TT Stalking

TalkTalk following users

Details at Phoenix Broadband
http://www.the-phoenix-broadband-advice-community.co...

In reply to a post by sean_r:

TalkTalk following users

Or take the direct route - http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forums/showthread.php...

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Mon 26-Jul-10 18:33:17)

Jack I think you might find more real info at http://www.the-phoenix-broadband-advice-community.co... We have been investigating it since May this year.

Edited by deleted (Fri 30-Jul-10 22:29:14)

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Jack I think you might find more real info at http://www.the-phoenix-broadband-advice-community.co... We have been investigating it since May this year.

I have nothing to hide i really am not interested.

Hide is not the word I would use, that suggests guilt about something. I would suggest secure. Keeping private and confidential information secure is what it is all about.

Think about all the passwords and usernames you use. Accesses that you make to Banks and other sites that are private. Just think that something possibly just copied the URL with my session ID etc in it for my present access to this forum and then attempts to access the site using it as if they were me.

It is to protect us all that we have laws about privacy, interception and monitoring and in the opinion of a lot of very experienced people the Stalkstalk stalker is breaking those laws and may also be committing fraud.

Why should webmasters allow the Stalkstalk stalker to access their websites. It has failed to obey robots.txt, which excludes on it my forum and in other places, it uses bandwidth which costs money and by using secondhand URLs can cause problems to the website software. My sites have had over a 160 access/attempted access in a day from this Stalkstalk stalker.

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Hide is not the word I would use, that suggests guilt about something. I would suggest secure. Keeping private and confidential information secure is what it is all about.

There is a lengthy thread on the subject in the TT forum, the problem is no one can "prove" that TT can do what you suggest or that they cannot, until someone has proof we will continue to go round in circles, i believe having read many posts in different forums they are testing a phorm like system but until someone from TT gives us more info its all conjecture .

In reply to a post by Jack_Hackett:

There is a lengthy thread on the subject in the TT forum, the problem is no one can "prove" that TT can do what you suggest or that they cannot, until someone has proof we will continue to go round in circles, i believe having read many posts in different forums they are testing a phorm like system but until someone from TT gives us more info its all conjecture .

Well if you read the topic at http://www.the-phoenix-broadband-advice-community.co... you will find copy logs have been posted and I have even taken a URL to pieces to show what is the anonymous part and the part that makes it non-anonymous.

But you have not answered "Why should webmasters allow the Stalkstalk stalker to access their websites? It has failed to obey robots.txt, which excludes on it my forum and in other places, it uses bandwidth which costs money and by using secondhand URLs can cause problems to the website software. My sites have had over a 160 access/attempted access in a day from this Stalkstalk stalker." This is an important part of the equation.

But you have not answered "Why should webmasters allow the Stalkstalk stalker to access their websites? I

The reason i havent answered is because i do not have an answer, I think jackies post from the TT thread sums it up.

I haven't contributed much to this thread because it was becoming personal with patronising references to un-informed people and many other snide remarks that lowered the tone of the discussion (as it was then), and also because the arguments (which it has now become) were getting repetitive.

From anyone reading the thread and getting to the actual crux of the matter, it appears there are 2 main questions that Jo Public will want to know (I do not refer to them as the herd or otherwise)... quite simply:

Is it legal?
Is it an invasion of privacy?

If outside organisations are now looking at this and investigating this as people have said, then this is now all conjecture. I say this because unless one is a lawyer and 100% sure of this (if you are a lawyer, and are 100% certain it is illegal, then just take them to court yourselves if you are so sure the outcome is going to be a definite success in your favour), it is conjecture, albeit well informed conjecture by some of the more experienced members.

Everyone keeps saying they will not be satisfied until an outside body/organisation gives their verdicts on the matter. If that's the case, then we should just wait for this conclusion.

This thread seems to be going nowhere now as the discussions seem to have become quite circular as Barney said. They are now just labouring points of which none have been proven yet (I hasten to add for both sides, TT and the consumer before people jump down my throat).

It just seems to be getting pointless as the majority if not all of the postees in this thread only want to see it from their viewpoint as is human nature, and nothing anyone says is going to change that view. In all the pages so far, no one has yet moved an inch.

This thread's purpose is in danger of becoming redundant, simply because no-one posting will be satisfied until someone independent in authority or Talk Talk prove that this is all above board, so I can see little point in going round in circles, "yes it's legal and not an invasion of privacy", "no it's not legal and it is an invasion of privacy" argument, as clearly it has become a circular repetitive argument, and not a discussion anymore, as non-one is going to change their mind until an official indpendent conclusion is reached or TT provide a statement on the matter that can be verified by outside legal bodies.

Personally, however, I do have faith in Blackeagle's analysis and comments, as he's one of the most knowledgable technical guys I know (sory BE, I'm sure you are also proficient in other things as well!), and on the other hand, I also have great respect for Zeus, as he is extremely knowledgable on privacy and legal issues and I prefer personally to follow their comments as I have always found them to be impersonal and unbiased in their posts in all the time I have spent on the forums. If they have had anything they are not happy with re TT, they have been very fair and straightforward about it and vice versa.

I for one will not be going back and forth, as I do not want to follow a trend of just keep saying the same things over and over again. I've said what I think, and it's basically that I will wait for an official conclusion, both internal and external.

Well let me give you a website owner's answer. Remembering I have logs of the activity of the Stalkstalk stalker going back to May 2010, and have had conversations with Senior People at Stalkstalk and been exchanging emails since before I made this public.


1. All of my sites are Copyright; therefore, any crawler needs either my implied permission or specific permission to access my sites. The robots.txt files are written in a way that specifically allows specific crawlers to access my sites and bars the rest. That includes the Stalkstalk stalker, which does not identify itself as a crawler rather as a normal BB user. Thus, anything that the Stalkstalk stalker downloads from my sites is in breach of copyright.

2. My forum"Phoenix Broadband Advice Community" is a members only forum and closed to guests, although we have made the two topics on this subject available to guest because of the general importance of them. Therefore, any one or thing accessing the forum without permission is breaking the rules of the forum.

3. Very simply the cost of allowing the Stalkstalk stalker access. It cost money to supply the bandwidth that it uses. All the other crawlers give me something in return advertising, the Stalkstalk crawler give me nothing just take without a by your leave and cost me money for the bandwidth it has used.

4. I have the right to allow onto my sites those I chose. Stalkstalk were told in May 2010, and it has been repeated, that they were not to access my sites. They ignored that and continue to access/attempt to access my sites. I do not want them there, as I believe they breach the privacy of the visitors to my site and give nothing in return.

Maybe that will help you appreciate this is not as simple as some people think it is.

Edited by deleted (Sat 31-Jul-10 14:34:15)

Maybe that will help you appreciate this is not as simple as some people think it is.

If you are so sure they are up to something dodgey what steps have you taken to put a stop to it?


I think you need also to appreciate most customers will not get into a flap until there is concreter proof they are up to something dodgy, as Jackie said in the TT forum on the subject..

From anyone reading the thread and getting to the actual crux of the matter, it appears there are 2 main questions that Jo Public will want to know (I do not refer to them as the herd or otherwise)... quite simply:

Is it legal?
Is it an invasion of privacy?

If outside organisations are now looking at this and investigating this as people have said, then this is now all conjecture. I say this because unless one is a lawyer and 100% sure of this (if you are a lawyer, and are 100% certain it is illegal, then just take them to court yourselves if you are so sure the outcome is going to be a definite success in your favour), it is conjecture, albeit well informed conjecture by some of the more experienced members.

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Sat 31-Jul-10 14:55:02)