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

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

I’ll admit that, so far, I haven't made one post where I mention Simon Davies that hasn't been derogatory but I'm willing to bite my tongue until it's so blatently obvious that even Alexander believes that the man has sold himself out.

If the PIA still requires three days work before it's finished it could indicate that Phorm are not leaning on 80/20 Thinking for a completion date because they realise that publication will do them absolutely no favours whatsoever.

Apart from that, based on what I've seen both on this forum and elsewhere on the Net, I doubt very much if Alexander is either a bad judge of character or would allow himself to be hoodwinked by anyone over such an important matter.

I’ll go with this:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6992.html



EDIT: Sorry BP I didn't mean you were guilty of making personal attacks - I probably was!

Okay to play devil advocate once again as much as it pains me to say anything derogatory about Alexander, you have to appreciate Alex is a raising star in the privacy movement and is being recognised by the privacy glitterati as one of their own. You can't help but think Alex may be influenced by Simon Davies status as a top privacy advocate and all his new found connections that it brings him. I could be cruel and repeat what Oblonski wrote about how that might be going to his head a bit (/me STOP!).

We do know that Simon Davies gave Alexander his initial privacy launch at that London event as a guest speaker, and we do know that Simon hugged Alexander and this was a moving moment for Alexander, we know that Alexander has a direct red-phone to Simon, which seems to get more useage than Commisioner Gordon to Batman... I could go on, but you get the picture that Alaxander may well not be the best person to trust with regards an objective opinion about Simon 'Two Hats' Davies and his role as Phorm's top pocket privacy supporter.

Waits to be shot down

[Florence]

My twopenneth is this is what Phorm want to cause paranoia between us then weaken our fight. Alexander will not give up the champion for our privacy that easy. As to trust between Alexander and Simon over my privacy right now I trust Alexander.

He has grown tremendously thanks to this he has struggled to fight our corner at his expense, to protect privacy for those trapped within BT, talktalk and Vm contracts. He is not with an ISP that is working with phorm so he is safe yet he spends hours looking at legalities to help those who are less fortunate.

Simon yes he has to pay his bills etc but technically he could still pay his bills without conflicting his two hats by working with companies less invasive, less controversial and maybe less illegal.

But it is too late for him to turn the clocks back he seems to accept that phorm will promise one thing then not deliver which turned around could mean phorm will promise this software will not log personal details then will once active..

Ones honour is also ones word phorm have broken their word hence have no honour..

Simon should look at what phorm say look at what the patent says it can do then judge it on his merits, if the company has honour(which it has shown it has none) then look who he is supposed to be the advocate for.
Then the PIA should be to protect the innocent from the ravages of the dishonourable company..

Alexander has done nothing but work for us yes he made friends on the way so did many people in many walks of life but not all sold out for the 3 pieces of silver...

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

from BT today

I can't believe I fell for this whole Phorm/Webwise hoax.

Wow, I was completely fooled. That cookie stuff, the 4 redirections, the whole PIA ruse, the 'opt in' by default spoof, the pretend debate videos, the Emma Sanderson TV confessions, the Moscow bit, secret trials, Home Office memos.

ICO/Police doing nothing should have been a give away...

Bloody hell. I really fell for it all. Hook, line, and sinker.

I'm so embarrassed. I'm going to wake up tomorrow feeling like a proper idiot.

It is a hoax isn't it? Because it can't possibly be true. No one in their right mind would still be contemplating this, let alone a firm like BT.

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

Okay to play devil advocate once again as much as it pains me to say anything derogatory about Alexander, you have to appreciate Alex is a raising star in the privacy movement and is being recognised by the privacy glitterati as one of their own. You can't help but think Alex may be influenced by Simon Davies status as a top privacy advocate and all his new found connections that it brings him. I could be cruel and repeat what Oblonski wrote about how that might be going to his head a bit (/me STOP!).

We do know that Simon Davies gave Alexander his initial privacy launch at that London event as a guest speaker, and we do know that Simon hugged Alexander and this was a moving moment for Alexander, we know that Alexander has a direct red-phone to Simon, which seems to get more useage than Commisioner Gordon to Batman... I could go on, but you get the picture that Alaxander may well not be the best person to trust with regards an objective opinion about Simon 'Two Hats' Davies and his role as Phorm's top pocket privacy supporter.

Waits to be shot down

I won't shoot you down - /puts on cynical b@stard hat - I've considered all of the above too at one point or another
/removes hat

I just thought that Alexander's reply to me was the sincerest post I've read for quite a while...

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Hank

Hank

Just a quick note re: FOI requests.

It is always better to ask only a single question in a request, because if the cost of answering the question exceeds £350 they don't have to comply with the request. I generally send several requests each consisting of 1 very precise question. That way each request can't be fobbed off with the £350 get out clause.

Alexander Hanff

EDIT: I got the amount wrong, it has been a little while since I sent one but here it is with a source:

If the public authority thinks that it will cost them more than £450 (or £600 for a request to central government) to find the information and prepare it for release, then they can turn down your request. They might ask you to narrow down your request by being more specific in the information you're looking for.

Source: http://www.foi.gov.uk/yourRights/index.htm

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

It is a hoax isn't it? Because it can't possibly be true. No one in their right mind would still be contemplating this, let alone a firm like BT.

You're quite right. When I first read about Phorm I couldn't believe that BT would even contemplate such a scheme or that the Information Commissioner, Home Office etc etc would allow it. It just shows how naive I can be even in my advancing years.

Simon Davies was one of two featured keynote speakers at the 9th privacy and security conference in Victoria, British Columbia. in February 2008. This is part of his presentation, I wonder if he realised how prophetic it would be?

Privacy dramas, like erectile dysfunction, can strike:

• At any time without warning.
• When you least expect it.
• From causes you never contemplated
• With implications you never envisioned
• With effects far greater than you could imagine

[icsys]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I don't want to get into any spats, but I'm really uncomfortable with the personal criticism of Simon Davies that is going on here. I don't think the world will come to an end if we just wait to see what happens with the PIA.

We can disagree with actions that 80/20 may have taken, but I do get uneasy when that turns into personal remarks and they certainly don't take our campaign forward. The guilty parties here are the ISP's and Phorm.

Just my penn'orth.

This is not intended to be personal criticism but Simon appears to actually have three caps...

1...his 80/20 cap - (80/20 Thinking)
2...his 'Privacy Campaigner' cap - (Privacy International)
3...his FIPR cap - (A member of the advisory panel of the Foundation for Information Policy Research)

1 - 80/20 praises Phorm on how it 'protects privacy'. However, the final PIA may change this.
2 - Privacy International says 'Phorm is not endorsed'.
3 - FIPR says 'technology is illegal'.

If correct, that does appear to be quite a conflict of interest.

With regard to the Home Office guidance note on Phorm:
I note paragraph 20 which states that the service should be provided with the explicit consent of ISP's users or by the acceptance of the ISP's terms and conditions, and paragraph 21 which states that the ISP's users' consent can be obtained expressly by acceptance of suitable terms and conditions.

The above would suggest that it is possible for the ISP's to fall foul of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) - Regulation 5(5) 1. (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract - if T&C's are changed without proper written notification.

It is also possible that if Phorm's interception of the ISP users web surfing is proved to be illegal then consent obtained expressly by acceptance of terms and conditions will render that contract void and the contract terms are not enforceable. A contract which cannot be performed without doing something illegal is void.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

from BT today


*********************
Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Regarding "What is to stop my children / subaccount holders agreeing to the change of contract when they have no authority?":
If you block the domain now on all PC's then the interstitial page will not be presented.

If someone opts into the trial there is a facility for opting out and back in again:
snip
***************

so anyone on a pc in my network can agree and change my contract!!!

the responsibility is mine to ensure this does not happen!!!!

i have to block the cookies in my browsers that way i do not know when they start spying on ME!!!!

on the plus side the full product rollout will be cookie free, but by which time a large number of users will have been duped into a contract change by a sub account holder with nothing they can do about it!!!!

peter

That is very interesting and confirms my suspicions - basically they are putting the onus on the account holder, and they are totally ignoring the issue over children and the issue of contractual obligations to the account holder.

I would suggest we focus on this a little, perhaps using the BT advert family as an example. anyone feel like writing a script for an advert?

In any complaints to authorities about the Webwise trials this sort of thing should definitely be mentioned.

[bluecar1]

rjones,

i also submitted the below as a webmaster from my other email addresss

****From: Peter White [mailto:Peter.XXXXX@******is.co.uk]
Sent: 20 May 2008 23:31
To: 'bt.webwise.help.desk@bt.com'
Subject: restrict webwise access to my websites


how do I prevent webwise / phorm from profiling the content of my websites?

I wish Google etc to index them but want to specifically deny webwise as I do not see why phorm / BT etc should profit from my work with no reward to me.

Google and co provide traffic and visitors in return for being allowed access, phorm / BT provide nothing, and before you suggest it no I do not want to host adverts from OIX

the assumption that because I allow Google you can scrape my work for your gain is not a suitable argument

what can I add to my robots.txt file to deny phorm access while allowing search engines?

the alternative is to deny access to all BT ip ranges and redirect them to a page with as many links as I can find regarding how phorm works and all of the legal issues surrounding it

and how do I prevent phorm from profiling my webmail which is over port 80 (http) not port 443 (SSL)

please note I Specifically DENY BT/ PHORM / VIRGIN MEDIA AND TALK TALK from profiling, intercepting or otherwise interpreting any pages on www.XXXXXX-is.co.uk , www.XXXXXXXcentre.co.uk www.*****ow.co.uk or ********stow.escouts.net

regards

peter XXXXXX

network consultant

*******

suprisingly no reply, and they wonder about the comment of them ignoring requests

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

rjones,

i also submitted the below as a webmaster from my other email addresss

****From: Peter White [mailto:Peter.XXXXX@******is.co.uk]
Sent: 20 May 2008 23:31
To: 'bt.webwise.help.desk@bt.com'
Subject: restrict webwise access to my websites


how do I prevent webwise / phorm from profiling the content of my websites?

I wish Google etc to index them but want to specifically deny webwise as I do not see why phorm / BT etc should profit from my work with no reward to me.

Google and co provide traffic and visitors in return for being allowed access, phorm / BT provide nothing, and before you suggest it no I do not want to host adverts from OIX

the assumption that because I allow Google you can scrape my work for your gain is not a suitable argument

what can I add to my robots.txt file to deny phorm access while allowing search engines?

the alternative is to deny access to all BT ip ranges and redirect them to a page with as many links as I can find regarding how phorm works and all of the legal issues surrounding it

and how do I prevent phorm from profiling my webmail which is over port 80 (http) not port 443 (SSL)

please note I Specifically DENY BT/ PHORM / VIRGIN MEDIA AND TALK TALK from profiling, intercepting or otherwise interpreting any pages on www.XXXXXX-is.co.uk , www.XXXXXXXcentre.co.uk www.*****ow.co.uk or ********stow.escouts.net

regards

peter XXXXXX

network consultant

*******

suprisingly no reply, and they wonder about the comment of them ignoring requests

Don't forget that any awkward legal questions can be sent to the legal team for BT Retail (reduces deniability potential) -

Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer),
BT Retail,
BT Centre, pp B8D,
81 Newgate Street,
London,
EC1A 7AJ


and that would include your letter above, with a bit of rephrasing to turn it into a legal question, as well as the contract issue about whether a child (or any other adult) in your house is legally capable of agreeing to a change in your T&C's when clicking on webwise invitation page and how would they enforce such a change - and whether in fact by failing to take due precautions that they were genuinely dealing with the account holder, they are in trouble.

I think they know that the Webwise trial is full of legal problems and they haven't got time to get it right unless they delay it massively. So lets make sure the legal team are aware of those loopholes.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Don't forget that any awkward legal questions can be sent to the legal team for BT Retail (reduces deniability potential) -

Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer),
BT Retail,
BT Centre, pp B8D,
81 Newgate Street,
London,
EC1A 7AJ


and that would include your letter above, with a bit of rephrasing to turn it into a legal question, as well as the contract issue about whether a child (or any other adult) in your house is legally capable of agreeing to a change in your T&C's when clicking on webwise invitation page and how would they enforce such a change - and whether in fact by failing to take due precautions that they were genuinely dealing with the account holder, they are in trouble.

I think they know that the Webwise trial is full of legal problems and they haven't got time to get it right unless they delay it massively. So lets make sure the legal team are aware of those loopholes.

thanks for that ,as i did not have the correct address for that avenue

will be writing that one later today

peter

[Florence]

I think I might put a spanner in the works with them also about ISPs who are not BT perhaps being caught at network level and how this by those customers would be interception without consent and data protection since our T&C are with our ISP not BT

Would like to give them something to worry about.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

I think I might put a spanner in the works with them also about ISPs who are not BT perhaps being caught at network level and how this by those customers would be interception without consent and data protection since our T&C are with our ISP not BT

Would like to give them something to worry about.

Ask about how they handle subsidiaries like PlusNet from the point of view of routing and traffic interception?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Ask about how they handle subsidiaries like PlusNet from the point of view of routing and traffic interception?

they have said it will only affect BT retail customers and that plusnet and bt business customer will not be affected, what they have not said is whether they will be not affected due to their traffic being ignored or routed past the kit, as it all depends where they put the kit on the network.

as they (supposedly) do not have access to the BT wholesale network they should only be able to place the kit in their network so no other ISP traffic will then pass through it, as other customers of bt wholesale (plusnet, etc) are on seperate routed sections of the BT wholesale network

if bt wholesale were to implement this kit we would all be in trouble regardless of the isp you use, not sure how it would affect LLU providers

[Florence]

LLU providers have their own kit in exchanges BT cannot put anything on these without breaking contracts since the DSLAMS are not BT's property.