WRITTEN ON October 2nd, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, Ideal Goverment - project, What do we want?
The emergence of sinister new web tracking and advertising services of dubious legality makes the following statement necessary:
www.idealgovernment.com: notice
The contents of this site, and communications between this site and its users, are protected by database right, copyright, confidentiality and the right not to be intercepted conferred by section 1(3) of the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The use of those contents and communications by Internet Service Providers or others to profile or classify users of this site for advertising or other purposes is strictly forbidden.
This is to ensure as best we can that our dear readers in IPS and elsewhere do not have their IdealGov traffic intercepted by ISPs such a BT, Virgin or TalkTalk who may be using the Phorm service. See ORG for more info.
5 Responses to “Phorm remains far from Ideal”
Indeed. And here’s what they say
Thank you for your submission to the Phorm website exclusion list. If there are no obvious grounds to doubt the legitimacy of the request the URL will be blocked as soon as possible, usually within 48 hours.
Requests must be made by the legitimate owner of the domain. If we have questions regarding your domain Phorm may take a number of steps, including attempting to contact the domain administrator by email for confirmation of this request. If the request remains questionable and is not confirmed within 10 days, the URL will be removed from the exclusion list and an email will be sent informing you of this decision.
Where applicable, please ensure that the Administrative Contact details for this domain are up to date. If you need to update them, please resubmit your request when the amended details are visible in the WhoIs database – (use a public whois service such as http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx if you are unsure it has been updated)
…I must say, that’s an inappropriately authoritarian tone for a law-breaking organisation to adopt. Wibbi they said
It’s a fair cop guvnor. We appreciate it’s none of our damn business whether the name given as admin is the same as the peson in charge of the actual site. We quite understad that under RIPA it’s for us to determine we have permission both from the reader and the web content provider to intercept their communication. And we can now start to see that’s nigh on impossible to achieve, and therefore that our business model is screwed under present laws. Thank you for helping draw our attention to this. We resolve not to cause you any further aggravation.
Ah, but the Ho Moffiss has told them that it’s OK!
(From http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm)
15. A question may also arise as to whether a targeted online advertising
provider has reasonable grounds for believing the host or publisher of a web
page consents to the interception for the purposes of section 3(1)(b). It
may be argued that section 3(1)(b) is satisfied in such a case because the
host or publisher who makes a web page available for download from a server
impliedly consents to those pages being downloaded.
Moffiss is such a lazy and bad Ho!
“It may be argued”, but it shouldnt be.
And it’s beyond any doubt game over if a Web Site carries the Bohm-FIPR-ORG “garlic clove” text we cite above.
Wibbi Ho Moffiss were less protective of these intrusive money-grubbing publicity-selling lowlifes and more protective of generally law-abiding taxpayers with a healthy amount to hide.
Here’s how to opt-out:
http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html#how-do-i-prevent-webwise-from-scanning-my-site