TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

[Ignitionnet]

Probably something to do with that it wasn't the ICO guy who wrote that it was in breach of legislation but was a part of the pasted quotes from someone else. Note the nesting of the quotation marks.

Originally Posted by bluecar1

two new FOI answers re stalk stalk

ICO communications with Talk Talk in the last 3 months
the email trail is interesting

...snippety snip snip

Re the above - why didn't you just ask Rchivist, Hatari, Dephormation, and yourself (as you were the person who requested the above question ) how many times you had each asked the ICO about TT, as you seem to be the ones sending the vast majority of the relevant FOI requests?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re the above - why didn't you just ask Rchivist, Hatari, Dephormation, and yourself (as you were the person who requested the above question ) how many times you had each asked the ICO about TT, as you seem to be the ones sending the vast majority of the relevant FOI requests?

the thing is information released under FoI is a legal answer from the relevant body who answered the request, and hugh you often make a point of requesting verifiable information not hearsay, easiest way is to provide that information for you from a source you can't dismiss

[Rchivist]

The Home Office stance on vexatious requests is beginning to alter. They had one of those "vexatious" FOI decisions about a TalkTalk matter, overturned recently after internal review.

There have also been some interesting indications today that it may not always be the civil servants themselves who make these decisions about "vexatious" requests for FOI material. They have in the past been unduly influenced by lobbyists from industry who have their own (rather inaccurate) lists, and their own rather dubious reasons.
https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php/to....html#msg33500
And that is official. Not something for the DCSF to be proud of I would have thought. May even cause panic-buying of tinfoil hats in the final run up to Christmas.
(I did stock up in anticipation, and can offer tinfoil hats at excellent prices)

bc1, you are missing the point - you put forward a FOI request to the ICO asking how many complaints and enquiries they had had re Talk Talk; you and your chums are the ones making most of the complaints and enquiries, so I would have thought you knew already........

btw, it was very noticable (imho) that when you posted

two new FOI answers re stalk stalk

you forgot to mention that it was you who submitted these requests....

You appear to be asking for confirmation of the fact you have complained/enquired - or could you, just perhaps, be attempting to trajectorise ordure toward vertical partition dividers hoping for adhesion?

[bluecar1]

regardless of my motives or otherwise, the answers are providing more information about the legality and operation of the stalk stalk system

the ICO is officially stating TT processed personally data it should not have had access to?

and that "talktalk have declared it is not possible for their subscibers to opt-out of this aspect of their offering and we feel that it was in breach of legislation to have processed this data during their trial"

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

regardless of my motives or otherwise, the answers are providing more information about the legality and operation of the stalk stalk system

the ICO is officially stating TT processed personally data it should not have had access to?

and that "talktalk have declared it is not possible for their subscibers to opt-out of this aspect of their offering and we feel that it was in breach of legislation to have processed this data during their trial"

Per my above post...

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Probably something to do with that it wasn't the ICO guy who wrote that it was in breach of legislation but was a part of the pasted quotes from someone else. Note the nesting of the quotation marks.

This applies to both of your points, both comments being a part of the quote from 'an individual with an interest in this area'.

EDIT: Here on the other hand is an opinion from the ICO.

It is the opinion of the ICO that the collection of personal data in this fashion is unlikely to fall outside the broad purpose of TalkTalk providing a service as an ISP.

To comply with the first principle, an organisation must also have a “condition for processing”. There are a number of conditions, including the consent of the individual. However, where an organisation does not have consent, it can rely on one of the other conditions. These other conditions include processing necessary in relation to a contract, and the legitimate interests of the organisation.

Therefore, as a result of these views, the ICO believes at this time that the information collected with regard to the anti-malware service is likely to be compliant with the DPA.

EDIT2: Looking at the timing of things the ICO gave the above opinion after they had received TalkTalk's response to the points raised by 'an individual with an interest in this area'. This opinion being here and dated 21st December while the copy/paste from the 'individual with an interest in this area' was, per the email thread here, put to TalkTalk by the ICO on the 26th of October, responded to on the 27th, clarification requested on the 29th and a full response, published here, given by TalkTalk on the 12th of November which resulted in the opinions above.

I trust this clarifies both the order in which the information was provided and that you are mistaken with your above assertion regarding what the ICO said - it would appear you saw what you wanted to.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

EDIT2: Looking at the timing of things the ICO gave the above opinion after they had received TalkTalk's response to the points raised by 'an individual with an interest in this area'. This opinion being here and dated 21st December while the copy/paste from the 'individual with an interest in this area' was, per the email thread here, put to TalkTalk by the ICO on the 26th of October, responded to on the 27th, clarification requested on the 29th and a full response, published here, given by TalkTalk on the 12th of November which resulted in the opinions above.

I trust this clarifies both the order in which the information was provided and that you are mistaken with your above assertion regarding what the ICO said - it would appear you saw what you wanted to.

there is no indication of the date the reponse to the individual was sent, all that is known is that falls within the requested period of the request which is the last year, and there is no indication of the data that response was formulated from, was it from earlier meetings? was it from the response from talk talk in the other FOI answer

[Ignitionnet]

Best you go find out. Ideally you could just ask whoever made the complaint and save the tax payer having to fund your crusade, chances are it's one of you guys anyway

Thanks for posting though, I'd forgotten how amusing NoDPI is, who'd have thought calling the ICO 'lying, corrupt, <parentless children> and insinuating that this project relates to government surveillance wouldn't be constructive?

The legal opinions interspersed with potentially committing libel are also a highlight.

That site and particularly a couple of members are a good advertisement for PAYG FOI requests. That would save a few £££ to progress the austerity drive

[Rchivist]

A fresh reminder that the current thinking of the ICO on this whole area is clearly set out in their official input to the recent HO "RIPA reform" consultation.

No FOI trail, no confusion about dates, and no campaigners in sight. Merely a national Data Protection Authority's input to a government consultation, in the face of a change in the law, stimulated by the prospect of a case brought by the EU Commission against the UK government in the European Court of Justice over their failure to properly implement the terms of the ePrivacy Directive.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/%7E/media/docu...sultation.ashx

Happy Christmas to all contributors.

[SadBanana]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Best you go find out. Ideally you could just ask whoever made the complaint and save the tax payer having to fund your crusade, chances are it's one of you guys anyway

Thanks for posting though, I'd forgotten how amusing NoDPI is, who'd have thought calling the ICO 'lying, corrupt, <parentless children> and insinuating that this project relates to government surveillance wouldn't be constructive?

The legal opinions interspersed with potentially committing libel are also a highlight.

That site and particularly a couple of members are a good advertisement for PAYG FOI requests. That would save a few £££ to progress the austerity drive

Might I assume that in a previous life you were an advocate of the Wibbly IO world and up for explaining, in a sad old way, that DPI is part of the 'acceptable' equation.... for purposes you might wish to support?

* Wirral Borough Council 286 requests
* Scottish Natural Heritage 11 requests
* Royal Mail Group Limited 229 requests
* Ministry of Defence 548 requests
* Kent County Council 338 requests
* Department for Work and Pensions 594 requests
* Department of Health 463 requests
* British Broadcasting Corporation 549 requests

Naturally I have to assume that each of the above FOI requests will run to the £600 limit and the total cost will be in the order of £1.8 million to the tax payer.

Otherwise I might assume an FOI request to the Home Office enquiring about contact between that department and TalkTalk would cost about £2.00 of someone's time[wage] to check things out.

And Your Agenda Would Be?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by SadBanana

snip

Well there are one or two on this forum who feel DPI is our friend and can be used to make lots of money, I am not one of them.

SB, you appear to be confusing people challenging other's agenda with those having an agenda (imho) - but then, there does seem to be a lot of that on the NoDPI and other forums (the old "if you're not for us, you must be against us and allied with the "Forces of Evil"" line of thought).

There is a huge difference (imho) between rationally questioning companies/governments actions and the almost paranoid twisting of every facet that comes out to follow the pre-conceived "party line" - this, unfortunately, weakens any valid points that may arise.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Might I assume that in a previous life you were an advocate of the Wibbly IO world and up for explaining, in a sad old way, that DPI is part of the 'acceptable' equation.... for purposes you might wish to support?



Naturally I have to assume that each of the above FOI requests will run to the £600 limit and the total cost will be in the order of £1.8 million to the tax payer.

Otherwise I might assume an FOI request to the Home Office enquiring about contact between that department and TalkTalk would cost about £2.00 of someone's time[wage] to check things out.

And Your Agenda Would Be?

I see the meaning of the smiley was lost somewhat.

To answer the other point, as an application level network engineer I believe the use of DPI to be entirely appropriate under some circumstances and within certain constraints. I would highly recommend understanding this technology more, it would lend more credence to your opinion although it may also result in your running to the nearest Faraday cage which may be for the best.

I'm unsure why your last sentence had every word capitalised, presumably to try and add effect. I've no agenda, I merely find the way in which a certain population pursue theirs quite amusing. Look on the bright side unlike 99% of the population here at least I'm amused enough to respond from time to time.

This message posted via a TalkTalk connection at the holiday cottage we are presently at. All your packets are belong to Huawei.

Merry Christmas

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well there are one or two on this forum who feel DPI is our friend and can be used to make lots of money, I am not one of them.

Mmmm yes and no. It is already used to record certain aspects of the user base as a whole, for example the web sites people visit can build demographics regarding the user base both as a whole and, in the case of LLU and cable networks, can be used to build more local statistics. These are trivially anonymised through discarding the source address once it's been identified as belonging to a particular group.

Saving money is also a perfectly legitimate use, via application management.

Other uses, Phorm for example, not so much. Where the line is drawn for me personally is insertion of content over the top of the requested content. When inspection becomes insertion is too much.

Oh, it was for "effect" - I just thought he had a faulty shift key.......