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

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

That invitation has backfired on Phorm now hasn't it

It's a much better start to the weekend than PhormUKPRteam's weather report.

[Bonglet]

How about if this jank ever see's the light of day we start a run of leaving virgin media like all the northern rock people did see what happens then .

Originally Posted by Bonglet

How about if this jank ever see's the light of day we start a run of leaving virgin media like all the northern rock people did see what happens then .

And go to BT who already have done the dirty...Sky which I would never do 'cos I hate Murdoch and all he stands for.Not a lot of choice left I'm afraid which I think they may be banking on.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by mart44

I can't possibly read all the posts but it is obvious from reading a cross-section that the general feeling is indignation and anger. As I've said, I'm undecided. I may or may not act as a guinea-pig if and when the time comes.

I think it is true that as soon as Internet privacy is mentioned, there does seem to be a knee-jerk reaction. It immediately throws up a barrier against any other point of view. Minds are made up and closed and that's that I suppose. Nothing that Virgin, Phorm or anyone else says is likely to be given house-room.

I read, watched and listened to everything I could lay my hands on from Phorm during their initial PR offensive and was prepared to hear them out and consider calmly what they were saying about privacy and anonymity.
Having done that, and undertaken further research (including reading the patent application for the webwise technology) I have decided that I do not want this system anywhere near my data. It is true that I have a predisposition towards not giving any personal data to anyone unless I consider there to be a very good reason to do so, and I also have a dislike of advertising generally, but I did not dismiss the possibility of participating in this scheme until I felt that I had all the facts (or, at least, as many as were being made available) Why is that a knee-jerk reaction?

[Ravenheart]

I've just had an email from VM about them scrapping the premium rate tech support.

And we’re not stopping there. It’s really important to us that you keep sending your feedback, good or bad! Although we can’t always reply individually, we promise we’ll always listen to what you tell us, and use your comments to make improvements where we can.

And we’ll always make sure that the people in our customer service teams see the comments about them, so they can work even harder to give you the great service you deserve.

So if you haven't already told them what you think of Phorm leave them some feedback, or you can send them the link to that new report by Richard Clayton

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

.....or you can send them the link to that new report by Richard Clayton

Already posted in the feedback newsgroup

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by mart44

Did you read the interview in its entirety (see post 2184)? I don't think it will affect your feelings on the issue but in the interest of at least hearing the other side out maybe?

Yes I read it.
Input = All web browsing data
Process = analyse and code to target ad sector
Output = database of cookie code | ad sector | timestamp
Output = Decode and debug database

To an extent I am not concerned about the output, he is right the outputs are largely anonymised data of limited use to anyone but the software serving ads on the OIX opted in sites.

The concern and the piece they keep skirting around is whether the input is personal data and whether the process itself is illegal under RIPA.

The secondary concern is that while now they say we don't have catagories for pron and ed and diabeties and don't scan https that does not mean that they cannot it means the do not and in the future a change to the code could mean they do.

The royal mail / post office is not allowed to open my mail, BT, VM etc are not allowed to wiretap my phone line, conceptually this is the same.

[Anonymouse]

Richard Clayton's FIPR report states explicitly that the Webwise system uses DPI. Which means, beyond any possible debate, it is interception and therefore it is illegal. Is there any part of that which the I-don't-mind brigade don't get? How the hell can that be compared to WGA? The purpose of the profiling and the "anonymising" of the data are irrelevant - it's a freakin' crime. End of!

[manxminx]

One can now add fraud to the list of probable illegal operations that the Phorm system makes. Assuming that is that 'pretending' to be a website (cnn.com in the given example) is fraud . . .

[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

[Raistlin]

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

That quote doesn't tell us that the ICO think Phorm is ok, it tells us that Phorm have told them it's ok.....

In fact they make no recommendations about Phorm, they provide no opinions on Phorm, and they give no indication as to how the public feel about Phorm.

They simply repeat the same tired old junk that we've heard from Phorm, without giving any clear direction.

[Cobbydaler]

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

All you are quoting is that which Phorm have told the ICO...

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by Alex @ Phorm

Hi. It's Alex @ Phorm

And perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what your role is. PR perhaps?

Picked up by the beeb

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

[SMHarman]

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

Thank you, without wanting to sound patronising, I think most of those contributing to this thread understand that Phorm does not allow the retention of indiviually identified data. The concern is how you get to that data, that involves reviewing lots and lots of individually identifiable data. It is the inputs and analysis, not the output that is the problem.