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

You can intercept without monitoring (you intercept something and do nothing with it - say tape a phone conversation but never listen to it) but you cannot monitor without interception.

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

From RIPA with my bold:

I think I can see one way around this definition but I don't want to help the opposition and I'm not a lawyer either.

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Pretty good article on ZDNet:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm

Note there are 6 pages of text - 1 with each photo.

Edit: I see DaveTheJag beat me to that one.

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

oops.

wasn't it sysip.net not sisip.net, a correction may be in order.

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

OK with regards the opt-in thing. The BT information which was sent out directly by BT regarding the upcoming trials made it very clear that if you block the webwise domain during the trials you will not be able to use the web. So it would seem even those not opted in will still go through the DPI kit if they are on an exchange where the trial is taking place. Note that the information stated specifically that if you have been invited to take part in the trial (not if you accept that invite) you will need to make sure webwise is NOT blocked for your surfing to continue to work. This supports the theory that the entire exchange will be Phormed irrespective of opt-in/opt-out - in other words the model hasn't changed even remotely from the model Richard Clayton analysed some months ago.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:01 ----------

Tom actually did a great job with his article, nice to see 6 pages about the protest. Shame he got the sysip name wrong but I am sure people have contacted him about that already?

Round of applause for Tom for doing such a good job and for paying a very genuine interest in the debate on the day.

Alexander Hanff

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

Found this on ADVFN

http://www.netimperative.com/news/20...arnett-phorm-1


Event details below. not sure if its free to attend.

http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.p...07;type_uid=43

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

it says thats on the bt beta forum about broken web if you block them urls but they also say you can block them but it will break the web for you, and i can see a fair few upset customers when they not been give the invite and their web is blocked.

http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64

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

Good spot.

If this is all so harmless, how come the companies driving it are those that previously tried to trick people into downloading their spyware, namely 121media now reborn as phorm, and gator/clara, now nebuad?

Not only is the technology the Internet equivalent of allowing the royal mail to open and read all your letters so that they can insert 'more relevant' junk mail, it is like subcontracting the work to the KGB. What could possibly go wrong?

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

On 20th March I was told in a BT email, that one way I could deal with the Webwise trial invitation was to block the webwise.net domain. Subsequent information from BT (see above) would appear to suggest that this would actually deal very effectively with Webwise but with the unfortunate side effect of giving me an error page to look at no matter where I wanted to go on the internet.

I was also told on that same date, that if I chose not to take part, I would not have my browsing information mirrored or profiled, and no information would go to the BT managed profiler. No information would be gathered, and therefore no information would be forwarded to Phorm. If I opted out, I would not come into contact with any Phorm-managed equipment.

(Note they have avoided using the word intercepted)

I can see where their wriggle room is on that last phrase "phorm managed equipment" but I take issue with the claim that by opting out of the trial after receiving an invite no information would go to the BT managed profiler.

It's been one long confused mess really in terms of what BT have understood and said, about this Webwise trial.

The relevant section of ONE version of the published BT Webwise FAQ
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64 and Q21 says:
21. Is my data still viewed when I am not participating?
Your data is not 'viewed' even if you are participating. The system simply applies relevant advertising to a non-identifiable random number. When you choose not to take the service, or switch off, it's off. 100%. No browsing data whatsoever is looked at or processed by BT Webwise. Those who have opted out will not have their browsing information mirrored or profiled. No information is gathered, and therefore no information is forwarded to Phorm. Customers who opt out will not come into contact with any Phorm-managed equipment.

I suppose I need to do some detailed exegesis of that large pile of emails from BT managers to tease out the inconsistencies and exact wording of what they were telling me.

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

One of the best times to politely ask BT to honour their contract & reconnect your to the WWW, or insist on them giving you a MAC & releasing you from their broken contract!

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

Can anyone else confirm that Emma Sanderson has completely stopped answering emails regarding Phorm/Webwise?

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

All I can find on there is about blocking cookies from that domain, not blocking the domain per se, via hosts file for example. But I do recall them saying something about breaking browsing so they have admitted that somewhere. Now where was that email....

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

I can confirm that our relationship came to an end on 2nd July. But I was quite an ardent correspondent with my "voracious appetite for detail".

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

Guys - if you want to keep to date on anything Phorm related which appears on the web, just subscribe to Google Alerts:

http://www.google.co.uk/alerts?hl=en

Enter 'Phorm' as a search term and Google will mail you links into your inbox.

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

The name that interests me there is Neil DuLake, commercial development manager, guardian.co.uk and his session

* How the Guardian uses BT
* Learning from experience: Top tips for success
* Case study / Segment focus: the challenge, strategy, execution
and results
* Best practice

It would be interesting to hear him answer a question about the ethical dimension of choosing an ad targetting system, and what lay behind the Guardian's decision to walk away from OIX/Phorm a few months ago!

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

I notice that BT state that they are included in the "Ethical Investment Register" (http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir...ards/index.htm ), Since learning of the Phorm trials, not to mention the BT MOD call center fraud ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-contract.html ), I no longer consider them an ethical investment.

I wonder if we can get them removed from that register?

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

I disagree. Monitoring the presence of a cookie must be classed as interception. Also all the contents of the communication is available to someone who is not the sender or the recipient IMHO.

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

"We haven't firmed up the dates [for the upcoming trial] yet. It will be in the coming weeks," said Morgan. "We just want to make sure it's technically ready for trial, and make sure the people participating in the test are trialling a technically robust service."

So BT are saying they've had to repeatedly delay the trial because they've discovered bugs in Phorm's system? (that inspirers my confidence in Phorm's security - NOT) - I wonder if they've been reading some of the issues raised on Badphorm.

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

found it i think http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/help.php

There are two ways you can opt out of BT Webwise:

1. visit www.bt.com/webwise and click Switch Off. Note that this will be activated only after the service is launched. This standard opt-out method does depend on a cookie remaining on your machine indicating that you have opted out. If you delete your cookies regularly, you will have to opt-out again each time you start a browsing session.
2. if you delete cookies regularly and want to remain opted out, you can set all your browsers to block cookies from the domain www.webwise.net. When you block this domain, the service will opt you out permanently. You can use this option now and will then be opted out of BT Webwise.

Isn't that a pain in the neck?
We provide the facility to block cookies permanently from BT Webwise so if you want to opt out permanently you can do so through a one-time only activity, by setting your browser to block cookies from the domain www.webwise.net. When you block this domain, the service will not put a cookie on your machine and you will not be asked to opt in or out again. [X]

from the webwise web site help
http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/help.php

i found at least 3 ref to allow you to block cookies but how can they say they not intercepting cos they must have to read the state of the cookie or lack off em to find out if you in or out so bang goes the pass through not looked at if they looking for cookies or lack off before you can surf.

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

I believe it should be classed as an interception. However I'm not sure that a court would class it as such under RIPA. Baroness Miller said, "They intercepted people's communications without their consent. That can't be any more legal than someone slitting open a letter addressed to me and reading the contents." I agree with the sentiment, but I think there is potentially an important difference between phorm and someone opening letters. Phorm uses machines, not people, to read your communications. If phorm can demonstrate that no part of the communication is made available to a person, then it is not an interception under RIPA. The Baroness also said, "If the trials were not illegal, which they should be, it is because the law hasn't kept pace with technology". I agree unreservedly with that statement.

Note: I am not legally trained and this is only my opinion. I am in no way endorsing any of phorms past or planned activities.

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

Many thanks for your welcome, it is much appreciated :)

I cannot possibly comment on my 'initial questioning', as this will shortly be the subject of litigation. Also, I'm likely to get more points on my Cable Forum licence for breach of the T & C's ;) and might be silenced.

My frank opinion ? ... is based on thinking for myself, and not being effected by all the hype and FUD. I have no objection to getting targeted ad's which suit me, rather than getting ad's which don't.

If that involves inspection of my browsing history/habits, then so be it - I don't see that as a problem, as, as yet, it has not been proven to my satisfaction that identifiable information will be used. If it were proved that the intercepted information was identifiable, I would be concerned.

The same applies to the earlier BT trials in 2006/2007 ... though it is wildly stated that such trials were illegal, I am yet to see or hear proof that they were illegal. Again, if proof does emerge that the trials were illegal, I will be concerned.

It seems to be a common theme of the anti-Phorm/webwise campaign .. lot's of accusations, lot's of techspeak trying to obfuscate the facts, lot's of speculation .. but, IMO, very little real substantiated substance.

To give you a very small, and recent example, in Tom Espiners report to ZDnet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm, he said the following ...

Note the terms used .. 'convinced', 'believes', 'also believes'. I have seen lot's of that - lot's of 'belief'. When I see irrefutable facts, I may get concerned.

Thanks for that, but the above ZDnet article was more forth coming .. 15 protesters. I rest my case (well, probably not ;)).

D_A :)

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

Actually you are not entirely correct on this issue. The legislations which are relevant to this make it very clear that it doesn't matter whether it is a person or a piece of automated equipment carrying out the interception - without consent it is a criminal offence.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------

For the record:

BT Group PLC committed criminal violations of the following laws in their 2006 trials (and Phorm were complicit in those breaches):

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Computer Misuse Act
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

They -also- committed violations of the following civil laws and torts:

Data Protection Act
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act

I am perfectly happy to go on record and make this as a statement of fact and if BT wish to take me to court I would welcome the opportunity for said court to rule on this issue.

As for just a few people making wild accusations:

Nicholas Bohm - Legal Counsel for FIPR
Earl of Northesk - Peer in the House of Lords who was involved in the process of putting many of these laws into statute.
Baroness Miller - Peer in the House of Lords
Dr Richard Clayton - Technical Expert and member of FIPR/Lecturer at Cambridge University.
Information Commissioner - Stated that the trials DID breach PECR.

They are just a few of the people who state the trials were illegal.

So frankly, YOUR opinion is the one which is unsubstantiated, not ours.

Alexander Hanff

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

True - an interception can be carried out by an automated system - however, as I understand it, it is only classed as an interception if the contents are made available to human being.

That still leaves uncertainty as to what counts as making available and what counts as "some or all of the contents of the communication".

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

No there is no such clause in -any- of the legislation which even hints at this let alone makes it a requirement.

Alexander Hanff

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

Not to mention the 958 independantly verified anti-phorm answers to the poll on this thread alone, and the 15642 signatures on the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/ calling for the relevant authorities to investigate the issue

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

More 'they said' !

It will be up to a Court of Law to prove the illegality of the case, not those who 'state' that it is illegal ... that's if it ever gets to court, which is very unlikely.

D_A

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

RIPA 2000 Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

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

Worth noting that, in intercepting the communication and sending it to the Phorm servers, they are making it available to the Administrators of those servers (who would presumably be neither the originating sender, or the intended recipient of the original transmission).

Just a thought ;)

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

It makes no difference whether the machine or a human being performs the interception. The key fact is that personal communications are being "made available" to a third party.

Consider this argument, which I hope will stand up in court.

A person has a job they want doing - classifying users according to the content of the web pages browsed, so that they can sell targeted adverts.

The result is achieved. The content of web pages MUST have been available for this person to achieve this result.

To my mind it makes no difference whether this person who wants the job doing works for BT or Phorm, BT have no right to intercept your communications just because they happen to be your ISP just as the Royal Mail can't offer a targeted ads service based on a postmaster opening your mail.

The only time a postmaster could legally open your mail is for miss-addressed items. At this point the result the postmaster wants to achieve is routing the communication (or returning it to sender), so the contents are not being "made available" to anyone else.

And it makes no difference that this person employs a machine to achieve the result he wants. The key is that someone wants to do something with your communication that goes beyond routing it to it's destination.

There is one way BT can clear this whole mess up definitively: submit to a test case in the high court to get a ruling on whether intra-ISP profiling constitutes interception as defined by RIP.

If BT are sure it is legal, then this is an opportunity for them to shut the protestors up and severely limit any future risks from legal action.

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

The data is made available to potentially an unlimited number of people as it is made available to Phorm and OIX partners, I would suggest you read the notes that go with the Act too rather than just the Act itself. As for the Computer Misuse Act it very clearly states whether it is a person or automated system responsible for the violation (and even if I remember correctly any party who provides any equipment which is used to commit a breach of the Act).

Alexander Hanff

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

Who truly represent the majority of UK broadband users ? Methinks not.

Yeah .. people love petitions - they are so easy, but mostly ineffective and subject to abuse by those with many throw-away email addresses. Just look at many other petitions on there ... nuff said.

D_A

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

D_Advocate - you know and I know that a certain person under another name, and I (under my own name in both places), have rehearsed all these arguments over in the BT internal newsgroups. I already know the arguments that a certain person used there and this is looking very familiar. I have an idea how long the argument will take and how unproductive it is likely to be. Would it help if I just print that certain person's replies from there, over here, all in one go to save time? I've got the archive and I promise to remove personally identifiable information in case that person objected.

At the moment we are on the argument where no one is allowed to say that anything is illegal because only a court can say that it is illegal. Let's take that as read shall we and move on. It is beginning to feel a little like baiting, which is not a recommended activity here.

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

I'm certainly convinced by that argument. Unfortunately, it is only the opinion of a court that really counts. (Well maybe the majority of consumers who will leave there ISP if it adopts phorm count too :) )

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

I'd really rather you didn't ;)


Sound advice indeed :)

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

I believe it is made available to several people too. However I'm trying to see how phorm might argue that it isn't an interception. I will have a look at the notes as you suggest.

I'm only looking at the RIPA perspective at the moment. I know that's only 1 of half a dozen.

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

It represents the view of a portion of the UK broadband users who are savvy enough to realise that this is a system that's open to abuse, and who are willing to do the research on such matters and find conflicts with the letter of the law. Especially when also compared to other polls on other websites such as the one on ISPreview (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/p...?archive_id=60)
To disregard it simply because it's based on the opinion of the technosavvy would be like (dipping into my own area of expertise here) disregarding the dangers of E. coli gaining pYV simply because it only concerns microbiologists and doctors.
For those of you who don't know, pYV is the genetic element that gives the bacteria that causes plague its ability to infect people.



The key thing about this site is that as each online signature is linked to a UK address, it's entirely possible to confirm the signatures by checking against the voting registers. The data is verifiable, even if it has yet to be verified. Another thing to remember would be the number of people who have written repeatedly to assorted figures of authority (transcripts of letters and other communications are lurking in the many pages of this thread). I myself have written many letters, but did not attend the protest due to financial issues (having graduated from my BSc course today and being hit in the face with the full realisation of the student debt, coupled with current unemployment), health issues (I don't recall who it was, but I recall one of our posters pointing out that they had a hospital appointment that could not be postphoned on the day of the protest) and other issues.

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

But we can, with one clear voice, call on BT to submit to a test case to get a ruling either way.

The idea of a test case was raised in the House of Lords by Lord West of Spithead in response to a question from Baroness Miller, see here:

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?7402

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

As opposed to what? The illegality of BTs covert trials has not been tested in a court of law yet. If Alex, or anyone else for that matter, didn't use the word 'belief' or 'alleged', then they might be liable to be sued under libel laws.

Does this change the fact that in many people's opinion, including IT professionals and specialists, and government bodies that BTs conduct was illegal and unethical? No, it certainly doesn't.

btw: Do you have any personal interest in seeing Phorm succeed?

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

Thanks, but no thanks Robert. Suffice to say that because of 'my arguments' in that other place, it became a lot quieter and more relevant to it's purpose.

You have a right to consider it unproductive .. but I don't. You do things your way, I do things my way. I think it's called democracy.

By 'baiting' do you mean provocation? .. if so, I agree with you. If provocation makes people think out of the box (I hate that expression, but it applies), or makes people reconsider their attitudes, then it is not a bad thing.

As to moving on .. that's your choice - it's not mine.

D_A

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

You can only be guilty of libel or defamation if what you say is knowingly untrue. In order for me to be sued the comments I have made would need to be proved to be untrue and it would also need to be proved that I made the statements knowing they were untrue. This means the court would need to make a judgement as to whether or not BT did break the law in order to determine whether or not my comments were true.

I hope you can see where I am going here?

BT and Phorm already rattled their sabres at me and threatened to sue me if I did not remove certain comments from the NoDPI web site, I refused to do so and told them I would welcome the opportunity to defend my claims in court and that I would expect a letter from their lawyers to initiate that. They didn't take me up on my offer.

If BT and Phorm believed beyond a doubt that their trials of the technology were legal I am sure they would have sued me long before now.

Alexander Hanff

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

As to moving on .. that's your choice - it's not mine.

D_A[/QUOTE]

I think that comment could only be classed as provocative!

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

Fantastic. :clap: :clap: :clap:

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

That's all true, but you're still liable to get sued if they decide to prosecute. Whether the libel charge would hold up in court is another issue. Some people/corporations do, in fact, sue people in order to silence them on the basis that they think the person being sued will back down.

Hence, unless you positively wish to go to court, it is wise to use the phrases 'I believe' or 'I alleged', IMO.

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

Can I submit the suggestion that those who wish to discuss the advantages (as they see them) of Webwise, do so on www.iwantkenttoknowmyinsidelegmeasurement.com ;)

Seriously though, if the general perception of this system is right up there with the idea of sliced bread, where are all the pro-dpi and pro-phorm websites?
If people really do want targeted advertising shouldn't there be thousands of people begging BT to get the damn trials launched?

Where are they?
Who are they?

:erm:

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

The people with a strong view on the legality of intra-ISP profiling fall into two categories: those who have thoroughly read and understood RIP Act and those who haven't.

I'll leave the rest to the reader's imagination.

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

Exactly - because unsubstantiated accusations are libellous. If Alex or anyone else has proof, then there would be no case for libel action. If there was proof, I wouldn't argue the point.

"that in many people's opinion" - yes, opinion. Opinion doesn't stand up in a Court of Law.

I have a personal interest in enjoying my experience on the web/internet. Anything that improves that experience will be welcomed. Anything that doesn't will not be. If Webwise contributes to a better experience without detriment to my browsing/access, and doesn't impinge upon my basic rights, then I will welcome it.

D_A

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

I raised this point months ago, suggesting directly to a Phorm PR clown that they go and start a PM petition promoting intra-ISP profiling.

A bit like my call for a test case. Bring it on, I say. If BT truly believe something then they have the resources to make it happen in court.

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

I am not afraid of going to court and I have nothing to lose if a judgement went against me as I have no assets and no earning (so an attachment to earnings would be fruitless). Also I should remind people that in the UK penalties in civil court judgements are means assessed and are not permitted to impact your normal quality of life (in other words they must only take into account "disposable income") including leisure, clothing, bills, food etc.

I certainly have no intention of backing down; I have been advised by members of the House of Lords that BT's trials were illegal, there is no higher authority so therefore my statements are suitably qualified. I even have an audio recording to support this (as you all know) and the statements by Baroness Miller in the zdnet article and of course the letter from the ICO admitting that the trials breached PECR as well as statements from HO and ICO stating that such technology would require consent (clearly lacking in the trials). Oh and lets not forget the European Commission whilst we are at it.

So in fairness, I can't be accused of not carrying out due dilligence.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------

I do have proof, I made that proof publicly available and I have submitted it to the police as evidence which they are currently officially investigating.

Using your logic, you are guilty of libel yourself by claiming I am making libelous comments without there being any "proof" as no court has ruled I am being libelous.

Alexander Hanff

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

Why should I move on ? .. I haven't finished what I want to achieve where I am. Why is that provocative ?

.. and in any context - what is wrong with 'provocative' ? It can be very stimulating to those who are able and willing to be challenged.

D_A

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

Back in Post 9575, Oblonsky summarised the argument:

Beyond the question of what may or may not have been or be lawful, D_Advocate's position, and Oblonsky's (which I would imagine is shared by most of the posters here) will no doubt be evaluated by BT Retail's users should the trials or full deployment go ahead.

All published surveys so far indicate that most people will take an anti-Phorm/Webwise position once they know what is going on. The burden of the argument is therefore on those supporting Webwise and similar schemes to show that people will welcome them. So far no evidence has been presented to support this. Perhaps that evidence should be presented before this dialogue continues.

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

It will be up to the police and/or the courts to decide if you have proof.


Then sue me. I'm sure you can afford to, despite your protestations to the contrary.

D_A

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

If BT are not worried over the legality of the system, where are the trials? Why have they and phorm constantly been tweaking the way the system works, the interstitial page, the robots.txt fairy tale, and the cookie mangling? Why do they still seek the protection of the worthless anti-phishing figleaf? And if it is so good for the customer, why did they feel the need to attempt to keep the trials secret, even to the extent of lying to impacted customers and their own helpdesk staff? Why have Virgin and Talk talk fled to the hills? And why are they still paying the legendary 'phorm PR team' if the system is only opposed by a few cranks?

The fact is we are all waiting with baited breath for BT to start the trials. We know that once they commit to a particular approach we will be able to take it apart and expose it for what it really is, however smart they think they are. We will have something concrete to expose, rather than the present make it up as they go along PR spin.

It will be the same old spyware story all over again. Eventually people will catch on, phorm will slip off to their next scam and BT will be left holding the (very ugly) baby.

So bring it on, we are ready.

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

I never have managed to grasp the logic of trying to go up a "One way Street"!

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

Hurrah. Congratulations everyone. Chalk one up to us; another week of freedom from mass surveillance.

:drunk:

PS. Hello Gav, Ian, Emma, and Sir Mick. :wavey:

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

Actually no I can't afford to which part of I have no money do you fail to understand? However, if I do see one more libelous statement from you about me (as the one I have quoted above illustrates) I will be forced to ask the CableForum owner to ban you from the site on the grounds that you are being libelous.

Alexander Hanff

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

And another end of week Phorm share price rise on the basis of imminent trials!

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

Yes but each time it rises, it rises less, and each time it falls, it falls more :)

Next week expect the price to hit another record low.

Alexander Hanff

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

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

I take it the second member was accidental, however it does make for humerous reading if your mind follows a certain path.

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

Bonsoir everyone,

I am one of the relatively quiet posters affliated to the antiphorm movement.

A plea!!

Devils Advocate please continue posting your opinion - everyone else please challenge his views

BUT no ad hominem attacks from either side or "playground style" gainsaying of each other please!

For me the logical end goal is to legislate Phorm and companies with similar intentions out of existence. However we will only achieve that through reasoned debate. Lets get some practice in with DA - who knows, we may even convert him/her.

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

Looking at this week's trades on iii, there appear to have been several Buys above the Ask Price for relatively small blocks. For example, today at 09:42:40, iii is showing a Buy of 500 shares at 11.00 against an Ask Price of 10.75.

My understanding of how share trading works dates from the late 1980s and is now probably a bit rusty and may not apply to AIM. However, I thought that as long as a trade was within Size then it would take place within Spread. And I would have thought that 500 shares would be within Size for PHRM.L.

Can anyone here enlighten me?

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

Yes today about 7000 shares sold, about 1000 bought, yet price goes up 10% ?

Not a good indication of what's really going on methinks.

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

Naturally - this is an anti-Phorm thread. Of course they will endorse his position.

Published surveys of the majority of those who are likely to be effected ? 'Most people' is an assumption and not qualified or quantified.
Until (and if) Webwise does go public (as in a full service), you cannot predict how the majority will respond. Many may not understand (the majority I think), many may not care, many may think it is a benefit (assumptions on my part).

The burden of argument (by which I assume you mean proof) is not, and cannot be upon those who support Webwise (which I haven't said I do - I just said I may) because there is not yet enough information or facts with regard to how the majority of those effected will react. Whether they will welcome it or not is yet to be tested, because your aforementioned surveys have very little substance because of the small cross-sections and demographics used.

Any data or statistics can be manipulated towards your own ends.

D_A

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

I had a mystery message from my smoking man recently stating that Kent has been hopping mad about the share price and also that he apparantly has ways of making it jump when it has suffered a significant decline (which seems to tally with what we have seen regarding strange buys at significantly higher than the Ask Price). But as always, anything from my smoking man should be treated as speculation as the nature of the communications makes it impossible to confirm them as fact or not.

Alexander Hanff

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

@ Devils Advocate.

One of your previous posts stated you would be concerned if it could be shown that the Phorm system made personally identifiable information (PII) available. I would argue that Phorm also increases your security risk significantly. I am interested in your thoughts on the following thought experiment.

1. The cookie that Phorm set on your PC contains a unique identifier (UID)

2. Your PC's IP address can be read from the HTML requests generated when browsing.

3. Malicous Javascript code on a website can "read" the Phorm UID from your machine.

As a malicous person I now have two pieces of information unique to your PC. That I can use to target you.

You could argue for a long time whether these two bits of information are PII and I will not offer judgement on that. However it is now much easier for me to target your PC to extract further infomation.

thoughts?

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

Very much so. Both BT and Phorm (Phorm in one of their web chats) both claimed to have conducted a survey in which the results said the customers actively want Webwise. Nobody has seen the results outside of these companies of course, and nobody remembers being asked a specific survey on Webwise. It is amusing that these polls are the only real flags that the companies wave around to tell us we are begging for it.

I'd personally believe it if Phorm were brave enough to set-up their own ISP and offer free ADSL on the condition of having targetted ads.- If we'd want their particular system, surely we'd all flock in droves.

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

In a word: non-conPhormation. ;)

D_A

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

I believe this is because Phorm stock is traded in part using the LSE SETS orderbook system.

In essence as a buyer I can input the maximum price I am prepared to buy at - my buy order could be input as "buy 1000 shares at between 1000p and 1100p"

If a seller is prepared to sell to me at that price, the SETS system automatically matches the trade without any negotiation between buyer and seller. A possible methodology for the Phorm stock price to be manipulated. To be clear I have no evidence to suggest if this is happening or not.

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

I've been wondering about the myriad of small purchases way above the spread too.

I don't know much about stock market rules, so maybe someone here can help. How does the market prevent stock price manipulation by two traders simply passing small amounts of stock back and forth at above market rates?

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

My deepest apologies Mr Hanff. I didn't mean to upset you :angel:

D_A

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

I have looked at the RIPA explanatory notes and I'm afraid I still see a problem. I think phorm will argue the following:

I really would love to be shown the error of my thinking. I want phorm and BT to be held legally accountable for the trials and I want the whole idea of dpi for advertising to be litigated into oblivion.

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

Broadly that is done through the FSA conduct of business rules and market abuse rules. The policy can be summed up as "if we think what you did was dodgy we can prosecute you"

For the more legally minded amongst you market abuse is subject to the burden of proof required in civil proceedings. Insider trading requires a criminal burden of proof which is why there are almost no successful prsecutions of insider trading.

On an operational level this kind of activity is tracked through datamining and human surveillance performed by both the LSE and FSA.

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

The data in question is that relating to the exchange of information between you and another person (or a web site) with who you intended to have that data exchange, Phorm intercept it and send it to their 'automated system'.

The automated system has an Administrator. He now has access to the data relating to your information exchange.

Ergo: they have made the data available to at least one other person who you had not intended to be part of the exchange.

It's really quite simple.

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

Well you do seem to be targeting individuals when you'd rather avoid a question.

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

Sorry SelfProtection - what was the 'question' in question ? I must have missed it.

D_A

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

The administrator only has access to the communications data if either:

a) the automated system keeps records of the raw unprocessed data
b) he alters the system so that it keeps records of the raw unprocessed data or forwards them in real time.

Unless and until one of these is true, I don't see it being an interception under the technical definition of RIPA.

(On a side note, I doubt phorm where that careful when they designed the system they used for the trials, but that could be hard to prove either way now)

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

I believe self protection refers to this one

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

Think 'Administrator' as in 'someone who has authorised access to the system, its infrastructure, and its mechanisms' rather than 'someone that has an Admin account'.

There are more methods than I care to recount here that will enable someone to read data passing into and out of a system, there is no requirement for the system to actually store that data for it to be made available to a third party :)

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

Yes, of course, I should have realised that it's an orderbook process and not one based on market makers. So I assume that deals may happen outside spread when liquidity is low (inevitable in somewhere like AIM) and the share price is moving fast.

I suppose the question I would ask is whether the share price was moving fast enough to justify a premium of 25p/share over the Ask Price on a block of 500 shares (so £125). Or similarly on other Buys above the Ask Price. Do other AIM-listed companies' share prices exhibit similar behaviour?

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

Yes, but in order to read the data passing into and out of the system will require an alteration to the system (such as installing a sniffer device or software). Until that alteration is performed, the data has not been made available.

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

Ah .. that one alt3rn1ty - many thanks :)

I'll get around to that one, and some others I've missed, once I've eaten and maybe had a little snooze.

It's tough being so popular. :Sun: :sleeping:

D_A

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

I disagree, you are entitled to your interpretation of the Act but in this case I lean towards the analysis of experts and people who actually were involved in putting the Act into statute. All the experts who have spoken about the system have claimed this is interception, including legal experts, technical experts, Peers in the House of Lords and Commissioners of Europe. I don't for one minute think they would make comments "on the record" without making very certain that they were intrepeting the law accurately.

Alexander Hanff

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

I haven't had any previous experience of DA's posts (unlike some others apparently) but I am of the opinion that DA does not need converting. After reading every post on here and on iii etc. there is a certain element of woolley thinking in some posts, most likely due to this being a very emotive topic once you have fully engaged.

So far, I welcome DA's posts as they help us to focus our thoughts, sharpen our claws and remain fit for the fight, and I fully agree with you about the 'ad hominem' attacks. Although in a way that's pretty much what Kent has been doing whenever he is confronted with someone new to slag off Alex to.

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

I am most concerned by the market price. Seems that kent's backers think he is still viable just significantly less cash generative.

That's my reading of the stock price anyhow's.

from a legal perspective you can argue Phorm in many ways. In principle I think it is wrong! ans should be defeated on as many perspectives as possible.

we need to remove the viabilty of the business model. What happened to the idea of caller deposit receipts and charging for copywright usage. Was the idea proved unfeasible?

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

Whilst I have a fair amount of technical knowledge, I am certainly not a legal expert. Therefore I expect that probably the legal experts have got it right and I have got it wrong. However, I'd like to understand why I've got it wrong. It's part of my personality that I prefer to understand than just know.

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

crap post removed

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

Yes I found it a little strange to find out that Kent has basically been going around the Houses of Parliament "slagging me off". I would have hoped he would be above school yard tactics and actually have the decency to answer the questions being asked of him as opposed to simply insulting me at every opportunity even if the questions are nothing to do with me.

That is at least the impression I have been given from at least 1 Peer and several members of the press.

Kent seems to think I am some dangerous fanatical cult leader and you are all my followers; Baroness Miller seemed quite surprised to find me dressed in a suit and well spoken as opposed to being some crazed savage frothing at the mouth.


Alexander hanff

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

The data is looked at (machine or human it does not matter) & processed, then passed to third party for use of such processed data.
The third party should not have had any contact with the data anonymized or not.

Does that help!

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

It's a shame you can't get legal aid for offences like slander - I'd quite like to see him in some trouble over his ad hominem arguments

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

Well there are two possible way's I can think I might be wrong:

1) The processed data counts as communication data
2) The unprocessed data is made available

I think you're suggesting the former?

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

That's a badge of honour I'd be proud to wear.

Lets face it, if he has resorted to that kind of childish behaviour, he's running scared and is fighting to save the life of his ill-conceived mongrel of a company.

The way I see it, if he can't win over the support of a few vociferous net nerds and bloggers with considered, reasoned debate then Webwise had no merit to start with and should have been consigned to the slop-bucket from the start.

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

It could be both if the profiler itself was also deemed to be an interception of the data stream.

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

I think the tricky bit is the use of the word interception. I'm not using it in any dictionary sense. I'm using it in the context of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. So to convince me that the profiler is intercepting the data stream you'll have to refer to parts of the act and state how each bit relates to phorm.

Perhaps I've missed some important clause. Or maybe I've failed to see how it could be applied in a particular way to a particular part of the phorm system. Please do enlighten me :)

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

Sorry for being a bit behind in the thread but it's been a busy day. A couple of important things to remember...

On the subject of peoples legal opinions it's important to note that the various parties mentioned in this thread that have given a legal opinion have gone to great lengths to detail which laws they think this system violates and why they violate them. BT/Phorm simply say "it's legal, our advisors said so". They give no basis for this legal opinion or explanation why they think that others detailed opinion is incorrect.

On the subject of Polls and Surveys, the various polls that have been released and show that the public is NOT in favour of behavioural advertising, specify the number of people polled and give details of the responses to specific questions. BT/Phorm simply say "our survey says that the public want it overwhelmingly" without providing any details of the questions asked or the numbers polled.

It all comes back to transparency (not BT's definition) and honesty.

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

Absolutely, this campaign has always been fantastic, lets keep it going.

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

The question is is the profiler needed in order to ensure communication between the two parties & whether the profiler is illegally gathering the information, but I am no expert & others with far more expert legal minds think it is more than likely illegal.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...1-ch1-pb1-l1g1

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

I have been catching up with the the previous 24 hours postings in the thread. I was reading the Lords questions session at the previously posted link :http://www.publications.parliament.u...ldtoday/02.htm however, I cannot find the section relating to internet privacy that a lot of posts were referring to and discussing. The transcript appears to jump from 11.12 to 11.19 Has it been removed?

Post with original link post11985

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

Hi guys well its the end of a fine week for our focus group now we have let the BT shareholders know what has been happening and how BT are going to protect their investments (not the shareholders but BT themselves) makes you wonder when people use mobile phones in AGM's I would have thought they would be turned off.Judging by the impact that the few had on the many ,reminds me a little of David and Goliath unfotunatley Goliath turned out to be more like Shrek than a worthy adversary.Strange how many members of both houses that govern our country get illegal downloading confused with DPI I presume that comes from decades of protecting big business profits and exploiting legal loopholes than protecting the public at large, as with any organised group we have our opponents but like the BT trials they come and go,to quote an old joke the trials are coming and so is Christmas. as you guys know I dont understand the tech aspects of Webwise but I do know what happens to your PII once it falls into the wrong hands ,and for what? targeted ads, most of us in the UK are now at full stretch financially so we know what we want and where to get it because there are trustworthy traders out there and because of the net and forums, bad news such as Phorm can hide but because of their own past get found very quickly ,this is the power of the net and it's ours, so hands off our key presses.
bob aka TGLS
Beware the power of the silent majority

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

I see there are lots of regurgitated circles of information on this forum today. I can only speak from my heart and from what I have read from the evidence so far gathered and how I have interpreted it.

The evidence, as I see it, from Phorm appears weak IMHO and often unsubstantiated due to a what seems to me to be a reluctance to properly accompany certain claims with actual in-context documentary evidence. Also certain claims and facts they have released are accused by more knowledgeable people than I of being inapplicable to UK law.

I personally feel a lot of Phorm's evidence appears to be based on me being expected to trust them and their rhetoric. Many times people have asked for information to be released to substantiate some of Phorm's claims but unless I am missing something, it has not all been delivered.

As far as trust is concerned, I cannot trust a company who in the past released, as 121Media, spyware to perform similar advert marketing techniques for which WebWise appears to me is designed today. Trust went out the window long ago with their PeopleOnPage application so I am admittedly bias against them.

For interest to others who don't know:
Phorm when they were known as 121Media distributed a program called PeopleOnPage, which was classified as spyware by F-Secure. PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a root kit called Apropos.

So back in time historically, any personal trust in 121Media disappeared and that trust is still absent towards that same company who now operate under their new name Phorm. With their past record and the fact that they were classed as a spyware delivering company when they known as 121Media, I would have thought that it would be in their interests now to be totally transparent to everyone in the true understanding of the word.

I believe I have not yet seen total transparency. Perhaps it is because I am bias but I cannot believe this leopard has changed all of its spots. I can only go with the evidence as I interpret it but I am entitled to my opinion.

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

The latter is apparently also true.

"If the keyword analysis process is offline then in order to scan for keywords would you not have to have a copy of webpage in order to analyze it offline ?

MBurgess
Yes, a mirrored copy is analyzed."

Phorm SVP of Technology Marc Burgess answering a question in one of their (Phorm's) Webchats.

http://www.webwise.com/how-it-works/...pt_080306.html

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

The original link always points to the latest days proceedings. The pertinent information can still be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

That may be a significant detail. If they are storing a copy of the raw data for any significant length of time then it probably is available to the people who have access to the system.

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

All data intercept is identifiable. I am not going to use BT as this example but merely phorm system. As the information pass through the server the information is intercepted and is examined to find out what you are browsing. Then the information is used to determine what type of ads the systems think you will like. It is then pased back to you. The bit that requires passing back to you has to be able to identify you. Any personal information that is submitted will be itnerepted and can be viewed. Although the last part requires a user at the system or remotely logged onto it.