"say no to phorm" government petition

Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
monitoring system.


(Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
might be sorted)


--
Mike Scott (unet <at> scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

Mike Scott wrote:
> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>
> There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
> monitoring system.
>
>
> (Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
> won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
> might be sorted)


A meaningless, if well intentioned, petition. Confused as to what action
the government is being asked to undertake, whether Phorn is illegal, etc.
etc.

Best avoided.





--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Mike Scott wrote:
> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>
> There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
> monitoring system.
>
>
> (Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
> won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
> might be sorted)
>
>

I would campaign against extended 1 year minimum contract lengths. Then
there wouldn't be a restriction on moving ISP to avoid phorm.

Or have I got it wrong, will VM allow customers to get out of their
contracts if they don't like phorm.

In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>
> There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
> monitoring system.
>
> (Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
> won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
> might be sorted)

Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA already
or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.
--
SAm.

"Sam Nelson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:10b2a5-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>>
>> There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
>> monitoring system.
>>
>> (Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
>> won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
>> might be sorted)
>
> Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
> You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA
> already
> or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
> petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.
> --
> SAm.

Just Ditch and Switch.

Vote with your money, will have more effect than any petition.

In article <47ce8a2d$0$2472$(E-Mail Removed)>,
It's Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>"Sam Nelson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:10b2a5-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>>>
>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>>>
>>> There's a real anger in the private vm newgroups about the planned web
>>> monitoring system.
>>>
>>> (Apologies if the petition has been seen here before. Another mention
>>> won't hurt though. The more support across ISP users, the sooner this
>>> might be sorted)
>>
>> Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
>> You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA
>> already
>> or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
>> petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.
>> --
>> SAm.
>
>Just Ditch and Switch.
>
>Vote with your money, will have more effect than any petition.

Most peole won't do this though, because most people aren't geeks who
use usenet, read the register or go to online petition sites... So
what's needed is something to raise public (and our MPs!) awareness
about this - like a national newspaper campaign, or getting the BBC to
air it ... (Or just by writing it our own MPs!)

Anyone know any journalists, or an MP who in all probability uses BT
Internet and doesn't want their browsing habits sent to China?

Gordon

In <10b2a5-(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Sam Nelson) writes:

>In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>>

>Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
>You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA already
>or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
>petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.

The petition is somewhat vaguely worded, and in particular I think Phorm
is more likley to breach RIPA than to breach the DPA - but we really have
insufficient evidence of how it is goint to work to be sure.

Anything that gets the Government to look into it further is probably a
Good thing.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: (E-Mail Removed) Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:00:00 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In <10b2a5-(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Sam Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>>>
>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>>>
>
>>Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
>>You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA already
>>or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
>>petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.
>
>The petition is somewhat vaguely worded, and in particular I think Phorm
>is more likley to breach RIPA than to breach the DPA - but we really have
>insufficient evidence of how it is goint to work to be sure.
>
>Anything that gets the Government to look into it further is probably a
>Good thing.

I second that. Like many/most of the petitions it is not well worded.
I wish people would spend a little time thinking before starting one.

M.

"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:00:00 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In <10b2a5-(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Sam Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <gQtzj.226$_(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Someone suggested posting this in u.t.b.
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
>>>>
>>
>>>Simpler just to desert `Phorm Phactor' ISPs and use decent ones instead.
>>>You get what you pay for, The practice is either in breach of RIPA
>>>already
>>>or it's something our leaders aren't going to touch. Either way, the
>>>petition is poorly worded and misses its target badly.
>>
>>The petition is somewhat vaguely worded, and in particular I think Phorm
>>is more likley to breach RIPA than to breach the DPA - but we really have
>>insufficient evidence of how it is goint to work to be sure.
>>
>>Anything that gets the Government to look into it further is probably a
>>Good thing.
>
> I second that. Like many/most of the petitions it is not well worded.
> I wish people would spend a little time thinking before starting one.
>
> M.

Perhaps a complaint to OFCOM might be more appropriate?

George