TalkTalk tracking you, phorm? - Page 25

Stuart · 03-01-2011, 19:00

The problem with Talk Talk publishing details of how to bypass their system is simple. The stated aim of the system is ultimately to prevent users going to infectious sites. If they published details of how to bypass the system while it's still looking for new infected sites, they would effectively render their own system inoperable as the malware site owners would just adjust their sites to prevent the bot visiting.

This is not intended as a defence of Talk Talk.

**Chris** · 03-01-2011, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I think you may have a long wait. It would be more pertinent for you to explain why you believe you are entitled, rather than asserting that you are and then expecting other people to prove negative.

Sir John Luke · 03-01-2011, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you may have a long wait. It would be more pertinent for you to explain why you believe you are entitled, rather than asserting that you are and then expecting other people to prove negative.

From CF's T&Cs

"You agree to accept and be bound by these terms and conditions as outlined below. Should you reject the following terms and conditions and not wish to be bound by them, then use of the CF website is prohibited to you."

**Chris** · 03-01-2011, 19:58

Take it up with the owners of the site.

Rchivist · 03-01-2011, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

The problem with Talk Talk publishing details of how to bypass their system is simple. The stated aim of the system is ultimately to prevent users going to infectious sites. If they published details of how to bypass the system while it's still looking for new infected sites, they would effectively render their own system inoperable as the malware site owners would just adjust their sites to prevent the bot visiting.

This is not intended as a defence of Talk Talk.

Point fully understood Stuart. But unfortunately TalkTalk's current explanations to ICO and on their own blogs do not deal with such issues.
Their system is already seriously faulty in terms of malware protection as they can already (and will in the future) be blocked by a variety of website technical measures - and the more dangerous and malicious malware sites will be the amongst first to make sure that they are protected against the bot's scraping, and almost certainly in a way that delivers the bot "clean" content, while delivering the human visitors malicious content. It's easy to do and these sites already do it - they aren't stupid!

TT already know that their malware protection system offers little more than a PR figleaf of protection to their customers, just as Phorm's antiphishing front end did. I'm afraid that argument is flawed from a pragmatic practical point of view - and anyone who is serious about malware protection knows that.

I do not believe TT are interested in offering genuine malware protection - but merely looking as if they do - Heaney's public comments about the parental controls makes it clear where he is headed from a PR point of view - GreenNetUK may impress a few technically ignorant TT customers, but more importantly it gets the TT DPI interception system going so that the rest of the GreenNet agenda can be rolled out - which is where the serious commercial benefit lies.

If anyone wants to defend the technical efficacy of the TT malware protection system as compared with the other far more useful precautions and protections available then I look forward to reading their arguments.

Once the system is understood as "GreenNet for the UK" then the whole package offered by HuaweiSymantec becomes relevant. It will simply be a matter of ticking the components off one by one as they are implemented - we'll see how many are up and running by 2012 if TT are not stopped now by either consumer, regulatory or commercial pressure/civil action. You can hold me to account if TT just do malware protection and parental controls and no BTA. Let's hope the political/repressive bits of GreenNet never get implemented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you may have a long wait. It would be more pertinent for you to explain why you believe you are entitled, rather than asserting that you are and then expecting other people to prove negative.

I've already done so Chris and so have others- surely you don't want those arguments all over again? My site, my content, my intellectual property, and the point to point communications with my visitors. Interception of those communications is happening without my consent, Processing of my visitors data is occurring without their consent. Downloading and copying and profiling of my intellectual property is occurring for commercial use, without my consent. I don't need to explain the law on those matters - it is clear.
The arguments under PECR, RIPA, civil and criminal copyright law are well rehearsed so I shouldn't need to repeat them here. NOt to mention the ePrivacy Directive. The exemptions that TT are claiming for "some" of their actions are dubious to say the extreme, and rest on untested allegations about what they are doing. Their claim to legality under RIPA for example is laughable - it is because they SAY they aren't intercepting communications. That is IT. No legal authority- no precedents - merely a CLAIM which absolutely no one has either investigated or challenged or been able to verify. And so far - no contact with the only regulatory authority with relevance in that area.

It is the reasons why TT think that they DON'T need to observe the existing law that really needs explaining. So far - silence.

TT are in receipt of my website terms and conditions (which are remarkably similar to their own). We have a contractual relationship which they have freely knowingly entered into on a given date earlier this year, and which I am abiding by. They were not tricked or enticed into that relationship, they were personally, individually and directly given advance notice, and warned, both in writing, by personal communication and direct personal conversation, of the consequences of accepting the terms, and of how and in what circumstances they would be bound by them (using terms they themselves rely on and which are demonstrably reasonable) and they decided deliberately and knowingly to enter into such a relationship and they have refused repeated invitations to terminate that relationship. They have been invited repeatedly (and are REQUIRED by due process prior to court action according to published pre-trial protocols) to explain their arguments and legal precedents for rejecting those terms as binding. They have failed. They have been invited repeatedly to cease and desist from accessing sites, they have refused.

TT do not "need" to access my websites or make attempts to download my content and intellectual property. Yet they do.

Some of us are putting our time and money where our mouths are, in an attempt to GET some legal clarity on these issues. But the law does not move quickly. In particular when one of the parties is repeatedly obstructive. So we are all going to have to be patient. But I am not sitting here making wild assertions. I am actively pursuing the logical outcomes of my statements and rest assured, you will be kept informed. But don't hold your breath. I suspect TalkTalk will sit on their hands for a long time yet.

---------- Post added at 20:36 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir John Luke

From CF's T&Cs

"You agree to accept and be bound by these terms and conditions as outlined below. Should you reject the following terms and conditions and not wish to be bound by them, then use of the CF website is prohibited to you."

or perhaps these, that one of the very ISPs being discussed, themselves rely on - while rejecting my own rights to do the same.

Quote:

"By using our site, you indicate that you accept these terms of use and that you agree to abide by them. If you do not agree to these terms of use, please refrain from using our site."

Quote:

2.1 Your access to this site is also subject to our Terms and Conditions. If and to the extent that there is a conflict between the terms of contract you have signed with us ("Your Contract") and the Terms and Conditions, the terms of Your Contract shall prevail.

Quote:

ACCESSING OUR SITE
1 You may access our site as a registered user (either as an existing customer or if We have granted you temporary access) or as a guest.
2 While Your Contract is in force, you have a right to access and use this website to the extent necessary to give us instructions in relation to the services you receive or wish to receive from us, being services which are the subject of this site.
3 Access to our site is permitted on a temporary basis, and We reserve the right to withdraw or amend the service .

(and they didn't even send them to me by Signed for Delivery - or phone me about them, just stuck them up on the internet where I could have easily missed them...)

**Paul** · 11-01-2011, 22:23

So let me get this straight - some muppet sent Talk Talk a bill for accessing their publicly accessible website ? and then wondered why TT binned it ?

Rchivist · 11-01-2011, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

So let me get this straight - some muppet sent Talk Talk a bill for accessing their publicly accessible website ? and then wondered why TT binned it ?

No.
I would be grateful if you didn't use words like "muppet" in this connection either.

Peter_ · 12-01-2011, 06:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

No.
I would be grateful if you didn't use words like "muppet" in this connection either.

If you do not want the "Public" to be able to access your open site then password protect it, job done, as otherwise you will continue to find that ISP's will bin your invoices as you are doing nothing to prevent access to your site.

Rchivist · 12-01-2011, 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

If you do not want the "Public" to be able to access your open site then password protect it, job done, as otherwise you will continue to find that ISP's will bin your invoices as you are doing nothing to prevent access to your site.

"Doing nothing" is an inaccurate description of the measures taken by website owners in this matter.

Webmaster experience with the TalkTalk/Huawei "bot" proves your assumption to be untrue, both from a practical and legal point of view. I am aware of evidence which has been passed to the ICO, that shows the bot replaying full urls obtained from tracking customer visits, including those of password protected pages. It should not be doing this. A commercial organisation has NO inherent legal right to download and make use of website content for its own commercial purposes without consent of the webmaster. It has even less right when it has been specifically requested not to do so and is fully aware of that request.

It also begs the question as to why ISP's themselves attach rigorous Terms of Use governing use of the content on their own websites, yet quibble when other websites do the same. For example VirginMedia, your ISP employers, have the following on their corporate website,
http://www.virgin.com/terms/

Quote:

Please ensure that you check these Terms and Conditions regularly to view any changes which may have been made, because by continuing to use the site after these Terms and Conditions have changed, you will be confirming that you have read and understood, and agreed to be bound by, any revised Terms and Conditions.

By using our site you'll be agreeing to these Terms and Conditions including the Code of Conduct in this section.

By using the site you're agreeing that Proprietary Content is available for personal use only and that you will not copy, reproduce, publish, distribute or dispose of in any way any Proprietary Content (other than your User Content which you have posted and for which you have the appropriate rights and permissions). Neither the Virgin name nor any other Virgin company name, trade mark, logo or design may be used or copied in any manner.

Seems reasonable to me, or would you say your employers are wrong in asserting those rights?

TalkTalk met with ORG, including Dr Richard Clayton to discuss the TalkTalk DPI system. The report of their discussions should be interesting - TalkTalk originally asked for a "confidential" meeting but ORG refused.
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/...-or-stalkstalk

Peter_ · 12-01-2011, 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

"Doing nothing" is an inaccurate description of the measures taken by website owners in this matter.

Webmaster experience with the TalkTalk/Huawei "bot" proves your assumption to be untrue, both from a practical and legal point of view. I am aware of evidence which has been passed to the ICO, that shows the bot replaying full urls obtained from tracking customer visits, including those of password protected pages. It should not be doing this. A commercial organisation has NO inherent legal right to download and make use of website content for its own commercial purposes without consent of the webmaster. It has even less right when it has been specifically requested not to do so and is fully aware of that request.

It also begs the question as to why ISP's themselves attach rigorous Terms of Use governing use of the content on their own websites, yet quibble when other websites do the same.

Incidentally yesterday TalkTalk met with ORG, including Dr Richard Clayton to discuss the TalkTalk DPI system. The report of their discussions should be interesting - TalkTalk originally asked for a "confidential" meeting but ORG refused.
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/...-or-stalkstalk

A passworded site does prevent access though and only giving advice as that is the best thing to do if you only want members to see your content and the are plenty of websites out there with password protected content in place and probably for the same reasons as yourself.

Rchivist · 12-01-2011, 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

A passworded site does prevent access though and only giving advice as that is the best thing to do if you only want members to see your content and the are plenty of websites out there with password protected content in place and probably for the same reasons as yourself.

the advice is appreciated - but nowhere have I said I only want "members" to see my content. I personally don't run a password protected site - although I have seen the log evidence from password protected and robots.txt protected sites that have not been respected by the bot.

That doesn't mean I have no rights as a webmaster, even on public http pages, to control the access to my site or, like the ISPs, to impose conditions on the ways the website content is used. And virtually every large commercial site I am aware of does that. I am doing simply what the ISPs themselves do - asserting my rights to protect my website content against commercial exploitation by others.

I have yet to see an explanation from anyone as to why it is okay for an ISP to have such terms protecting the content on their own corporate sites, yet to kick up when a smaller website also insists on similar protection for its own content, takes the trouble to notify the ISP individually, and has the affrontery to actually do something about it when it is abused - for commercial purposes, and without consent. On Cableforum for example, there is something called the "Site Owners Prerogative" which has recently been brought to my attention.

Quote:

Site Owners Prerogative: You will acknowledge and accept that while we do have these established site terms of use here at CF, it is important to remember that this is a privately owned discussion group. Any requests and/or demands made by the OWNERS on this Forum AT ANY TIME must be obeyed, including those that countermand other established rules and regulations including those displayed in the rules or FAQ. Failure to do so will result in termination of one’s user account.

Now there is a website defending its rights!!

But I am waiting patiently. In fact I've been waiting patiently for several months now. I look forward to reading TT's explanation in due course.

Russ · 12-01-2011, 10:11

Rchivist: nobody is forcing you to use Cable Forum or it's impressive member list. You have your own site, I suggest you drum up some support there if you aren't happy with the way CF is run. If you have any comments regarding the way the team works then contact us directly.

Ignitionnet · 12-01-2011, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

I have yet to see an explanation from anyone as to why it is okay for an ISP to have such terms protecting the content on their own corporate sites, yet to kick up when a smaller website also insists on similar protection for its own content, takes the trouble to notify the ISP individually, and has the affrontery to actually do something about it when it is abused - for commercial purposes, and without consent.

I have yet to see an explanation of why, if this is all so clear cut, major corporate sites haven't already mounted any kind of challenge to this to defend their IP and rights which are, after all, far more valuable in financial terms than yours or Mr Mills' sites. These guys have in-house legal departments so the costs to them of engaging TalkTalk would be relatively minimal.

Nor for that matter if it is as cut and dried as Mr Mills and others appear to think and all this quality legal advice has been received there is any requirement to be spamming forums and comment sections for donations to pursue legal action. A few pounds to Moneyclaim Online, send in evidence, await the default judgement as legally it's all perfectly clear, job done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

On Cableforum for example, there is something called the "Site Owners Prerogative" which has recently been brought to my attention.

Now there is a website defending its rights!!

The end of the section indicates that the penalty is termination of user account. Not sending invoices with charges tantamount to extortionate rates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

But I am waiting patiently. In fact I've been waiting patiently for several months now. I look forward to reading TT's explanation in due course.

You shouldn't have to wait too much longer.

Quote:

Jim Killock:
Jan 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Hi all, as a quick update, we're writing up a description of the system over the next few days, and will agree that is accurate with TalkTalk, and will on the basis of that description ask for a legal opinion. We've also asked TalkTalk for their legal opinion.

We'll have more comment when we have some of those.

Rchivist · 12-01-2011, 16:51

http://www.talktalk-labs.com/trials/...ecurity-trial/

TalkTalk have announced a Network Security Trial with the following components:

Virus Alerts
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/products/virus-alerts/
Parental Controls
http://www.talktalk-labs.com/support...ols-trial-faq/
Security Wizard
http://www.talktalk-labs.com/support...ard-trial-faq/

and are looking for 150 volunteers.

The overall FAQ is here
http://www.talktalk-labs.com/support...ity-trial-faq/

and a new members forum discussion thread has been opened here:
http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forum...ad.php?t=56606

bluecar1 · 12-01-2011, 20:03

thing is other will correct me if i am wrong

the issue is

talk talk were asked nicely to stop visiting with the bot several times, but they continued

they were then given several weeks notice of a change of terms and conditions for their continued commercial access to the website , and that if they continued to access after a given date then charges would apply for the commercial use of the data on a website

the webmaster modified the robots.txt as suggested to block the robot, but the bot appeared to ignore the entries and continued to follow talk talk customers onto the website

and eventually talk talk where charged for access as per the terms and conditions they were notified of

talk talk appear to have been given every opportunity to comply but failed to or ignored the reasonable request as i understand it

so it is not as some would like it painted a webmaster simply saying i want to charge you to view my website, but a fully transparent process where talk talk could have complied with the webmasters request quickly and avoided all the negative publicity and agrovation at a number of step through the process before they got charged for access