[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by chris9991

Though the article talks about what is happening in the USA it does suggest that similar thing will be used in Europe. The way I see it, the only reason someone like Virgin Media have been talking to Phorm is due the requirement to tap all web use. With the deal the ISP doesn't have to pay to host the equipment and yet will be able comply with the law and monitor all use.

No. Unless the EU and our government completely lose what little sense they have, the only ways in which this could be legal are a) after the granting of a warrant/court order (which is allowed for in the DPA, but even then there must be just cause, i.e. reason to suspect you are or may be committing criminal acts - not merely because some gort wants to deluge you with targeted ads!), or b) if the current laws are changed. My scepticism re this government and the EU notwithstanding, I really can't see that happening. Certainly in this country some serious questions would be asked in the House, which I imagine the PM is woefully ill-equipped to answer. In fact, any such change would have to conform to EU legislation as well.

Besides, Virgin won't be paying to host the equipment - Phorm will be paying them to do it, that's the whole point. Except for the (hopefully large) number of broadband subscribers they're going to lose, Virgin's costs will be minimal - unless one or more subscribers sue them as a result of data security leaks and subsequent financial or other damage to them.

Originally Posted by chris9991

It would also seem to imply that ALL ISPs would be required to have monitors so regardless of where people defect to, they are likely to be monitored.

How do you mean, "required"? In order to make this work at all, that might be true - but in the legal framework of RIPA, the DPA and several other pieces of legislation, the ISPs can only be 'required' to perform such monitoring if ordered to do so by the Police or HMG. If you reread Rob's form letter (and hey, Rob: have you had any reply yet?), one key point which I don't think has been mentioned for a while is that before all this started, Virgin's T & Cs stated that they would not perform any such monitoring...and that particular clause has disappeared. If this is legal as Phorm allege, one has to wonder why Virgin felt they had to make such a change.

Originally Posted by chris9991

One thought springs to mind however. The article refers to Skype and how packets are encrypted. Would it be practical to use Skype as pseudo dial up, rather than send voice over it data. I don't know what performance would be like, but just a thought

I'm not techie enough to say yea or nay to that, but I suspect it either wouldn't be practical or it simply wouldn't work. Besides, why the hell should we be expected to encrypt all our traffic if all we're doing is looking something up on Wikipedia or just idly browsing Amazon? Let's get something straight: it is none of Virgin's business, nor that of Phorm, nor, in fact, of ANYONE ON THIS FREAKIN' PLANET, what websites I browse or who I email or what I buy online!