TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Oh...

Thanks for your 'critical' input. Not that I would be criticizing it.

I have for some time now been highly critical of the grandstanding, the paranoia and sheer battiness of much of the 'campaigning' that started on this forum before (thankfully) de-camping to the relative obscurity of Alex Hanff's fan site.

The 'campaign' has, almost from the word go, been characterized by a herd mentality that unthinkingly accepts any anti-DPI sentiment and, equally unthinkingly, rejects anything that fails to completely toe that line.

I am not remotely surprised at your reaction to Ignition's balanced and considered opinion as expressed above. After all, his position falls some way short of the mouth-frothing hatred that, it appears to me, is the only acceptable position so far as many anti-DPI 'campaigners' are concerned.

Not that anyone should need to point this out, but here goes nothing anyway:

Cable Forum is not noDPI (thankfully). Aside from our obvious raison d'etre, we are here to engage in critical discussion of a wide range of issues. We do not enforce a party line on people and we do not ridicule other members for failing to adhere to any prevailing groupthink.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by SadBanana

And this I will believe? No, sorry. As presented by yourself and, it would seem, the Mods it might be apparent to me, [imho], that you have regularly taken the opportunity to wave your supposed experience about the place in order to give an impression that your opinion is worth more than that of others along with the implication that others may or do not know what they are talking about.

Just to remind you why I actually mentioned what I do for a living I was responding to a direct question from you.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

And Your Agenda Would Be?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Then perhaps Iggy might feel the need to update or re-educate himself on Phorms claims for their current system and how they think it is operating unless Iggy just wants to cloud the, lack of, discussion.

Such as the apparent 'fact' that Phorm replaces content in transit? I am sure you will set me straight.

Iggy said nothing about the current versions of Phorm replacing content in transit. He used Phorm as an example and said OIX was potentially distasteful. He quite mistakenly didn't elaborate as he didn't realise we were having a urinating contest.

Iggy didn't state things as facts he gave his opinion. If at some point he wrote an opinion and dressed it as fact he welcomes correction. He finds correction useful, helps him to learn new things.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Iggy might also live on a diet of fried to carbonized eggs and bacon and not be bothered about the layers of grease that build up on the cooker. Given Iggy is not bothered he sees no reason for others to be.

Switching to first person for this bit...

There seem to be some issues with the concepts of a discussion forum. I am not posting to try and convert you to my point of view. I am not conducting a campaign. I think that's the key issue, I am not conducting a campaign, this is not a campaign forum this forum is a discussion forum where people share opinions and points of view.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Iggy uses the Clubcard example and does not miss the chance to imply that anyone concerned about these things is looking for a Warhol moment. Next thing he will be telling me about Google.

Back to third person.

Iggy wonders where asking if it's that surprising that the same things that are happening offline happen online is implying anything.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

I had noticed that but would choose, given the cast in iron opportunity, to make a choice about it.

Not wishing to be on topic... but it would seem that TalkTalk are not offering that opportunity.

First person again

Are they forcing people to use their service? If obliged to use their service then I can certainly see how they are denying people that opportunity. The choice is to use another ISP that will assure that they do not engage in these practises is it not?

We may or may not have opt outs offline, one ongoing one is to not use services that data mine, why would the same apply online?

Originally Posted by SadBanana

So Iggy's opinion would be the one that matters.

Back to third!

Or he was just reiterating for clarity.

Though yes, Iggy's opinion is the one that matters to Iggy, YMMV.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

As long as people do not leech off others original leeching things will be OK as long as people are allowed to leech in the first place. Naturally this would exclude any concerns expressed by those who are subjected to the process and their concerns are therefore not part of the equation.

No, it doesn't exclude reasonable concerns. Incase you didn't notice Iggy said that he was largely indifferent to them. YMMV. Again note discussion which tends to involve people expressing different opinions about things and discussing them, with the end result being that either people come to a consensus or a more educated disagreement.

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Classic.

Perhaps you might consider changing 'Very Droll' to 'Not Very Sophisticated'

I'm far too sarcastic to be unsophisticated. Sarcasm done properly is hard work!

[SadBanana]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Really? So why comment then?If it's not a criticism what is it..

Apparently, we have to play games.

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Are they forcing people to use their service? If obliged to use their service then I can certainly see how they are denying people that opportunity. The choice is to use another ISP that will assure that they do not engage in these practises is it not?

Thanks for the agreement. I'll leave you to check things out and report back.

Sorry if I missed your other blibble.

[Ignitionnet]

No need to apologise I'm still smiling. Going by that you've now reverted to ignorance and referring to posts as 'blibble' this conversation is going nowhere and doing nothing so I'll add you to my ignore list in the name of harmony and life can go on

EDIT: By the way a happy and prosperous new year again, as I won't be referring to your good self again.

Time for beer, and a Maker's Mark chaser

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SadBanana

Apparently, we have to play games.

Not really. Debating rationally would be good though.

[cookie_365]

Just popped into this thread as my dad has just got himself internetted up with Talk Talk and it caught my eye.

So having whizzed through the post the answer to the question posed in the thread title would seem to be:

No.

Fair comment?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Just popped into this thread as my dad has just got himself internetted up with Talk Talk and it caught my eye.

So having whizzed through the post the answer to the question posed in the thread title would seem to be:

No.

Fair comment?

In my opinion absolutely. Others evidently disagree

350+ posts in, and I think anyone contributing to this thread would do well to go back and read the OP before wading in. That one post, all by itself, should set the alarm bells ringing.

Writing to TalkTalk to try and make them pay for accessing websites is precisely the sort of hare-brained scheme that causes campaigns to become marginalised and ignored.

[cookie_365]

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chris

350+ posts in, and I think anyone contributing to this thread would do well to go back and read the OP before wading in. That one post, all by itself, should set the alarm bells ringing.

Writing to TalkTalk to try and make them pay for accessing websites is precisely the sort of hare-brained scheme that causes campaigns to become marginalised and ignored.

All the original post showed was a person that was so full of self delusion and grandeur who thought that by virtue of him publishing a website he could charge companies such as TalkTalk for the privilege of their customers having the audacity to look at their so called private ravings.

You then have other posters stating that they have embedded software on their sites specifically to warn sites not to allow access to their websites as well.

Surely the kind of person that is this paranoid should ensure that any information on their sites should not be accessible to the outside world and as well as wearing tinfoil hats they should seek immediate help from their doctor forthwith.

[Stuart]

What the original post shows is that whether for marketing, legal or technical reasons, ISPs are increasingly looking at ways of monitoring us. Now, this could be good for us (if this system stops even a percentage of users being infected, that is good), or it could be bad. While our ISPs can be presumed to be trustworthy, are the companies they deal with? Are they selling our personal details on? Are these companies storing our personal details securely?

Whether it's good or bad, we need to watch out for it. We also need the companies concerned to know they are being watched.

One particularly disturbing thing both this and the Phorm incident have shown is that our own government has a very lax attitude to the protection of the private lives of it's citizens. If the government is willing to allow the browsing data of it's citizens to be sold abroad, what else are they allowing?

We also need to monitor exactly what the government are doing. Because, while they are supposed to be there to protect our interests, in this case, they clearly have no interest in doing that.

The problem is, as Chris says, taking action like charging the ISPs will cause the campaign to be marginalised, and eventually forgotten.

[Rchivist]

If anyone has time, I mentioned this before I went on holiday. Seems not to have sparked any comment as you all got busy with another sort of interaction entirely.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/%7E/media/docu...sultation.ashx
(Current ICO position on the state of RIPA legislation.)

(Someone mentioned rational discussion during the week...)

Re: the arrogance of website owners thinking they can impose conditions on access to their sites including charging - try reading a few T&Cs on the majority of commercial sites nowadays - and give Michael O'Leary or Amazon or even Rupert Murdoch a ring. Don't listen to me, listen to them.

I have been trying very hard since the summer, to find legal arguments as to why website owners CANT control access to their sites, but strange to say, no-one can supply any. Not even the ISPs (perhaps because they rely on identical website T&Cs themselves). Plenty of rhetoric - no actual legal precedents though.

As for the ICO and TalkTalk - let's just say the adiposely challenged female hasn't vocalised yet. Patience, there is a lot of evidence to be considered yet.

[Stuart]

I doubt anyone truly means you can't control access to the site. You can. We (and most other forums) do it.

The difference being that we don't just arbitrarily decide to invoice the ISPs and send emails complaining when they don't pay. Neither did News International. News International were quite vocal about the fact they were going to charge for several months before they did.

Personally, I have no problem with people controlling who has access to their own sites. I do feel, however, that if they wish to fight the ISPs on this, they need to be a little more professional sounding in their communications, and not just do things like randomly invoice ISPs.

Originally Posted by Rchivist

If anyone has time, I mentioned this before I went on holiday. Seems not to have sparked any comment as you all got busy with another sort of interaction entirely.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/%7E/media/docu...sultation.ashx
(Current ICO position on the state of RIPA legislation.)

(Someone mentioned rational discussion during the week...)

Re: the arrogance of website owners thinking they can impose conditions on access to their sites including charging - try reading a few T&Cs on the majority of commercial sites nowadays - and give Michael O'Leary or Amazon or even Rupert Murdoch a ring. Don't listen to me, listen to them.

I have been trying very hard since the summer, to find legal arguments as to why website owners CANT control access to their sites, but strange to say, no-one can supply any. Not even the ISPs (perhaps because they rely on identical website T&Cs themselves). Plenty of rhetoric - no actual legal precedents though.

As for the ICO and TalkTalk - let's just say the adiposely challenged female hasn't vocalised yet. Patience, there is a lot of evidence to be considered yet.

We went round the houses earlier in this thread as to the whys and wherefores of charging for access to content on a website. To summarize my own position, I believe there is a well-established convention on the worldwide web, from its earliest inception, that content placed on a publicly-viewable web page is free to view and free to index.

There is legal precedent that seemingly now prevents freely available content from being re-packaged and redistributed (I'm specifically thinking of Ryanair's case against a 'screenscraper' website). I see nothing to convince me that a line in a website's T&Cs can over-ride the presumption of free access, unless the webmaster takes reasonable steps to prevent 'theft' of his content (such as, for example, putting it behind a paywall as Mr Murdoch has done - I would expect a content owner who found his paywall being circumvented would have recourse to the Fraud Act).

[Rchivist]

As I said - no clear legal arguments yet presented to explain why I as a website owner, cannot control access to my sites. I'm patient, and I'll wait.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else here. I'm asking for you or anyone else making these assertions, to provide the basis of their legal arguments to me. So far no one will do that. Even those who have a lot to lose by not doing so.

As the Home Office do not appear to have had any involvement in the matter so far, it will be difficult for anyone to quote them on the matter - yet.

(Incidentally the T&Cs are not just obscure lines published on the site, but the subject of detailed acknowledged personal correspondence with the party concerned. There is absolutely no question other than that the party are fully aware of the conditions, and that they have taken the actions in accessing the site, that indicate subsequent acceptance of the conditions. And to argue otherwise will involve some very embarrassing interpretations of their own public statements about their own website conditions of access. )

The phrase "nothing to convince me that a line in a website T&Cs can override the presumption of free access" is about as legally helpful as "finders keepers" I'm afraid. The Ryanair cases already in the public realm do not lend themselves to such a narrow interpretation - but that's been discussed above - the judges helpfully dealt with a broad range of issues.

Meanwhile - watch the relevant spaces. All the key issues at stake in the TalkTalk controversy are still unresolved and awaiting various legal decisions, meetings, correspondence and government/EU action.
RIPA consultation - result awaited
ICO conclusions - very definitely not yet decided - still monitoring
ECJ case - pending
CPS case - pending and delayed again
Civil actions - pending
Home Office position - still under investigation.
Response of large commercial sites - still awaited. (Bear in mind that TalkTalk do not identify their current user agent to permit a robots.txt directive to be used against them nor have they published any way for sites to ban their bot - which Phorm did do).