Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by kt88man

Richard Clayton (FIPR) has just released his write up of Webwise/Phorm:

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...ebwise-system/

Detailed technical:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf

3 - The L7 switch ignores non 80 traffic (as it is currently programmed, they could reprogram it at any time)
? Is this why the transparent proxys have been killed off, can we all browse on port 8080 instead to avoid this or will phorm just add that port to the switch rules and the 307 redirects ?

4 - An L7 switch also understands every other TCP/IP protocol so changes to the programming could again mean it could read data on any other port.

35 - inspects only text/html, but what if other flags were put in there instead. It will start inspecting them

36 - again whitelists - change the content of the whitelist and you change what is profiled

37 - again whitelist of exclude 'basic auth' - take it away and you can profile it.

38 - Webmail. Well my webmail is on port 2096 and 2083 of my server so I guess it is not included in the 'more than 25 sites'. Maybe it will be covered by the 'basic auth' or the 'https' but Phorm can take them away.

43 - So you could probably block Phorm by putting an exclusion on robots.txt but phorm won't tell us what they refer to their bot as, sounds like it will impersonate googlebot (is that allowed).

49 - So they designed the software to ignore zip codes but not post codes, or canadian post codes or or or.

86a - If they can't tell this how can they give feedback to their advertisers?

[JackSon]

From the BBC news story

-> http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7331493.stm

Originally Posted by BBC News

The ICO said it had received "a number of queries" relating to Phorm's impact on personal privacy.

Think we know where most of those queries came from

Keep it up!

Oh, and Alex - more than a few hours kip mate; don't want you burning out.

[popper]

Hmmm, Kent's only got 14.21%

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/L...spx?id=1803935

As a result of the issuance of placing shares in the Company’s approximately £32 million institutional placing announced on 19 March 2008, the Company is aware that the following investors now have the percentage shareholdings shown below:

at 3 April 2008

Number of Common Stock % of Issued Common Stock
Kent Ertugrul 1,964,885 14.21%
Gestrust SA 1,299,661 9.40%
Dartley Holdings, Inc 629,527 4.55%
Valerie Boffy No longer notifiable No longer notifiable

[manxminx]

Actually, he's got more than 14.21% He owns Dartley Holdings, Inc

So he's actually got 18.76%

Actually.

[lucevans]

From Richard Clayton's technical paper on the Phorm system;

"29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected."

If my IP address is blacklisted by the Layer 7 switch and as a result my future traffic is not redirected, why am I still allocated a new identifier for every website I visit?
Also, does "not redirected", in this context, mean that none of the 307-redirects occur? Does my original page request goes straight to the intended website, and it's response comes straight back to me with no diversion to any of the 3 machines described in Richard's document?

I'm not a tech, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

On a different note...the lead article on the BBC Technology News site is about Phorm, and has the word "illegal" in the headline; the two links to related articles each have the word "illegal" in their titles too. Let's hope subliminal messaging is all it's cracked-up to be.

[popper]

as a side thought, did anyone go looking for any US legal rulings against these companys and executive yet?

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

Originally Posted by lucevans

From Richard Clayton's technical paper on the Phorm system;

"29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected."

If my IP address is blacklisted by the Layer 7 switch and as a result my future traffic is not redirected, why am I still allocated a new identifier for every website I visit?
Also, does "not redirected", in this context, mean that none of the 307-redirects occur? Does my original page request goes straight to the intended website, and it's response comes straight back to me with no diversion to any of the 3 machines described in Richard's document?

I'm not a tech, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

On a different note...the lead article on the BBC Technology News site is about Phorm, and has the word "illegal" in the headline; the two links to related articles each have the word "illegal" in their titles too. Let's hope subliminal messaging is all it's cracked-up to be.

it appears so,up to a point (and this is not a getout for them because.>), however, (remember the EU Data commissioners comments) your personal IP's still being directed as an extra path, to the Layer7 (AKA "deep packet inspection",profiler) kit.

its still being collected, and its still being processed ,it cant be any other way as the "deep packet inspection" kit needs to work on your data stream to determine if you have that (unlawful, chattles?) cookie on your machine.


only TT/CPW have seen fit to make the statement they wont divert your stream to the "deep packet inspection" kit if you opt-out, and so, if they keep to their word (keep your eyes on them to be sure) then this "deep packet inspection" doesnt get a look in, the same cant be said for BT or VM as yet.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Alex @ Phorm

Hi. It's Alex @ Phorm

The ICO has posted its latest statement on Phorm, which includes the following:

"They assure us that their system does not allow the retention of individual profiles of sites visited and adverts presented, and that they hold no personally identifiable information on web users. Indeed, Phorm assert that their system has been designed specifically to allow the appropriate targeting of adverts whilst rigorously protecting the privacy of web users."

The full statement is here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_..._releases.aspx

Clearly these ar***oles had advance warning of publication, by a public body. It is clear where the Government is going with this.

To HMG, I accept your right, with a warrant, to spy on me and other people. I see the benefit, it protects me from being blown-up, from kids being molested or worse and other heinous crimes being committed.

I do not see why you should allow it, without a warrant, for 'better adverts', that I don't want.

I can afford to go Phorm free, via satellite and a provider in a decent country if required, but what about the vast majority of voters?

Is there any pattern noticed by people on this forum as to responsiveness from Labour or opposition MP's? Have the Labour back-benchers been told to shut-up? Are opposition MP's more responsive?

I just want to know if we are taking on a scummy business idea or, a scummy business idea backed by government?

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by mark777

To HMG, I accept your right, with a warrent, to spy on me and other people. I see the benefit, it protects me from being blown-up, from kids being molested or worse and other heinous crimes being committed.

I do not see why you should allow it, without a warrant, for 'better adverts', that I don't want

I just want to know if we are taking on a scummy business idea or, a scummy business idea backed by government?

The latter, I fear. Ever read "Captive State"? They're privatising your privacy (and no, you can't buy shares.)

[bigbadcol]

The thing that really scares me about this is not Phorm, Not VM or BT. But the ICO

When T5 were planning to collect fingerprint data on passengers, The ICO stepped in very quickly and the fingerprint plan was dropped among lots of Positive how good we are being PR spin.

Yet 4+ weeks on since the Phorm story broke, despite the experts saying that this is illegal both the ICO and Plod do nothing.

Then when they do finally say something the issue a PR spin Phorm written press release.

And they say china is bad.. UK PLC who do not give a crap for the security and privacy of the population.

At least if I buggered of to china I would be opting-in to privacy invasion.

[Portly_Giraffe]

I think it is important that have a simple position statement which we can socialise amongst the masses of ordinary, non-technical web users.

I have therefore tried to summarise the Phorm issues and questions for the intelligent layman, journalist and politician at http://www.whyphormisbad.org/

Please let me know via email or this forum whether you think this is a good idea, and if so let me have any comments or suggestions for improvements.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by bigbadcol

The thing that really scares me about this is not Phorm, Not VM or BT. But the ICO

What's really worried me about all this is the conversation that goes something like (ISP to Government).

"If we get prosecuted, you know that we will have to tell the court all about the 'unofficial' things we do for you, don't you? Just to help our defence"

Anyone written to the Queen?

(Not joking).

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

I think it is important that have a simple position statement which we can socialise amongst the masses of ordinary, non-technical web users.

I have therefore tried to summarise the Phorm issues and questions for the intelligent layman, journalist and politician at http://www.whyphormisbad.org/

Please let me know via email or this forum whether you think this is a good idea, and if so let me have any comments or suggestions for improvements.

A good idea - This is the sort of site that the BBC News site should be listing in it's external links list for Phorm-related articles (although they probably won't with it's current URL because it is in the form of a judgement statement - i.e. "this is bad" - and they're very careful about not appearing to be taking sides)

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

I think it is important that have a simple position statement which we can socialise amongst the masses of ordinary, non-technical web users.

I have therefore tried to summarise the Phorm issues and questions for the intelligent layman, journalist and politician at http://www.whyphormisbad.org/

Please let me know via email or this forum whether you think this is a good idea, and if so let me have any comments or suggestions for improvements.

It's excellent, in my view,

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by lucevans

A good idea - This is the sort of site that the BBC News site should be listing in it's external links list for Phorm-related articles (although they probably won't with it's current URL because it is in the form of a judgement statement - i.e. "this is bad" - and they're very careful about not appearing to be taking sides)

I could always do it on another url if you think that would be helpful. if you'd like to suggest an alternative to whyphormisbad, please do.

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

I could always do it on another url if you think that would be helpful. if you'd like to suggest an alternative to whyphormisbad, please do.

QuestionsforPhorm?