For info / update - posted also on BT.Beta groups -

Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May

The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone of 
the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was 
introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.

The initial pitch was on the expectation that ISPs should preserve their 
customers' privacy, and that snooping on browsing would be unacceptable. 
Phorm and its relationship with BT, Virgin and CPW was explained, 
followed by a piece to camera from Kent Ertugrul. This was totally 
unconvincing, and he appeared to put little effort into sounding upbeat 
or credible. The claims he made were all those we have come to expect 
("Totally anonymous" etc etc). Nothing new at all.

Next one on was Emma Sanderson who sounded every bit as unconvincing as 
on her previous TV appearances. Again - nothing new, the same old 
platitudes. Usual stuff about "Due diligence" and "legal advice". She 
stated that "BT has signed an agreement with Phorm", so there clearly is 
a contract of some sort. No surprise there.

The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on - 
explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
under the provisions of the RIP act.

In all, a balanced and alarming report which will raise the awareness of 
many of those customers who have missed the significance of the debate 
so far. The presenters deliberately took a neutral stance, but finished 
the piece by reiterating the expectation that ISPs should have an 
obligation to defend their customers' privacy. The parting shot was - 
"We are keeping an eye on this, and will keep you posted".

If the trial is imminent, then this programme couldn't have come at a 
worse time for BT.

I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the report - there was 
quite a lot in it - did anyone else see this ?

John

John Livingston wrote:
> Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May
>
> The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
> of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
> introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.

A fair reporting of the ,erm,  report there John.

> The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
> explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
> under the provisions of the RIP act.


You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will 
"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have 
a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions 
and categorically say so.

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

In article <4GP_j.17267$x55.8408@newsfe17.ams2>,
Carl Waring  wrote:

>You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will 
>"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have 
>a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions 
>and categorically say so.

They don't have "convictions".  They have an interpretation of a law
that hasn't been tested.  It would be wrong of them to pretend to be
certain when they aren't.

You might as well ask an astronomer to stand by his convictions
and state categorically whether or not there has ever been life
on Mars.

-- Richard
-- 
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

In message <4GP_j.17267$x55.8408@newsfe17.ams2>, Carl Waring 
 writes
>John Livingston wrote:
>> Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May
>>
>> The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
>> of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
>> introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.
>
>A fair reporting of the ,erm,  report there John.
>
>> The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
>> explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
>> under the provisions of the RIP act.
>
>
>You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it will
>"probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't have
>a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their convictions
>and categorically say so.
>
Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not illegal 
are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case.  As an extreme 
example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.

You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically 
illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a 
particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been found 
illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive answer. Given 
the state of case law on the Internet I suspect "probably" is as strong 
as you will get.

http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.
-- 
Peter R Cook

Invalid wrote:
> In message <4GP_j.17267$x55.8408@newsfe17.ams2>, Carl Waring 
>  writes
>> John Livingston wrote:
>>> Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May
>>>
>>> The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
>>> of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
>>> introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.
>>
>> A fair reporting of the ,erm,  report there John.
>>
>>> The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
>>> explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
>>> under the provisions of the RIP act.
>>
>>
>> You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies it 
>> will
>> "probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they don't 
>> have
>> a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their 
>> convictions
>> and categorically say so.
>>
> Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not illegal 
> are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case.  As an extreme 
> example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.
> 
> You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically 
> illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a 
> particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been found 
> illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive answer. Given 
> the state of case law on the Internet I suspect "probably" is as strong 
> as you will get.
> 
> http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
> 
> is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.

Pertinent to a dogfight that has been raging on bt.broadband support. 
This has been stirred up by a pair of trolls who are unwilling to 
acknowledge the very points you have made on probably v definitely.

Nicholas Bohm's paper doesn't leave much doubt in my mind. I wonder what 
BT Legal (or the Home Office) makes of it ?

John

In message , John Livingston 
 writes
>Invalid wrote:
>> In message <4GP_j.17267$x55.8408@newsfe17.ams2>, Carl Waring 
>> writes
>>> John Livingston wrote:
>>>> Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May
>>>>
>>>> The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone
>>>> of the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was
>>>> introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.
>>>
>>> A fair reporting of the ,erm,  report there John.
>>>
>>>> The editor of a legal journal (didn't catch his name) was next on -
>>>> explaining that Webwise as presented would probably be illegal
>>>> under the provisions of the RIP act.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll notice, though, that anyone mentioning this always qualifies 
>>>it  will
>>> "probably" or "may be". Either it is or it isn't. If it is, they 
>>>don't have
>>> a leg to stand on and if it isn't why don't they stand by their 
>>>convictions
>>> and categorically say so.
>>>
>> Because the only people who can decide if something is or is not 
>>illegal  are a judge (and jury?) during a formal court case.  As an 
>>extreme  example think of the self-defence argument in a murder case!.
>>  You will never get a lawyer to say that anything is categorically 
>>illegal. If there is an established body of case law that shows a 
>>particular activity in a particular set of circumstances has been 
>>found  illegal in the past, then you might get a more definitive 
>>answer. Given  the state of case law on the Internet I suspect 
>>"probably" is as strong  as you will get.
>>  http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
>>  is a good read on the topic by a real lawyer.
>
>Pertinent to a dogfight that has been raging on bt.broadband support. 
>This has been stirred up by a pair of trolls who are unwilling to 
>acknowledge the very points you have made on probably v definitely.
>
>Nicholas Bohm's paper doesn't leave much doubt in my mind. I wonder 
>what BT Legal (or the Home Office) makes of it ?
>
>John
Not sure about the Home office (checking the deniability of their 
previous piece of advice springs to mind :))

I suspect BT's are between a rock and a hard place (and seriously pissed 
off by operational and business managers who didn't check with them 
first?).  If they agree with Nicholas' position then their trial of the 
technology last year could prove to have very painful consequences.

OTOH if Nicholas is wrong, and E-mail spam filtering does provide a 
model that the courts would buy, then their "common carrier" defence 
against the film & music industries leaks like a sieve.

Ho hum!!
-- 
Peter R Cook

On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:44:09 +0100, John Livingston 
wrote:

>For info / update - posted also on BT.Beta groups -
>
>Media sighting - The Gadget Show - Channel 5 on 26 May
>
>The Gadget Show have just done a long item on Webwise. The usual tone of 
>the show is jokey and lightweight, but the piece on Webwise was 
>introduced by the presenter in a rather more serious and sombre note.
>
[snip]
>
>I may have missed some of the finer nuances of the report - there was 
>quite a lot in it - did anyone else see this ?
>
>John

Yep, always watch the gadget show, even now that the studio video is
in compressed Film-o-vision...
Bye for now.

Clive.