TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

[Rchivist]

Anyone interested in getting back on topic on this one and actually discussing the content of the FOI revelations that I provided a link to?

for example - the TalkTalk explanation of how their system works and the difficulty of reconciling the claims of TT to not be processing personal data in the urls they intercept and harvest, with both the user experience of personalised urls being used by the TalkTalk system to access sites just accessed by customers (and breaking some of them because of that), and the website evidence that the urls used by the TalkTalk system did NOT have personal information removed from them?

Or the fact that the ICO are not happy that TalkTalk kept quiet about it even in regular liason meetings with the ICO during the period of the trial?

Or the fact that the ICO are not happy that customers weren't told by TT what was happening?

Or the fact that the ICO are still reserving their position on the DPA/PECR side of things and are not declaring it all legal and above board?

Still - if you prefer a discussion about how to squeeze the STalkSTalk genie back in the FOI/Whatdotheyknow bottle, don't let me stop you. Here's an article you will no doubt enjoy - Tony Blair explaining just how jolly difficult government can be with the FOI Act getting in the way. (about para 29)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rney-interview

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I thought this was all about privacy?

nope, it is about a webmasters rights over their own content and how it is accessed

Given the costs of this exercise to content providers are virtually zero and the actual process isn't really much different to web caching from the content provider point of view, caching sites and serving them up locally is also a commercial gain to the ISPs through savings on transit and peering, and indeed is the ISP actually delivering the content in full ensuring zero ad revenue for the content provider are we getting to plain old greed now?

wrong again, it is not the same as caching, caching data by the ISP is done on the fly while the data is in transit to the user and is allowed so that the carrier can reduce bandwidth and provide a better level of service (less latency for faster page delivery only, this is exactly why it is done by many firewalls / proxy servers in companies as well as scanning for viruses on the way through)

this stalking system replays the content from a different source, it is the ISP who is making this second request(using the url scraped from the users communication with the website) not the ISP customer

as to the costs, depending on the package a websites is on with its hosting provider, a number os packages have bandwidth limits or costs, whilst these may not be large to some people to smaller niche sites they could make the difference between profit and loss

Or are we just getting onto that someone had the idea that this was a way to stick it to 'the man'?

nope, nothing personal just appears to be webmasters trying to uphold their rights under T's and C's , copyright etc

So, yeah, I'd welcome some explanation why caching entire sites and in turn serving them up from caches is quite acceptable and drew no complaints while establishing a database, with no need to actually hold the content post-analysis, is so reprehensible that it demands what I can only consider juvenile action like this? We can have nice circular arguments about legality, etc, but my opinion is that the action is juvenility dressed up in a bit of contract law.

as i have said caching is not an issue (so long as the relevant "no cache" tags etc are honoured)

but this system IS NOT caching pages, it works by stripping urls form a communications stream, which are then passed to another server and then the URL's are replayed to the website by the talk talk equipment to enable them to scan the pages

whilst talk talk will be offering this as a "free" service to its customers it will be used as an "added feature" or "incentive for customers" and so may be seen to provide indirect revenue by the fact of more customers, businesses like talk talk will not put this sort of system in place just for its customers without seeing a clear cost benefit at the end of the day

EDIT: Another thought as I was loading the dishwasher. A few browsers, most notable Internet Explorer 8, contain anti-malware features which presumably must necessitate the analysis and referencing of websites in a database. Then there are all the externals guards which use a combination of analysis and a database. You guys have started billing Microsoft, Symantec et al too for their use of your 'content' for commercial purposes, right?

these systems respect robot.txt entries, and use freely available lists, websites can block the ip ranges scanning them easilly as they are well know ranges, so why does talk talk need to build its own database? unless it will scan sites for more than just malware?

a patent from huawei that seems to fit the system in use seems to suggest the sytem can "categorise" pages it does not say what for though, i will leave other to speculate on that one

[Tarantella]

Who verifies what an isp (or search engine company) is actually doing with it's hardware and software?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I thought this was all about privacy?

Given the costs of this exercise to content providers are virtually zero and the actual process isn't really much different to web caching from the content provider point of view, caching sites and serving them up locally is also a commercial gain to the ISPs through savings on transit and peering, and indeed is the ISP actually delivering the content in full ensuring zero ad revenue for the content provider are we getting to plain old greed now?

Or are we just getting onto that someone had the idea that this was a way to stick it to 'the man'?

I thought this was all about privacy?

You thought wrong then.

Your lack of knowledge of the details here, is leading you seriously astray. This dispute between webmasters and TalkTalk is not about privacy. It is about enforcing the terms and conditions for access to web sites.
Their are privacy and interception issues that relate to TalkTalk's programme, sure - and those are matters for the enforcement authorities (ICO, police, CPS).

But don't get confused between privacy and contracts.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tarantella

Who verifies what an isp (or search engine company) is actually doing with it's hardware and software?

The only way an ISP will be found out if its doing something it should not be is when users notice something out of the ordinary, IE phorm, Talk talk, and other secret trials

[Rchivist]

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7586/7586.pdf
and
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/inf...P_Briefing.pdf

which provide some useful guidelines as to what does and does not constitute "traffic data" and "communication data".

It is quite illuminating comparing TalkTalk's published statements of their own ideas about those definitions with the government's own definitions.

Especially: (from the gov.uk pdf)
"traffic data may identify a server or domain name (web site) but not a web page"

and giving an example of "traffic data"
"web browsing information to the extent that only a host machine, server or domain is disclosed;"

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

You thought wrong then.

Your lack of knowledge of the details here, is leading you seriously astray. This dispute between webmasters and TalkTalk is not about privacy. It is about enforcing the terms and conditions for access to web sites.
Their are privacy and interception issues that relate to TalkTalk's programme, sure - and those are matters for the enforcement authorities (ICO, police, CPS).

But don't get confused between privacy and contracts.

Well my lack of knowledge of the dispute between Hatari, yourself and a very few others and Talk Talk. Yet to see any major websites make complaints about this which seems somewhat odd.

The privacy / interception issues, sadly I do not really have the time to investigate extensively, I not retired/semi-retired so I'll just stick with having profound doubts.

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Originally Posted by bluecar1

nope, it is about a webmasters rights over their own content and how it is accessed

Sorry, making it available online does give up certain things.

You're an admin on Hatari's forum, I don't for a second take your opinion as being unbiased any more than his money grab.

Originally Posted by bluecar1

wrong again, it is not the same as caching, caching data by the ISP is done on the fly while the data is in transit to the user and is allowed so that the carrier can reduce bandwidth and provide a better level of service (less latency for faster page delivery only, this is exactly why it is done by many firewalls / proxy servers in companies as well as scanning for viruses on the way through)

Depends. Given that caching is illegal though, clearly a breach of rights, it's all quite academic.

this stalking system replays the content from a different source, it is the ISP who is making this second request(using the url scraped from the users communication with the website) not the ISP customer

So block this 'different source'? It's not as if you don't know what the source is?

as to the costs, depending on the package a websites is on with its hosting provider, a number os packages have bandwidth limits or costs, whilst these may not be large to some people to smaller niche sites they could make the difference between profit and loss

I have incredible doubts on this. Small niche sites aren't run to make a profit as a general rule. I would welcome an illustration though of where this system has caused a financial loss.

nope, nothing personal just appears to be webmasters trying to uphold their rights under T's and C's , copyright etc

There is no copyright issue here. The system is not distributing the content to others, it is analysed and destroyed in an automated fashion. If there is a copyright issue here every single visit to a website is a violation of copyright.

There is a very easy way to stop this, that Hatari, et al are instead choosing to send bills and even discuss enticing Talk Talk to sites in order to bill them just undermines.

I would strongly suggest learning what the phrase 'Without prejudice' means given the approach taken.

as i have said caching is not an issue (so long as the relevant "no cache" tags etc are honoured)

Hatari, the man championing this 'cause' by all accounts, disagrees. There is no requirement to honour that meta tag as I've already mentioned.

but this system IS NOT caching pages, it works by stripping urls form a communications stream, which are then passed to another server and then the URL's are replayed to the website by the talk talk equipment to enable them to scan the pages

Which strikes me as less of a copyright issue than storing and then forwarding the pages, impersonating the origin site as a cache does.

whilst talk talk will be offering this as a "free" service to its customers it will be used as an "added feature" or "incentive for customers" and so may be seen to provide indirect revenue by the fact of more customers, businesses like talk talk will not put this sort of system in place just for its customers without seeing a clear cost benefit at the end of the day

Of course. So what?

these systems respect robot.txt entries, and use freely available lists, websites can block the ip ranges scanning them easilly as they are well know ranges, so why does talk talk need to build its own database? unless it will scan sites for more than just malware?

Sure?

Speculating is getting into tin foil hat territory, which is admittedly modus operandi but has no place here.

Talk Talk operate DPI, they can trivially play games with content through that if they so choose.

'Well known ranges'? You guys have been discussing the IP addresses that Stalk Stalk is using for months and done nothing to block them.

a patent from huawei that seems to fit the system in use seems to suggest the sytem can "categorise" pages it does not say what for though, i will leave other to speculate on that one

At a guess at least one of those categorisations may be 'malware infected or not' - as advertised.

Others could be content classification, age appropriateness, etc. They wouldn't be the first or last company that does this.

I do get what you are saying, I just fail to see the problem. You are very aware of where these connections are coming from yet, as webmasters, you jump up and down about how these systems are violating your rights yet you do not choose to take the most rapid approach to remedying the breach - block the servers - instead discussion charging for access, creating redirect loops to DDoS the ISP and other things.

Just block the damn things and get on with whatever behind the scenes. Again - modus operandi - get attention and be seen to be sticking it to the man.

In Hatari's case of course get attention then close off your forum to increase website traffic under a lame excuse of 'security'.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that the people posting on this thread are only seen for things like Phorm and CView. Any wonder I cast a cynical eye on this campaign, especially when no serious action is being taken to remedy the 'issue' but only ways that create more drama?

If you like I would be happy to assist you guys with the appropriate configuration to block the Stalk Stalk servers, just let me know. Given your profound indignation I'll even do it for free.

Yes I'm being an ass - pretty much as the other side will be when they ask 'If it was that much of an issue why didn't you take 2 minutes and block the servers from contacting your site instead of trying to extort large amounts of money for each access which would have cost far less than 1/10000th of the requested charge?' or maybe 'Could you explain why you were discussing ways to use the service to engineer an attack on Talk Talk's network?'.

TLDR

I seriously do get your point, however the legal high ground has been lost through the various emails, all usable in court, containing nonsense, and most of the moral high ground is gone through the tabloid way in which Hatari has gone about this. His cynically closing the appropriate section of the website off and advertising it to drive up registrations, the absurd level of the charge he wanted to level at Talk Talk, the poorly spelt and punctuated babble he sent to Talk Talk, even the silly way he got all cagey and tried to advertise for hits to his site on here as well.

Talk Talk were out of order with this and could have done it a lot more cleanly, the stuff I've read has been laughable and derisory. Any court action will be a mess, on what was potentially a nice, clean open and shut case that would have slapped Talk Talk in the arse for their actions. It's a shame that a real professional didn't take this up and run with it.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well my lack of knowledge of the dispute between Hatari, yourself and a very few others and Talk Talk.

Yes - I agree 100% with you there.

Once again you are unfortunately making statements that because of your unavoidable ignorance of the details, are understandably wide of the mark. Probably best to stick to discussing the publicly available material.

Think for a moment about unwise allegations like:

Yet to see any major websites make complaints about this

But why would they tell YOU? (or me for that matter?)

I would strongly suggest learning what the phrase 'Without prejudice' means given the approach taken.

You are obviously worried about the quality of private legal advice being recieved. Please don't be.

'Well known ranges'? You guys have been discussing the IP addresses that Stalk Stalk is using for months and done nothing to block them.

And you know what I ate for breakfast presumably?

If you like I would be happy to assist you guys with the appropriate configuration to block the Stalk Stalk servers, just let me know. Given your profound indignation I'll even do it for free.

Please don't trouble yourself. It's a kind offer but not needed. That particular bus left a long time ago.

The rest of the rather highly charged allegations (EXTORTION? - careful!) I will leave to wither away on the vine. There are more profitable discussions to be had on other matters. I'm still waiting to hear some intelligent comment on the 3rd party material I posted earlier on this forum.

I've always understood that highly charged, personal and libellous comments were not approved of on C/F. Nor are public squabbles.

***********************************************

I'll just repeat the last post I made in case it gets lost in this other stuff.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7586/7586.pdf
and
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/inf...P_Briefing.pdf

which provide some useful guidelines as to what does and does not constitute "traffic data" and "communication data".

It is quite illuminating comparing TalkTalk's published statements of their own ideas about those definitions with the government's own definitions.

Especially: (from the gov.uk pdf)
"traffic data may identify a server or domain name (web site) but not a web page"

and giving an example of "traffic data"
"web browsing information to the extent that only a host machine, server or domain is disclosed;"

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by R Jones

But why would they tell YOU? (or me for that matter?)

They wouldn't. But, however, he does work in Telecoms Networking (as far as I am aware) so may be in a position to have heard something either directly, or through friends/colleagues.

However, the fact that you guys seem perfectly happy to talk about what you are doing in public would suggest (to me at least) that while you may or may not have obtained legal advice, it hasn't gone that much further than that.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

But why would they tell YOU? (or me for that matter?)

PR value. The same reason Hatari broadcast it.

You are obviously worried about the quality of private legal advice being recieved. Please don't be.

Closing gate after horse has bolted.

Please don't trouble yourself. It's a kind offer but not needed. That particular bus left a long time ago.

Yes I know, it's earlier in this thread. I don't recall mentioning you by name in that statement though and no evidence Hatari has done so, so just going by the information at hand.

The rest of the rather highly charged allegations (EXTORTION? - careful!) I will leave to wither away on the vine. There are more profitable discussions to be had on other matters. I'm still waiting to hear some intelligent comment on the 3rd party material I posted earlier on this forum.

I've always understood that highly charged, personal and libellous comments were not approved of on C/F. Nor are public squabbles.

Attempting to charge Talk Talk ten pounds per access to a website is fairly simple to categorise.

No personal squabble here, just stating my opinion. I don't know you as a person nor do I have any desire to so can't judge you. Per earlier threads it would appear that all content is fine so long as it's on the right side of the discussion.

There is nothing wrong with highly charged comments. I'm sure the moderators appreciate your concern though.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Stuart

They wouldn't. But, however, he does work in Telecoms Networking (as far as I am aware) so may be in a position to have heard something either directly, or through friends/colleagues.

However, the fact that you guys seem perfectly happy to talk about what you are doing in public would suggest (to me at least) that while you may or may not have obtained legal advice, it hasn't gone that much further than that.

Never assume that you know what someone else is doing.

But feel free to speculate away (preferably in private) - but it doesn't make for a very profitable discussion here does it?

Now where was I before I was so...

****************************************

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7586/7586.pdf
and
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/inf...P_Briefing.pdf

which provide some useful guidelines as to what does and does not constitute "traffic data" and "communication data".

It is quite illuminating comparing TalkTalk's published statements of their own ideas about those definitions with the government's own definitions.

Especially: (from the gov.uk pdf)
"traffic data may identify a server or domain name (web site) but not a web page"

and giving an example of "traffic data"
"web browsing information to the extent that only a host machine, server or domain is disclosed;"

[Ignitionnet]

FYI:

The group mentioned in this thread are not the only ones taking action on this matter.

There are others of a more political persuasion who are in discussion with Talk Talk, and who have taken legal advice, without making any noise in public. However they have different concerns, specifically network neutrality, rather than concerns over content rights.

The Huawei solution is virtually identical in operation to the Great Firewall of China, not surprising given it's the same hardware vendor.

The solution performs various heuristic analysis in order to combat fast-flux malware hosting.

More to come.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Never assume that you know what someone else is doing.

But feel free to speculate away (preferably in private) - but it doesn't make for a very profitable discussion here does it?

Now where was I before I was so...

As I have stated before, I have made no assumptions. I don't know what you are doing but I do know (from experience) that if you are doing anything involving legal action, you are probably not allowed to talk about it. Certainly not in a public forum.

[Tarantella]

Why don't isps concentrate on restricting the ip addresses that initially place malware and such on the internet?


And follow that up with prosecutions?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

FYI:

The group mentioned in this thread are not the only ones taking action on this matter.

snip...

More to come.

I wish them every success.
This is not a willie-waving contest.

It would seem that TalkTalk are coming under pressure from several directions at once, and in respect of several different aspects of their monitoring and tracking "malware detection" process.

So far, I am aware of the ICO who is currently investigating DPA/PECR concerns, website owners who are concerned about their rights to control access to their sites, and this action you have mentioned from parties concerned about network neutrality. (now of course, making a noise in public, via your post). And there may be further criminal law consequences too arising out of what TalkTalk have done, which will be for the relevant enforcement or prosecution authority to report on as and when they see fit.

I'm not aware of any group of websites taking action over content/copyright issues but perhaps you have more details of that. Which website owners are those?

All of which seems to me to be likely to give TalkTalk a number of headaches. I have no interest in stopping, libelling or ridiculing, any of them.

In fact I'm trying (doggedly) to encourage discussion of some aspects - particularly the defnitions of traffic data, and communications data given here in official guidelines.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../7586/7586.pdf
and
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/inf...P_Briefing.pdf

Originally Posted by Stuart

...I do know (from experience) that if you are doing anything involving legal action, you are probably not allowed to talk about it. Certainly not in a public forum.

Exactly. Absolutely agree.