leave things alone as it gives them most of the advantages of statehood while retaining a degree of independence.
of this government who does nothing to protect its citizens from corporate greed.
I am a lifelong Labour supporter, sorry, I WAS a lifelong Labour supporter, but this is just another example of how they are trying to turn this country into a state that is run by corporations for profit at the expense of the civil liberties of its people.
BT's use of Phorm technology without notifying customers is in a legal quantum state of indeterminacy. Until a court of law has tested BT's actions against the regulations, it is impossible to say whether they broke the law or not (hence their claim of innocence). However, the EU regulations SHOULD have required BT and Phorm to justify their behaviour in court (which they probably would have failed to do) - but because the UK did such a p*sspoor job of implementing the regulations this didn't happen. Basically, the EU is accusing the UK of failing to protect EU citizens living in its territory.
So, the EU is going to test the UK's interpretation of the EU regulations in the EU courts. If the EU wins and shows that the UK laws are not tight enough, then the UK will have to change its laws so that any future Phorm implementation can be challanged in court by BT customers. The likely result is that BT will have to ask customers to "opt in" to Phorm, which would significantly reduce the value of Phorm and similar technologies to BT and other UK ISPs. It may be that even an "opt in" is not good enough as some users of an ISP may not be in a position to give consent (eg, someone using a shared broadband connection), in which case Phorm is dead in the water. If the EU wins and the UK still continues to allow Phorm to carry on as it currently is, the EU will impose fines on the UK, which we, the taxpayer, will have to pay.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst the EU is currently requiring specific details of internet use to be kept on record for a year, this action will probably make it impossible for the UK to use ISPs as a privately run spying network. At the moment, the government requires specific laws to be passed to force ISPs to monitor for certain internet activity, but Phorm technology would allow ISPs to passively 'become aware' of 'illegal' activities without having to go out and look for them. Because it's currently assumed that signing up to an ISP gives the ISP tacit approval to look at whatever it is you're doing on line, the moment a possible crime has been 'accidentally' detected the police can be brought in. Phorm would be an easy way for the police to get at your surfing history without needing any kind of court order to do so. It now looks like the EU will not allow this to happen.
Props to TheRegister.co.uk for having promoted this issue in its pages and to its readers for keeping the flames hot. Elsewhere we are told that proper journalism and the net are considered inimicable. Yet this issue may eventually be resolved so that the interest of democracy shall prevail against those of private interests. In no small part thanks to persistent lobbying online from citizens and professionals.
Is the UK, its Gov and assorted agencies now run by Pikeys? That is exactly the excuse they give when they nick your car/motorcycle/bike/lawnmower/LCD TV.
You cannot have "implied consent", there is no such thing. Consent is "given" it cannot be implied because you cannot in any sense reasonably know the attitude of mind of the person you are implying the consent from.
Consent:
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
3. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence.
4. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action:
Unless we're now into redefining the entire English language the simple fact is that "consent" cannot be "implied". It has to be "given" or "accepted" or "agreed" which requires a specific and intentional action on the behalf of the consentee.
Time for criminal proceedings against BT at the very least. I would also like to see UK Government ministers and agency heads also censured by the EU and also fined.
Come the next general election if this nation is stupid enough to re-elect this bunch of Labour idiots we will thoroughly deserve all that we get over the remaining period of dismantling of democracy.
is an astroturfer talking like the Phorm marketing department. Again........ fed up of wiki fiddling ?
It isn't about protection it is about selling your web usage to advertising companies and any one else that can afford to pay Phorms fees. I would suggest letting someone else find out exactly how many penis pill touts and malware/bogus av/security vendors will be able to afford their charges.
Surely it's not unusual that companies cannot be prosecuted for most types of criminal activity (typically companies can only be charged under business related laws eg. making false statements to the market). However people who plan and carry out a crime (even if it is sponsored by a company or an organization) can be prosecuted individually.
So just because an organization can't be prosecuted doesn't preclude all the individuals involved in this case from being prosecuted (the techies for the illegal interception and their bosses for conspiracy)! This would wrap up everyone involved from both BT and Phorm.
It would also send a very clear message to company bosses and their employees (remember "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law - nor is ignorance of the law).
Many commenters seem to think that the EC is the good guy here...
What they are really saying though is that the EU wants the monopoly on data retention and mining of ALL users browsing and online comms. Under the EU Data Retention Directive 2006, the EU obliges the UK to collect this data for their client, the UK government, to do whatever it wants with. The UK government is merely privatising this practise. The UK government and the EU are already sticking their big nose in where it is NOT wanted, the only difference being that the EU is not getting a cut from Phorm's activities, The UK government will tax Phorm's profits, so the EU is either going to make sure it is stopped, or at least get a piece of the pie.
This is normal practise for the EU, it issues a directive or regulation, and when the UK government enacts it (plus the usual gold-plating), the EC comes flying in to make sure that it looks like the saviour of ordinary folk, as opposed to the anti-democratic beast that initiated the whole process in the first place.
Pirate, because that is what the EU/EC/UK government is.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
