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

I think I'd tend to agree.

If the Police fail to investigate/ arrest/ prosecute... then we put the complaint in.

I would guess otherwise there is a chance the EC would say "nothing to do, the Police are investigating". Lets wait and see the outcome of the Police complaint first.

However I do also plan to write to the ICO, and point out, their investigation to date has been utterly inadequate (and include the content of the EC letter with it).

Pete

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

Again I agree, but I feel that it is open to interpretation;

Article 3 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58/EC lay down the rules applicable to the processing by network and service providers of traffic and location data generated by using electronic communications services. Such data must be erased or made anonymous when no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, except for the data necessary for billing or interconnection payments. Subject to consent, certain data may also be processed for marketing purposes and the provision of valueadded services.

Article 5 of European Directive 2006/24/EC

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC sets out the conditions under which ember States may restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided or in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of that irective. Any such restrictions must be necessary, appropriate and roportionate within a democratic society for specific public order purposes, .e. to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public ecurity or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communications ystems.

The above is the Directive which is the driving force behind the Data Retention, you should note that Article 3 makes it possible for Services such as Phorm to be Implemented and Article 5 give the reasoning behind the Directive.

IMHO - if we do not grasp the opportunity to involve the Campaign in the protest in October, we will be effectively allowing the implementation of the Legislations that are clearly designed to Legitimise the likes of Phorm.

EDIT: Also compare the wording for Article 3 with the Phorm Webwise System - and you have a 100% match. This is clearly what they are using, or attempting to use, to Legitimise Webwise. So therefore this is very relevant to Phorm.

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

there is plenty of none English website that people visit who live here after all it`s a country of multi ethnics with ties back home. Yes the web is dominated with English sites but you cannot ignore the others.

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

Its one of the glaring hypocrisies in this whole discussion. Organisations that are proposing systematic piracy of websites, want to prevent piracy of music/videos. Pardon?

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

I also tend to agree with Robert. Although there is a much bigger picture that is more important, Phorm/WebWise is something very tangible and very close to home and it is that problem that we can use to drive home the privacy issues that are being exploited. Lets get the public support against this issue and use this support to tackle the greater issues later. There is too much dilution within this WebWise thread "Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts" already and although we are concentrating mainly on Phorms presence in the BT system and using that issue against VM's adoption, let us not forget what this thread is about. We still have a large percentile of the General population to educate about Phorm.

As I have said before, we can only eat an Elephant a bite at a time and if we take on-board within this thread other issues in detail, I believe we have a good chance of losing the opportunity to educate our readers against Phorm specifically. It is difficult enough for us to handle all the issues within this thread already and we will get lost within high level legal arguments that will alienate the average reader if we take on-board in detail the EC issues.

I suggest we let the UKCrypto type threads or perhaps another new thread debate these greater issues for which, Alex, I add you have my support.

We can always reference that 'other' thread from within this one when relevant.

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

with due respect they could have swelled the ranks of our demo bit late now.

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

I have to go out to a wedding, so I will not be available for the remainder of the evening. I will catch up on PMs and posts when I get back. You all have fun.

Alexander Hanff

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

Exactly!!!

A few points:

1/ The Protests in Europe are against the Directive 2006/24/EC (and related) which are our biggest threat, as this is what may help Webwise to operate legally.

2/ The Protests are the PERFECT opportunity to reach greater audiences; picture our campaigners with the crowds handing flyers and educating the public that way.

3/ The greatest threat to our campaign is the implementation of Phorm, which will set a precedence. Coupled with European Directive 2006/24/EC I can see NO WAY for us to legally challenge - and our campaign will become no more than a talking shop to ensure that the extent of the intrusion does not go too far.

The Protests are VERY relevant, and a great find by Alex - well done again bud. We must be involved, as the issue with Phorm will not be resolved until the likes of Article 3 of the European Directive 2006/24/EC are removed from the statutes. This is the Directive the protests are opposing - the very same that is threatening success in our campaign.

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

This should be on a different thread, closely linked when necessary or we run the risk of making the issue more diluted & more difficult to follow.

This would not mean ignoring either topic, just making them much easier to follow!

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

This may be what phorm are atempting to use but glancing over the directive as seen here I note the following sentence:

Article 5
Categories of data to be retained.
2. No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive.

It is my interpretation that the Phorm system requires the content in order to profile it?

There is no doubt that this is a grey area and open to interpretation. The fact is that it should not be open to interperetation, it should be clear cut - and probably is to those who understand it, which is why I suggested earlier that the government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done.

All impending trials of this technology need to be officially and publicly stopped, right now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called in and a test case is put before the courts. The experts who wrote those directives are the ones who know whether or not they confirm or deny the legality of the phorm technology.

If our government will not call a halt and apply the legislation then the EU should do it for them.

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

I do agree - I am just wanting them both to benefit from a clear uncluttered opportunity to be highlighted and linked but by separate threads. I think we are at the stage now when the number of enquirers on these issues is going to grow, and the education process must be as painless as possible - whatever it is that they are picking up on - the wider privacy debate, or the Phorm/DPI/Webwise issue. Go full steam on both, but not in one thread otherwise all those enquirers will just wander away again confused.

But I'll go with the consensus ;-)

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

Yes, and one would like to think that every single serving person is technologically aware enough to recognise they can be profiled easily, dates, reverse dns lookup, and that they wouldnt communicate details which can be assembled through the media of for example myspace or similar, besides emails. Whats the average age of serving personnel?, I would suggest they are mostly young and fit and new attractive avenues of communication taken up quite readily. If sectors of our government as the Earl of Northesk has stated are 'envious' of the phorm technology, and the ignorance of current technological/legal issues within the houses which has been highlighted with this campaign, then how much relevant good advice have our forces on the ground received from their seniors.

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

re: phorm/webwise vs. Europe wide protest

Please keep these two issues separate (ie: I agree with R Jones, SelfProtection et al) for all the reasons already stated.

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

Clear uncluttered opportunity to inform. I'll go along with that! :tu:

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

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet ... apologies if so ..

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communi...0.htm?feed=rss

I also wasn't sure whether this merited a new thread or not!? .. move it mods please if you think it does! ;)

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

Agree with the proposal to split the bigger picture debate and greater scope of that demo from this thread. Absolutely valid issue that people will want to discuss and take part in but I would prefer that this thread stays on the primary topic which created it. Link to the bigger picture issue whenever valid by all means. And if I can attend and contribute at the demo to get our main concern over I will! Whatever happens re this thread subject, I'm ok with it.

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

read what the other is actually about if Directive 2006/24/EC if goes ahead then webwise will be just the start of a flood of dpi kit and the whole point of web will be one big nasty place where every isp will be using dpi kit and would be legal, and go from isp to content provider. may look bad after all they claim they are not responsible for the content we d/l legal or not, do you think that would change?
:(

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

For new readers, a reminder of Phorm's past endevours

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Sp...-Distribution/

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

This feeds into the whole anonymisation hoax. You cannot anonymise data if you don't know in advance the details you're supposed to be removing.

Phorm claim they don't know your details, so how can they possibly anonymise your data. They are simply lying if they tell you the profiles will be anonymous.

Now factor in multiple languages, multiple character sets, multiple cultural conventions... it simply cannot ever be done.

As an assurance, it is as worthless as an ice cream in a house fire.

But the ICO have had assurances. And Patricia Hewitt believes Phorm. So who do you trust? Them, or your own eyes.

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

And as one of the majority of Welsh people who speak English, I wouldn't want to! Here's hoping that Phorm does, though.

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

I see our Security Minister - Lord West, seems to think all this sort of thing, reading what we are doing, is normal and happening already.
On the BBC Tech site, he's quoted as saying;

"People must realise - and I used to say this within the Navy - there will be more people look at your internet information than look at a postcard when you write it," he told the House of Lords.

"People tend to forget that - and [that] it is used for quite legal purposes, some of it."

They really do appear to want to monitor absolutely everything that passes for communications.

Colin

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

It's all related. We should have known this was coming.
Now which ISP could that be? How could we generate some much needed revenue to help this poor ISP?
Well, there's a surprise.

Not a problem! The gov't can just change the law to suit their own agenda.

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

Patricia Hewitt was made a non-voting Director of BT in March 2008 shortly after the illegal trials were exposed. She is paid £60,000 a year for which she has to sit in on a handful of unimportant meetings each year - nine at most.

Prior to this, whilst she was Health Secretary, she was responsible for awarding a huge number of extremely lucrative contracts to BT.

She had previously been a strong advocate for privacy even writing the work entitled Computers, Records and the Right to Privacy.

She has a history of saying one thing and doing another. She was a vocal supporter and writer on the subject of equal rights especially as they relate to employment. In 2005 she was prosecuted in her official capacity under the Sex Discrimination Act for her illegal treatment of a male job applicant.

Awful woman.

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

It's a pity you couldn't raise this point at the BT shareholders meeting... The nightmare vision of things to come for BT :(

I think Kent might have skipped over the side effects of his whiz bang money making scam was going to have on BT (typical marketing conman trick). The board of directors could only hear the sound cash register kerr-chinging £££, they have managed to fully block out the sound of the looming disaster that you elude to.

Do you have any advice to give BT customers that might help them through frustrating time ahead. Any hints on getting their MAC code when the complaint lines are fully engaged and their operators are not turning up for work due to stress related illnesses? (maybe drop in emergency centres with checkin lanes?)

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

postcards .Yes but telling auntie Nelly the weather is crap is hardly a trade secret but its when they want to use it for purposes other than intended thats when the line is crossed

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

it depends on how the DPI kit is connected to the network.

if you connect a dpi kit to a spare port on the network switch and setup port mirroring it will monitor without interception, a bit like you having a conversation in a shop and a person listening near by, they can listen but not alter the conversataion. (this setup can only listen and not change or inject data into the data stream)

if it sits in the data stream and the data has to go physically through it like playing chinese whispers, the message at the end of the change may have been altered on the way, this is interception, subtle difference (this setup can listen and change or inject data into the data stream)

peter

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

Just a heads up to everyone. In case anyone was unaware (as I was), dabs.com was bought by BT in 2006. It is now under BT ownership.

http://www.dabs.com/Article.aspx?articleid=565#linkhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4956100.stm

-----------------

Two opportunities arise: Complain to and boycott dabs.com

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

but what is it listening for ?

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

not answered my last 3 emails, not even a read receipt

peter

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

Thanks Bluecar

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

I do. And for Virgin (and TalkTalk) customers too. I'd draw their attention to the wise words of Prof. Ross Anderson and Sir Tim Berners Lee;

“The message has to be this: if you care about your privacy, do not use BT, Virgin or Talk-Talk as your internet provider”
- Professor Ross Anderson, Cambridge University, UK (source)

"I would want to use an ISP that doesn't [monitor which websites I go to]. I personally want to feel free."
- Sir Tim Berners Lee, Inventor of the World Wide Web, Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (source)

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

Latest entity-relationship diagram of Phorm/BT:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4263/phormumlbr9.jpg

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

I quoted Dabs at the AGM (as a pertinent example to the question to Hanif Lalani regarding eCommerce). Would a firm like Dabs.com want their private unencrypted communications with customers sold to Maplin for advertising?

Of course not. It would be damaging to them. So how could the idiots at the Home Office imply any web site would tolerate interception of their private unencrypted communication.

Pete

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

The people who want to do this, are mad. Simply mad. Particularly so if a certain bunch of alleged spyware/rootkit suppliers are involved in any way shape or Phorm.

Why? Because if you can't trust your ISP, you're going to tend toward encrypting your data (if you've got any sense). Server and client side. Encrypted web sites, encrypted email.

When that happens, how are they going to sustain their clever 'security' measures, if they can't read a flipping thing anyone transmits. How are they going to differentiate between suspicious use of encryption, and general use of encryption?

Suddenly the promise of security through intrusion evaporates, and you're left in a bleak world where the Govt has even less idea what even the crooks are up to because they can't be separated from normal society, and the communication data can't be decoded.

:doh:

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

the kit we use, uses this passive mode to monitor traffic volume and network strends, it can also archive, IM traffic, emails and lots of other scary stuff it is mainly used to demo to clients just what is going on on their networks.

the scary mode of the kit we use is transparent, you stick it in the line and the network cards do not have mac addresses or IP addresses, it can then inspect, listen, block traffic, (i must add the kit does not add anything as it is firewall / content filter / traffic shaping kit)

with a small agent on a pc it can even tell you the apps listening on what port, inventory hardware and software and many more scary things

peter

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

Plus the information overload which would remove vital personnel from the front line defenses in the back-room probably dealing with too many false reports!

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

IMP currently doesn't exist and may never according to the debate in the HoL on Thursday. It is being discussed but no decisions have been made as far as I am aware. Certainly that is what Lord Spithead stated in his reply.

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]
 

Yup, as I said, it is still very much a concept only, with out any concrete plans currently in place.

It is worth noting that Richard Thomas recently commented on proposals for IMP and if I remember correctly stated something along the lines of "I don't think this would be legal." or words to that effect. I don't have the reference to hand but it shouldn't be too hard to dig up, it was just last week if I remember correctly.

Alexander Hanff

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

BT did not claim it - it is part of Richard Clayton's 2nd version of how the intercept system works. The script is being modified so that repeated calls with no answer turn off the redirection - http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2...ges-all-alike/ - "It is also apparent that if you resolve webwise.net to 127.0.0.1 that you’ll never get past the first redirection; and you will need to rely on the Phorm system spotting these repeated failures and turning off redirection for your IP address."

Somewhere else I recall reading that this would not be ready for the trial.

Until there is a full technical analysis of the 'final version' I leave an unasked question hanging in the air.

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

Thank you for the info. I was truthfully about to order something from Dabs.com this weekend. Boycott begins from now.

Hey, I get a chance to vote with my pocket already. ;)

I though Virgin Media could be my first boycott. I don't buy anything from the known OIX sites anyhow.

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

>Thank you for the info. I was truthfully about to order something from Dabs.com this weekend. Boycott begins from now.

That's great - but be sure to let them know why you're boycotting them, or BT won't be motivated to change their behaviour.

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

Please do your homework before commenting on the abilities of others and their decision about which flag to support. Providing a daily 'blog' of your new discoveries would be very informative to old and new readers alike. What I report below is my blog of what I have learned today about some tracking cookies (I suspected it, but did not KNOW it).

While you are looking for flags .... have you been able to discover the difference between the tracking scripts used by [generically] search engines, AOL, Research Science, omniture, 2o7 (are they still into adult content?), ad networks, plus many others that are hosted by sites and seen by the webmaster as a benefit to the site, and Phorm/OIX and other profilers?

Have you analysed them and decided which ones you will ensure are permitted and which are permanently blocked from your system, which cookies you regularly delete before closing a browser session, which sites you will never open in the same window as the window/browser which was used to visit a site hosting one of these scripts?

Just one site - bt.com - hosts tracking scripts from 5 (could be more) different domains - and that is before they start to use any DPI to track their customers around the internet.

In general, do you allow tracking cookies?

I personally will never enable javascript, accept cookies nor fill in a form on any site which hosts 3rd party tracking cookies. There are plenty of sites out there that are internet savvy about security and do respect the privacy of their visitors and I would rather support them.

Who are the worst sites on the internet? - banking.

I have just looked at one bank's home page - I won't mention the name. They have tried to set cookies (without javascript) in the following domains.

domain=.mediaplex.com (Mediaplex - Intelligent Technology for Digital Marketing, Provides online advertising, direct marketing and interactive marketing technologies.)
domain=.apmebf.com - blocked by spybot, quantcast says of it 'Apmebf.com is a top 10,000 site that reaches over 324K U.S. monthly uniques. The site is popular among a youthful, very slightly female biased crowd.The typical visitor visits ...' (neither me nor the bank I visited is USA based but quantcast knows how many calls there are to the site and the demographics of those 'visitors' - try visiting the site - "Network Error
An error occurred while accessing "apmebf.com".
Maybe the domain name is not valid or there's a typo in the internet address."), also used by some affiliate networks during redirects

Generally, both domains appear on lists of domains which are blocked as adware.

I tried another bank and no cookies were set with javascript disabled. However, allowing javascript tries to give me cookies that originate from
touchclarity (omniture) where the CNAME for the bank's subdomain resolves to tcliveeu.com - IP range belongs to omniture
and a HitBox Gateway cookies where the CNAME for the bank's subdomain resolves to a hitbox.com domain

Now, why would banks want to give visitor tracking history to 3rd parties AND expect people to use internet banking? In case you are wondering - I actually bank with both banks used in this little exercise and never use any service other than their counter service, nor am I ever likely to use any internet service they offer. I just have to trust that the intranet used to record bank transactions is more secure.

Before you say, see, Phorm is not so bad, it gives you privacy. What? - where? - how? Will Phorm report the leakage of PII that these bank sites stream? I don't usually visit these sites. My browser blocks these tracking cookies - I could only find them in the browser logs with none saved to my computer's disk. What I don't know is how much the javascripts sent to the 3rd party sites. Frightening.

How does the Phorm tracking get blocked? - by changing to a non Phorming ISP - this is the only way.

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

I tried apmebf.com and got a redirect to a site owned by Commission Junction.

A quick check up on CJ shows that they are owned by ValueClick and that both companies are being sued in the US under a Class Act law suit realting to adware activity with a final ruling expected early next year. CJ were also dropped by eBay earlier this year at which point those "324k" monthly clicks dropped to around 30k.

Many non-techy computer users are aware of the presence and purpose of these tracking cookies and many more are now clued up on the sort of data gathering conducted by sites like Google.

What annoys me is the fact that Ken Turtleleg keeps wittering on about how his product is "safer" than these others but he forgets to mention that the other tracking apps will still be there. Even if Webwise is the most secure and none personalised system in the world it is still just another form of tracking and will do nothing to enhance privacy as all the rest will still be there.

The other fact that Phorm seem to ignore is that if DPI by ISPs is approved there will be a lot of competition and we won't just be trawled once when we access the internet - we'll be put through the same process dozens of times by the same or other companies as our webpage requests are not a simple, direct link conducted entirely on our own ISP's system.

If Phorm's system adds, say, a 1% overhead, you then have to factor in all of the other points in the chain where such inspections can take place. Every picture hosted off-site could involve another scan and so it goes on. In a very short time span the internet would end up with 1% useful traffic and 99% interception which will leave the ISPs having to purchase far greater bandwidth than at present. The very systems that the ISPs believe will make them money will cost them many more times as much as they make from a few adverts or they will be forced to raise their charges to the end-users.

The authorities are looking at the situation in terms of one interception per data request. That's not how it will happen and the internet will be massively overloaded within months unless action is taken to keep the internet open and free from any unnecessary interceptions.

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

I am hoping that AD will also discover this, and learn something.

It is more like 2 redirects if you started with the non-www domain and the browser redirected to the www domain. apmebf.com goes nowhere.

www dot apmebf.com has a meta refresh to cj.com - a page telling me what to do if I have received spam. However, the www domain does also contain some text "You are currently being redirected to an information page about qksrv.net. If your browser does not support redirects, please click here to access the page directly." Odd that, as I was not requesting any domain called qksrv.net - looks like that is the spyware domain

I used the non-www domain in the quote as that was the domain quoted by quantcast. I assume that they are like alexa and count all subdomains when counting hits. It looks like every site hosting the adware tracking script gets its own subdomain of apmebf.com

Anyway, I hope this small digression from the thread shows something of what internet users think of tracking cookies and the length businesses go to to try and keep the tracking going. CJ looks like such a respected business - it provides advertising [affiliate] content to millions of websites. Imagine the database it has and how much it earns by selling the data - it even knows the monetary value and which product the affiliate / advertiser site visitor bought.

Imagine the effect of mission creep between the 2 tracking systems.

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

As people here will be aware, I'm always interested in what ISNT said, and what questions ARENT answered.

It strikes me that BT have delayed the trials because of unanswered questions that either they hadn't thought of, or that they didn't think the public would care about. And they have been retrofitting that trial like mad to try and make it "fit" the new climate. And they aren't ready yet.

We are now in the interesting phase of growing "perception" particularly amongst the legislative/enforcement community, and amongst BT customers and shareholders. So the longer the trials can be delayed the better because I think the legislative/enforcement process may create further difficulties for Phorm/Webwise.

So what else might BT not have thought about, or be hoping that no one actually asks them?

If you wanted to challenge BT (and hence the other watching and waiting ISP's) about the UNanswered questions prior to their trialling of Webwise, what do think would be on the list?

At he moment my list includes the following fairly obvious ones - but I'd like a few more with worrying legal implications.

When are the trials going to start?

Will the Webwise trial invitation pop up during ordinary browsing of anyone using a BT Broadband Residential IP address, or only when a BT Broadband Residential customer visits www.bt.com or BTYahoo! customer pages as a logged in and verified BTBroadband residential primary account holder?

What steps will be taken to check that the person responding to the Webwise invitation is the BT Broadband primary account holder? At the moment extra password control is used to check the identity of anyone trying to alter personal info or account details on a BT Broadband account. Yet with Webwise it looks as if ANYONE will be able to opt in to Webwise and thus effect a change in the T&C's of the BT Broadband primary account.

How will the BT Broadband primary account holder be notified of the change to their T&C's, in the event that a third party consents to Webwise while using the BT Account holder's IP address?

Is BT confident that a material change to the T&C's of a BT Broadband residential primary account holder can be enforced in law, when for example a child of 10 (or anyoone else) using their laptop at home, on the BT Broadband IP address, during a browsing session which the parent thought was controlled, innocently clicks on a Webwise invitation?

If a third party using the BT Broadband account holder's IP address (say an adult daughter with her own laptop visting home from uni) gets the pop up Webwise invitation and chooses to opt-IN to the Webwise trial without the BT Broadband primary account holders knowledge, and the primary BT Broadband residential account holder independently and later, not knowing the action taken by their adult child, who is no longer in the house) chooses to block a variety of domains using a hosts file, including key domains connected with Webwise, what will happen to their browsing?

How often should a BT Broadband primary account holder (for BT Webwise cookies) check all the computers belonging to all the people who might be sharing (or have shared) his IP address?

What information are helpdesks going to be given about the Webwise system and possible technical difficulties? In previous covert trials they have been given NO information and have therefore misled customers, resulting in those customers suffering material harm.

What is the FULL list of domains associated with Webwise operation?

Now - anyone got any fairly simple legal or other technical questions of the sort that could be asked of BT (or VM or TalkTalk when it is their turn), and which they might not yet have answers to?

The sort of question I'm after is the sort that might make the BT "lawyer" or exec say "oh ***** we didn't think of that!" - or "oh ****** - we hoped no one would notice that!" - and cause a further delay.

Any thoughts anyone, and I'll compile a list.

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

'Network Parasite Neutrality' as illustrated on parasitestxt.org;

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------

So many its hard to know where to begin. Fundamentally, the question I'd like them to answer is "Are you insane? Have you completely lost your minds?".

Bearing in mind I think Phorm should be stopped on ethical/civil liberties/human rights/freedom of speech grounds... I'm not particularly interested in debating the tech detail with BT. There are much bigger issues at stake here than resolving tech trivia.

If you were willing to debate with BT however, examples of questions they will not address;

"What was the customer research that convinced you customers want this service?"
"Do you think eCommerce business will welcome the interception of their private, unencrypted communication data?"
"How do you propose to obtain consent for interception from 108 million web sites?"
"How do you propose to obtain copyright licences from 108 million web sites?"
"What are the black lists of web sites? White lists of user agents? How will customers be able to see them before making an 'informed decision' to opt in?"
"What are the demographic characteristics you will use to categorize customers, what are the 'channels', how can customers view this data to make an 'informed decision' to opt in?"
"How will you anonymise ambiguous text such as 'Kent is in the south east of England', or 'send me an IM, Dephormation99', or foreign language text such as 'Bei der Laterne wollen wir steh'n Wie einst Lili Marleen', and how about this '張九齡 感遇四首之一'?" (with apologies to people without Chinese language support installed).
"How will you account for the presence of cookies on sites which did not set cookies, and undertake never to do so?"
"How will you comply with DPA section 11 notices?" (get yours here)
"If my privacy/security is breached, what level compensation will you pay me?"
"Why can't I have a phishing filter without being subjected to profiling? It works for child abuse, why not phishing too?"

Honestly, its such a ridiculous unethical stupid idea, I could probably go on for hours. I'll stop here. If its not enough, just ask ;)

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

Thanks all for the info about the hosts file!

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

I have a hint for anyone wanting to leave BT. Tell them:

1. To check the line of the person they need to put you through to in order to get your MAC code. They have a habit of losing you or when it gets through you hear a message saying sorry we're closed.

2. You know they might have had problems with their computer system that generates the code you need but via is not your issue.

3. You know your rights and within 5 working days from now you want that code or you will speak with the ICO.

I had to do the above and then I was given the code.

i think I said this already, but I emailed Emma at BT and told her why I had got the code ready to leave. I copied Christine a secretary and Jillian Lewis (? customer service director) and had a 'sorry you are leaving' email back from Emma's email account 5 minutes later which she copied to Jillian.

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

Hi Guys,

Still here. Nothing at all to report from within BT - we are all still as much in the dark as you. No real suprise, the oxygen of publicity is like death to the parasitic pond life known as phorm.

I have just a few observations to throw into the mix.

1. The campaign is continuing to develop, the rate of posting to this thread is actually increasing as more people discover it. It took 20 days to go from 1000 to 2000 posts, but only 14 to go from 11000 to 12000. I'd like to know similar figures for individual posters, could a moderator give such info?

2. If the trial ever starts, this campaign will go stratospheric. Its small now only because so few now about it. Just wait until 25,000 people get the request to join, and start investigating for themselves.

3. Do whatever you can to get a anti-webwise page near the top of of google search for webwise!

4. A question - Why does the share price fluctuate so much, when volumes bought and sold are absolutely tiny? Selling 0.01% of shares affecting prices by over 10% - doesnt make sense.

5. Bt have said that they will add websites to an exclusion list, provided the webmaster contacts BT and says so, providing proof that he is in fact the webmaster. What about foreign language websites. Anyone know a website owner in, say Hungary. Get them to write to Emma, *in hungarian*, asking to not be profiled. Would be interesting to see what happens! Repeat for as many bizarre languages as possible.

6. I wish to once again thank everyone for their considerable time, effort and expense in this. I hope and expect that you succeed. Don't get me wrong, I am loyal to BT, and think it (well my bit of it anyway) is great. Broadband is a fantastic product, and it has made the internet much more accessible. However I, along with most of the employees, think this will do serious damage to BT if it goes ahead, so that why I'd like it stopped.

Keep going all, you are winning.

Anon.

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

Quote - HaveToBeAnon - answering in line:

Hi Guys,

Still here. Nothing at all to report from within BT - we are all still as much in the dark as you. No real suprise, the oxygen of publicity is like death to the parasitic pond life known as phorm.

I have just a few observations to throw into the mix.

snip just leaving the ones I am answering:

3. Do whatever you can to get a anti-webwise page near the top of of google search for webwise!

It's pretty good at the moment on google - we just can't beat the BBC whose Webwise page holds "pole" position (watching Grand Prix)

5. Bt have said that they will add websites to an exclusion list, provided the webmaster contacts BT and says so, providing proof that he is in fact the webmaster. What about foreign language websites. Anyone know a website owner in, say Hungary. Get them to write to Emma, *in hungarian*, asking to not be profiled. Would be interesting to see what happens! Repeat for as many bizarre languages as possible.

I think I'll write a letter in Bulgarian/Cyrillic - I can just about manage that. I'll provide a brief explanatory paragraph in English, to make the point that they could get a lot of those!

Keep going all, you are winning.

Anon.

Your comments and encouragement much appreciated.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Yes - that is the sort of thing I had in mind. It's not that I think they will actually answer - but it's good to be on record, as having asked/warned about certain things in advance, because when it goes pear-shaped, I want to be able to point to those questions, asked and ignored, and say - why didn't you listen? You are NOT innocent - you DID have these things pointed out to you. You DIDN'T do due vigilance - you were reckless and arrogant and you ignored all the people who told you that you were headed for a cliff edge.

Thanks for those.

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

Oh, just another thought while I'm here.

BT have, as you would expect, a whole team of security experts who's job it is the keep the backbone infrastructure secure and reliable, and it has to be said do a pretty good job. What you would not expect is that they weren't even consulted, and discovered about phorm at the same time as the rest of us, ie February, and their head man, I won't mention names so lets call him JR, went absolutely ape-s..t on hearing about it.

Thats an indication of just how secret this has been within BT, keeping it from people who would instantly recognise it for what it was.

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

Don't forget to leave a review of BT Broadband here:

http://www.broadband-help.com/providers/provider/3

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

As an ex BT man myself I know that what you say is true insomuch as BT do have teams of real experts in various fields.

It is for that reason that the likes of the ICO I guess instead of correctly checking claims, just take BT's word that they are doing all things legally, correctly and by the book. After all they have their own experts :shocked:

If what you state is true and I have little reason to doubt it, with this in mind it is even more important for a full investigation to take place by the police. If the correct experts within BT were not even consulted on this matter, it smacks to me of something untoward and fishy. There may be even more involved than what we imagine.

On a side note:
I must say I like the diagrams shown on here over this weekend. A picture tells a thousand words. Hope we see many more of them.

For any newcomers, here is a link that has already been mentioned previously which I think portrays a good example of where the overall privacy (none privacy) issues are going. I leave it to your imagination what data could be sold by Phorm (ex 121Media) to third parties as a result of their snooping. He was only ordering a Pizza You need to be able to run Flash.

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

My one hope is that those same experts are able to ensure that any little black boxes BTR (residential customers only - no homeworkers, SOHO and SME working from home?) adds to 'monitor' the personal use by their customers does not also sit on the same routers which are used by BTR business and the independent ISPs who also purchase network capacity from BTW.

Just now I go from my router direct to the ISP network router, and that is all I ever want to see.

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

That's comforting. If you can chat to him, one document that BT are covering up at the moment is "Premium Browsing: Research Findings" which is supposed to be the survey that shows BT customers gagging for Phorm/Webwise.

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]
 

To R Jones

I was promised a reply from my complaint to BT within 48 hours. It is now going on 72 hours. So using your questions I want to put a complaint in writing. Can you advise me who to write to at BT please?

M

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

Three names to offer you

Sir Michael Rake (Chairman)
Ian Livingston
Gavin Patterson
Emma Sanderson (director of value-added services at BT Retail)

BT Group plc,
BT Centre,
81 Newgate Street,
London
EC1A 7AJ

You probably will not get a reply.

You might also write to the ICO to explain, "BT are not engaging with their customers..." (use that phrase verbatim, its a direct contradiction of a phrase in an ICO press releases). You could also write to OFCOM. And you should write to your MP too (see www.writetothem.com).

Make it clear to BT, this is something you do not want anywhere near your internet connection, full stop.

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

As the cookie is set at browser level and not at account level, why is there a change to the account holder's terms and conditions? Surely it is the responsibility of the person connecting through a behaviour targeting advertisement sponsored connection to agree to any T&Cs relating to the service. [Reference the T&C used by the free Wi-Fi connections which are using similar profiling techniques to fund the service.]

Why is there no login provision to ensure that only those individuals who have consented to the interception are able to be intercepted?

What complaints procedure is in place? Who will be liable for accepting a contract to intercept usage where the person agreeing to that contract is not legally able to accept the terms.

Is BT maintaining an audit trail to show when each individual browser is allowing their data to be processed through the profiler?

What about an audit trail to show that those who are not opted into the profiler are not having any part of their data stream redirected to any part of the profiling system.

Legality: who is the legal entity responsible under law for the operation of each of the different elements of the profiling system? The diagram on the BT Webwise site shows different areas: 5 blue areas, 3 green areas, firewall, 2 orange areas, 1 pick area. Which laws apply to each area and which jurisdiction will any claim fall under? Where the legal entity is not a UK resident business, is BT the legal representative of that foreign business for the purposes of any claims under the law?

Who is responsible for the audit trail on each of the different coloured areas? Is there any area which does not provide an audit trail? [It has already been indicated that the anonymous nature of the whole system means that no one knows which user and which website is processed through the Data Mirror and the Profiler. Who has verified this and, if there is no audit trail, what control mechanisms are in place?]

What part, if any, of the Home Office report titled "Targeted Onlie Advertising: interception of communications or not? It it is, is it a lawful interception?" has been used to form the legal interpretation of whether or not BT's implementation of the OIX advertising exchange is legal?

What systems are in place to ensure that interceptions which fall outside the scope of the above Home Office report are not intercepted and processed by the profiling system: both BT and non-BT elements of the system. Who is legally responsible for any such interceptions?

Are BT and Phorm jointly and severally responsible under the law for everything and anything relating to the interception, monitoring and profiling systems?

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

Thanks for posting but I would like to remind everyone that it is NOT the responsibility of content owners to inform BT of anything or request to be opted out. It is 100% the responsibility of BT to obtain your consent to OPT-IN so please people, DO NOT send these letters to BT or you are playing right into their hands.

Instead add explicit terms to your website stating that you categorically deny the right for BT or Phorm or any agents thereof to copy, mirror, cache your web site for the purpose of commercial use such as behavioural advertising. Once you have done that (and the more the merrier) we wait for the trials to start, we find out the IP ranges of the trial clients and we take action for criminal copyright infringement under section 107 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

It is very simple to detect who is in the WebWise trial by using SSL you can grab the cookie and check if it has been Phormed without them being able to strip it from the communication.

It is very important that if content owners want to be taken seriously that they do this the correct way, and the correct way is not how BT want you to do it.

Alexander Hanff

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

Hi

Thanks for these addresses. Meanwhile I have written to Viviane Reding at the EC, OFCOM and am about to write to my MP

Also, thanks to Alex and yourself for your hard work in keeping people up to date. I know it must seem like a thankless task, but this is how protests get started - ordinary people fed up to the back teeth of big corporations constantly showing disrespect to their customers. So thank you.

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

Thanks for keeping us posted.

On the question of webmasters begging BT not to profile their web sites, I take exception to what they're asking. Its up to BT to obtain consent (ie, a copyright licence and consent for interception) before processing private unencrypted communication traffic for any purpose other than onward transmission. Anything else is illegal.

Webmasters should not have to beg ISPs around the globe not to steal their content, or profile their customers/users. Its simply wrong, in the same sense that stealing MP3 files is wrong or bugging your nextdoor neighbour is wrong.

I'm sure they did go ape. The security people would also face difficult questions themselves. Why did no alarm bells ring when someone installed this garbage in the network? Why did no one in BT security spot the interference with traffic? What security measures were in place to stop someone gaining access to this equipment, and how were they so easily circumvented?

So to summarise what we now know; the trials in 2006/7 were secret, conducted without Home Office knowledge, without ICO knowledge, without BT Security being informed or discovering, using 'closed source' kit supplied by Russians, with alleged history of rootkits/spyware, during a period of critical/severe national security alert, and profiling tens if not hundreds of thousands of customer's traffic (including judges, lawyers, military, civil servants, medics, police, politicians), not once but twice. :shocked:

And not one MP in Parliament has yet found it appropriate to ask the Government for an explanation. Perhaps I need to write to my MP again?

Keep in touch :)

Pete.

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

Might be worth asking Bruce Schneier if he was consulted about the matter.

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

He isn't replying to communications.

Alexander Hanff

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

He doesn't seem to reply to emails about Phorm/Webwise .

Bruce Schneier -- Chief Security Technology Officer, BT, and an internationally-renowned author and founder of Counterpane Internet Security; also designer of the popular Blowfish and Twofish encryption algorithms.

Anybody else had replies to correspondence?


Incidental, I have read quite a few papers, articles, quotes and comments from this guy lately and unless his views have changed considerably over the last few months, my opinion is that this Phorm/WebWise relationship with BT may not be sitting comfortably with his beliefs.

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

>Incidental, I have read quiet a few papers, articles, quotes and comments from this guy lately and unless his views have changed considerably over the last few months, my opinion is that this Phorm/WebWise relationship with BT may not be sitting comfortably with his beliefs.

Indeed! That is why I strongly suspect that he has been given orders by BT to keep his mouth shut if he wants to keep his job.

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

Just an update on the PIA for everyone.

I had an interesting 2 hour discussion with Simon Davies on the telephone yesterday (he left the country again this morning for the second part of his UN work and was only back in the UK for 3 days).

I explained to him that I had seen the final PIA via Baroness Miller on Wednesday and he was actually quite taken aback. He explained to me that while there have been some recent drafts they were still waiting for confirmation that it is factually accurate and as such have not officially released a final version to Phorm (although he did state that the final version may not be any different to the current draft).

So it would seem Phorm are pushing a draft document to politicians and claiming it is the final complete version of the document. I will allow you all to draw your own conclusions.

Just a follow up too regarding Baroness Miller, in my discussions with her on Wednesday, as you all know she made it clear that Kent has been basically bad mouthing me to every politician he comes across. Baroness Miller said to me on Wednesday (and this is not a verbatim quote just general context, I didn't record the conversation):

Baroness: "It seems to me all you are asking is that the system be made opt-in as required under the law?"

Me: "Yes exactly, but that needs to be extended to content providers too as under RIPA all parties must give their consent."

Baroness: "Well I don't understand why Phorm think you are being unreasonable, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you would demand the system be opt-in because that is what is required under law. I don't understand why they don't simply do that."

I then when on to explain that my belief as to their reasoning is that if they use Opt-In it destroys their business plan because in order to reach the revenues they need they need an Opt-Out model to guarantee numbers.

Alexander Hanff

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

Presumably then, the PIA is favourable to Phorm or they wouldn't be pushing it?
Or are they only pushing the favourable bits.... claiming the fact that it is only a draft?

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

Simon didn't give me any details as to the content and I didn't have the time to read it at the protest (nor was it the correct environment) so I don't know if it is favourable to Phorm or not. I would presume that it is very similar to the original interim PIA (I wouldn't expect it to change a lot) and therefore will mention the anonymising systems as doing more to protect privacy (and I should perhaps change this to Personal Data as opposed to privacy as the two are completely different; but instead I will just add this explanation in the interests of transparency) than current models (such as Google) and their belief that the current model doesn't violate DPA (not the trials, 80/20 Thinking have had no involvement in assessing the covert trials of 2006/2007).

If you recall my discussion with the Earl of Northesk you will remember that in that discussion, the Earl (on the advisory board of 80/20 Thinking) stated he believed the final PIA would have some positive comments in it and some negative and I tend to agree with his feedback on this. I expect that the PIA will make it clear that this system has to be Opt-In to comply with UK and EU law.

Alexander Hanff

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

Latest entity-relationship diagram:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6748/phormumliv8.jpg

Notice the addition of 'Janet Blake' - head of Corporate Social Responsibility. Haven't heard a word from her at all. Anyone else?

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

One thing we all have to remember is the PIA is an ICO recommendation and will likely only cover DPA (and possibly PECR) so I am not expecting to see references to Fraud Act, RIPA, Computer Misuse Act etc. in the PIA.

DPA protects personally identifiable data, not privacy. People who attended the PIA "Town Hall Meeting" will recall that Dr. Richard Clayton made a clear comparison of the two and I believe it may even be in the video of his presentation at that meeting. I say believe because I can't recall if it was in the main presentation he did or in the Q&A panel at the end (which wasn't recorded).

Alexander Hanff

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

To which, I would like to add: what is meant by exclusion? Will no information about anything to do with the website, not even the URL, go anywhere near any part of the Layer 7 system. What are the technical details of the exclusion? How do new sites get added to the exclusions list? Will this exclusion list availability be made public before the trial. Is there a format for providing the exclusion list? What proof is required - ownership of domains is a matter of public record and the owner and webmaster are not necessarily the same person. What effort has BT made to contact international sites so that they can be included on the omission list?

And, most important, how can websites audit whether or not their content has been used as part of the profile data source?

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

I have a big issue with that diagram. Simon Davies has made it very clear to the public and to Phorm that Privacy International is -nothing- to do with this issue. I would appreciate it if you changed the references from PI to 80/20 Thinking. If you have issues with 80/20 Thinking that is fine and you are completely entitled to those opinions (whether I agree with them is irrelevant), however, dragging PI into this is wholly inappropriate in my opinion.

Alexander Hanff

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

Alex-

The existence of an entity or relationship doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing. In any case, I've change the diagram so Simon Davies points to 80/20 Thinking. However, Simon Davies still has the attribute of being Director of Privacy International.

Do you think - and do other people agree - that this is fair enough?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/107/phormumlqw2.jpg

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

Privacy International shouldn't need to dragged into this - they should be making a statement to make their position in the matter clear. I am appalled that they have avoided the entire subject and I think it is disgusting that Simon Davies has undertaken a contract with Phorm for financial gain.

I appreciate his comments posted elsewhere that he makes no money from PI but if that's a problem then he should stand down and then he can sell his talents to whomever he choses but until that time he has let everyone down who looked to him for and PI to support freedom and privacy.

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

I would show Simon's 80/20 role (only) within the 'Simon Davies' box, and have PI as the 'external' relationship. I.e. the diagram should reflect the fact that the PIA was done in his 80/20 role, but he also happens to have the 'PI' relationship.

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

So what do you think? Remove all references to PI from the diagram?

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

Actually, and although I can't give any details of this away, he has not made any financial gain from the Phorm PIA, if you knew what the money was actually be used for you might not be so quick to criticise.

Anyway I don't want this to deteriorate into a Simon Davies bashing party *again* (as it has on a number of occassions), I merely felt the diagram should be factually accurate.

It should also be noted that Simon Davies does not have a contract with Phorm, 80/20 Thinking does, the diagram currently indicates that the contract is directly with Simon.

Alexander Hanff

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

>I would show Simon's 80/20 role (only) within the 'Simon Davies' box, and have PI as the 'external' relationship. I.e. the diagram should reflect the fact that the PIA was done in his 80/20 role, but he also happens to have the 'PI' relationship.

If I show Simon Davies as having the attribute (within his box) as 80/20 director, but no 80/20 Company box, but a Company box for PI, that would seem to bring even more undue attention to PI. Don't you think?

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

>It should also be noted that Simon Davies does not have a contract with Phorm, 80/20 Thinking does, the diagram currently indicates that the contract is directly with Simon.

That's a good point. I'll correct that immediately.

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

I think given the nature of the diagram (where you have included external roles for everyone else) then it would be cohesive to include PI as an external role as suggested. I would rather PI were not mentioned but that is just my opinion and I can understand why people may be upset or angry about the PIA so I am not going to put my opinion above the general opinion.

I just want the diagram to be accurate and fair. Simon has become a close friend of mine and what you guys are seeing really is only the tip of a huge iceberg; the work Simon has done and is currently doing goes beyond what most people could even begin to comprehend. And it should be noted that despite 80/20 Thinking doing the PIA, Simon has never let that get in the way of our developing friendship and has kept that matter professional and completely separate. He has been completely honest with me regarding official questions about the PIA and has never tried to hide anything, I would hope people can appreciate that.

Alexander Hanff

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

OK, how about a company box for 80/20, showing this outfit as having the PIA contract, then a 'person' box for Simon, connected to 80/20 on one side and PI on the other (or remove the PI reference altogether, if that helps avoid any arguments)

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

That is quite astonishing! How did Roman Gaufman (aka Hackeron, The Phorm Malware Hacker) managed to sneak into a BT network centre with a 19" rack full of electronic snooping equipment and leave it there like an Elephant in the room during the 2006 and 2007 spying trials?

Who opened the doors to the actual equipment rooms and who showed him which wires to tap into, surely Stratis Scleparis the CTO of BT Retail must have authorised a BT engineer to help Roman do the dirty deads? How come JR hasn't come across the details of at least 6 weeks of someone sneaking around inside the network and no one at BT control saw millions of rogue javascript injection traffic coming from one network section?





And there's more:

The cheek of this guy Stratis Scleparis!!! Pretending to be a good guy helping to fight malware at BT while he was in full knowledge of the fact his secret malware trials where going on under the noses of BT victims at his behest via his malicious rootkit friends Kent Ertugrul of 121Media (aka Phorm)

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...s-back-at.html


Note: to Phormwatch you need to add 121Media(Phorm) hacker Roman Gaufman onto your entity relationship diagram, he's Stratis lil helper ;)

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

Here's the latest version - still open to suggestions...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6886/phormumlrq9.jpg

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

I agree, we have been down this road before and some of us have already stated an opinion. I have my opinions but I am not going to re-iterate them again. All information is available somewhere deep within this thread.

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

That is much better, thank you for addressing my concerns. To everyone else, Simon Davies really isn't the enemy here.

Alexander Hanff

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

Cool.

Everyone else happy with that?

--
If you have any suggestions for further additions/relationships, please let me know. This will be an ongoing project...

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

Looks good to me.

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

The 80/20 relationship looks a more accurate.

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

You might want to include that chap in Korea, since it is evidence of Phorm expanding their market (or attempting to) into South Korea.

Alexander Hanff

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

Remove the "Prince of Darkness" quote, maybe put the box in a slightly different colour, discrimination of any kind I hope is precisely what this Group is about!

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

I presume you meant "is NOT about"?

Alexander Hanff

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

>You might want to include that chap in Korea, since it is evidence of Phorm expanding their market (or attempting to) into South Korea.

Point.

>Remove the "Prince of Darkness" quote,

Aww... do I have to? :P

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

Precisely, it's so easy to misquote when using a Keyboard.

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

Rather than the chap in Korea (isn't he an innocent in all this?) the names of the 2 marketing chaps who are looking for new markets in Korea - and, if anyone still has the info, the name of the telecom company that was being approached.

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

When you work for BT you sign the official secrets act. It is not unusual to see complete strangers from time to time ( albeit infrequently ) coming into a building doing authorised work on equipment and you do not ask questions. If you are not privy to who is coming, you may even suspect they are not your normal BT engineer but you generally do not interfere. You assume they are some sort of 'specialist' unit acting legally. In really it would not be hard for someone to get away with a large black box on the floor once they are given access by somebody in authority. Nowadays most BT buildings are uninhabited and are only visited by floating engineers

I am not sure about all the JavaScript and the DNS request logs though. Perhaps at that point certain people were told not to ask any questions and to look away.

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

Are you sure about them signing the Official Secrets Act? To the best of my knowledge this was ended when BT was privatised.

I am covered by the OSA having worked in various government departments in the past and the act does not cover evey aspect of my work. External agencies are only required to sign the act in the event of performing duties in certain areas which come directly into contact with certain government business.

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

Kent actually said:

"I am not the Prince of Darkness"

Which was stating the bleedin obvious because there can only be the one:

Ossie Osbourne

Who has far more talent and shed loads more money than kent

:D

EDIT: Ossie Osbourne Quote: "What d'you mean you've got bubble machines either side of the stage - I'm the fookin Prince of Darkness y'know!"

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

Perhaps nowadays not all have to sign it. To be honest I am not too sure if everyone does. I was rightly or wrongly under the impression they did. I can only speak from my experience.

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

Networking issues have keep me away from this thread all weekend.

No Simon Davies bashing please The man is in a hideous position. He is probably contractually obliged to deliver the PIA despite what his principles would have him do.

As far as ISPs go, it is your own responsibility to make sure they are behaving in an acceptable way.

Anyhow will try and post reasonably frequently but I am off to LA for a trip.:D

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

I did get a couple of replies, no permission to post, and they were one liners. Impossible to decide what his attitude was or what action he would be taking but the replies were courteous.