Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[phormwatch]

I don't know if this has already been brought to everyone's attention, but both VM and BT are members of the ISPA:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/

All ISPA members are Obliged to conform to a code of practice.

The ISPA code of practice is here:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/about_us/page_16.html

The complaints page is, of course, here:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/complaints/

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I don't know if this has already been brought to everyone's attention, but both VM and BT are members of the ISPA:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/

All ISPA members are Obliged to conform to a code of practice.

The ISPA code of practice is here:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/about_us/page_16.html

The complaints page is, of course, here:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/complaints/

Obliged except that the ISPA don't enforce their own code of practice. At least, not against their biggest fee paying member.

The complaints procedure seems to be, complain to BT. After you fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion, your or BT refer the case (at their discretion presumably) to ISPA. ISPA immediately do a slopey shoulders and send you to something called OTELO that I've never heard of.

See this thread on BadPhorm

[mark777]

One for the techies regarding Richard Clayton's blog and the 'suddenly remembered' fourth redirect.

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...ges-all-alike/

Could this extra hop be the result of some frantic redesign work in preparation for the BT trial? If so, does it tell us anything about what they are worried about?

They would, of course, have to 'remember' about behaviour that is detectably different from that disclosed to Dr Clayton previously. Otherwise they would look like they are trying to hide something.

[bluecar1]

this is a tracert i did the other day and kept for reference

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 21 ms 99 ms 99 ms api.home [192.168.1.254]
2 63 ms 72 ms 72 ms esr11.kingston5.broadband.bt.net [217.47.66.142]

3 70 ms 90 ms 54 ms 217.47.66.13
4 57 ms 19 ms 254 ms 217.41.217.1
5 66 ms 74 ms 72 ms 217.41.217.66
6 17 ms 71 ms 71 ms 217.41.171.58
7 17 ms 20 ms 72 ms 217.47.46.43
8 78 ms 70 ms 72 ms core1-pos12-1.kingston.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.40.90
]
9 59 ms 73 ms 71 ms core1-pos0-9-5-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65
.197]
10 82 ms 98 ms 102 ms core1-pos6-0-0.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.1
98]
11 62 ms 101 ms 98 ms 195.99.125.110
12 196 ms 72 ms 73 ms 216.239.43.123
13 31 ms 35 ms 49 ms 209.85.255.137
14 41 ms 44 ms 294 ms 72.14.233.77
15 330 ms 266 ms 303 ms ik-in-f103.google.com [66.249.91.103]

Trace complete.

seems to be a lot of running round in the bt network to unnamed routers

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by mark777

One for the techies regarding Richard Clayton's blog and the 'suddenly remembered' fourth redirect.

Could this extra hop be the result of some frantic redesign work in preparation for the BT trial? If so, does it tell us anything about what they are worried about?

Without giving too much away to these muppets, there is a simpler way to achieve what they are trying to do, with none of the complication implied by 4x redirect... and complete compliance with opt in by end users.

So what can we learn from what they are doing? The redirects tell you something very straightfoward. Here's the detail...

For each redirect you should assume an increasing degree of incompetence on the part of the designer. So BT clearly have a 4* idiot doing their design work. (On a scale whereby Mr Bean is a 1* idiot, Keystone Kops 2* idiots, the Chuckle Brothers 3*, and Freddy Star might qualify as a 5* idiot ).

This is the work of someone who should never never be allowed near a national computer network, and never never be trusted with any aspect of technical privacy or security.

Its so laughably cr@p I'd be ROFL if I wasn't so horrified that they are still seemingly intent on breaking the law.

BT customers, do yourself a favour. Give up on these people, its irretrievable.

Move to an ISP who understands how the internet works, respects your privacy/security, respects content copyright, and particularly an ISP who isn't employing an idiot.

Pete

[Florence]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

this is a tracert i did the other day and kept for reference

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

3 70 ms 90 ms 54 ms 217.47.66.13

% Information related to '217.47.30.0 - 217.47.153.255'

inetnum: 217.47.30.0 - 217.47.153.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: RAS Boxes
country: GB
admin-c: KJH5-RIPE
tech-c: KJH5-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: Please send abuse notification to abuse@bt.net
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Ken Hayes
remarks: *TECHNICAL CONTACT ONLY*
remarks: *DO NOT CONTACT IN CASES OF ABUSE*
remarks: *Please e-mail abuse notification to
remarks: abuse@btbroadband.com*
address: Broadband Platform Team
address: UK
phone: +44 1922 706028
nic-hdl: KJH5-RIPE
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

Originally Posted by bluecar1

4 57 ms 19 ms 254 ms 217.41.217.1
5 66 ms 74 ms 72 ms 217.41.217.66

inetnum: 217.41.216.0 - 217.41.218.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: BtnMidband
country: GB
admin-c: KJH5-RIPE
tech-c: KJH5-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: Please send abuse notification to abuse@bt.net
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Ken Hayes
remarks: *TECHNICAL CONTACT ONLY*
remarks: *DO NOT CONTACT IN CASES OF ABUSE*
remarks: *Please e-mail abuse notification to
remarks: abuse@btbroadband.com*
address: Broadband Platform Team
address: UK
phone: +44 1922 706028
nic-hdl: KJH5-RIPE
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

Originally Posted by bluecar1

6 17 ms 71 ms 71 ms 217.41.171.58
seems to be a lot of running round in the bt network to unnamed routers

inetnum: 217.41.168.0 - 217.41.176.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: BT-MIDBAND
country: GB
admin-c: KJH5-RIPE
tech-c: KJH5-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: Please send abuse notification to abuse@bt.net
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Ken Hayes
remarks: *TECHNICAL CONTACT ONLY*
remarks: *DO NOT CONTACT IN CASES OF ABUSE*
remarks: *Please e-mail abuse notification to
remarks: abuse@btbroadband.com*
address: Broadband Platform Team
address: UK
phone: +44 1922 706028
nic-hdl: KJH5-RIPE
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

Originally Posted by bluecar1

7 17 ms 20 ms 72 ms 217.47.46.43

inetnum: 217.47.30.0 - 217.47.153.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: RAS Boxes
country: GB
admin-c: KJH5-RIPE
tech-c: KJH5-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: Please send abuse notification to abuse@bt.net
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Ken Hayes
remarks: *TECHNICAL CONTACT ONLY*
remarks: *DO NOT CONTACT IN CASES OF ABUSE*
remarks: *Please e-mail abuse notification to
remarks: abuse@btbroadband.com*
address: Broadband Platform Team
address: UK
phone: +44 1922 706028
nic-hdl: KJH5-RIPE
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

% Information related to '217.32.0.0/12AS2856'

route: 217.32.0.0/12
descr: BT Public Internet Service
origin: AS2856
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

odf file on RAS http://www.patton.com/datasheet/remo...ide_lo-res.pdf

Just to give you a comparison from another ISP to google

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [216.239.59.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms ironwood.dsl.enta.net [87.127.229.6]
3 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms vlan4002.telehouse-east.dsl.enta.net [87.127.229
.1]
4 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms te5-2.telehouse-east.core.enta.net [62.249.192.1
21]
5 14 ms 16 ms 14 ms te4-3.global-switch.core.enta.net [87.127.236.82
]
6 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms te4-3.telehouse-north.core.enta.net [87.127.236.
41]
7 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 72.14.198.46
8 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 209.85.252.40
9 29 ms 25 ms 30 ms 209.85.250.216
10 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms 72.14.232.241
11 28 ms 29 ms 30 ms 216.239.49.126
12 28 ms 26 ms 29 ms 216.239.59.99

Trace complete.

[tdadyslexia]

How do you do a tracert?

[bigsanta11]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

How do you do a tracert?

If you are using windows xp.

Click the start button,then click on run,in the box titled "open:" , type in the letters cmd ,then hit your enter key or click ok.

Then in the next screen that pops up , just type tracert followed by a space , then type in the web address of who you want to trace the route to, e.g www.google.com then hit the enter key to begin the trace.

[OldBear]

Phone calls database considered

[tdadyslexia]

Geeeeeeee wat next.

[Edit]

Hi bigsanta11

Thank you for the info

[Edit]

Trace for Google

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.2.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 10 ms 10.157.84.1
3 9 ms 7 ms 12 ms midd-t2cam1-b-v108.inet.ntl.com [213.106.238.173
]
4 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms midd-dpim1-8-coc-1-gw.service.virginmedia.net [6
2.254.64.185]
5 14 ms 8 ms 11 ms midd-t3core-1a-ge-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.254.64.
145]
6 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms lee-bb-a-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.75.45]
7 17 ms 17 ms 28 ms pop-bb-b-as1-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
8 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms tele-ic-2-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.6]
9 47 ms 15 ms 15 ms 212.250.14.138
10 19 ms 15 ms 16 ms 209.85.255.175
11 31 ms 29 ms 26 ms 209.85.251.190
12 28 ms 27 ms 28 ms 64.233.174.187
13 40 ms 36 ms 36 ms 64.233.174.14
14 48 ms 28 ms 27 ms lm-in-f104.google.com [66.102.9.104]
Trace complete.

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Phone calls database considered

Oh, for...no, no, no, they have to be kidding! No way will businesses - especially banks - stand for that. No way. If they even try to implement that, everyone will be encrypting everything, and then they'll be totally stuffed unless they want to try to use RIPA to haul in for questioning (i.e. obtaining encryption keys) at least a third if not more of the entire UK population.

No. They cannot be seriously considering that, "security" be damned. The "threat" from "terrorists" is not enough to even attempt to justify such insanity. Don't they understand yet that by bringing in such measures they are losing the "war"? The clear implication is that they are admitting/claiming that their current measures, techniques and legal powers are inadequate, so they need to lift passages right out of 1984 and make them a reality.

Compared to this, the threat from Phorm seems almost trivial - even if it's possible, which frankly I doubt. How many millions of phone calls and emails are made/sent every day? Can a single database even hold so many data? And what the hell use will it be anyway when the "terrorists" and criminals will, as the article suggests, use encryption and PAYG phones? IronKey are going to be doing a roaring trade, unless the government goes the US route and prohibits encryption by private individuals.

It seems that free speech will shortly be literally impossible without encryption - and, of course, they'll ask the usual asinine question: "Well, what have you got to hide, then?"

When, and how, is this madness going to stop?!

And just in case, I note that I do not intend to disappear from this forum or from public view in the near future - unless they do this, in which case I shall never browse or make a phone call ever again. This disclaimer is, it seems, becoming more and more relevant by the day. As hopeless as it sounds, there has to be a way to stop them...

[bluecar1]

people need to get a grip,

this is only a call log database, not the content.

it will just be a list of numbers dialled and recieved, same as the phone companies keep now for billing and billing disputes

the same with web traffic, it is only a formalisation of the dns, dhcp logs they already keep, so plod or other can get a warrant and check if you spoke to someone they are investigating or downloaded the anarchist cook book

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Phone calls database considered

This is a bit of a distraction tbh.

Its a government measure, which I find distasteful, but not a commercial marketing exploit like Phorm.

I believe in Germany this type of retrospective evidence collection is unconstitutional (Police are allowed to collect evidence AFTER they have a warrant, not BEFORE they have a warrant)... but that's a debate for a different thread IMHO.

[icsys]

Soon all newborn will be given chip implants at birth. And your every move throughout the world will be monitored.


It would seem that in the US, they are now actively discussing the legality of web monitoring for ads.

NebuAd refused to disclose what advertising networks--such as DoubleClick or Microsoft's Aquantive--it uses, or what broadband providers it counts as customers. So did Phorm and Front Porch (which said it could not arrange an interview).

[gaz1]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Phone calls database considered

it was also in the times as well

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3965033.ece