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

Just to let you all know my second petition was refused but this time they only refused it on the grounds of "duplication" so that is at least a small improvement. I suspect we are going to get nowhere with resubmitting again but it was worth trying.

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

Alexander, I have added another comment on the iii site to mention the High Court injunction possibility. Potential investors need to be aware that we arent going away and that we will examine all possibilities when it comes to fighting Phorm.

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

Try not to be so patronising. This thread is in place to get them to care. Sit up and take notice.

Old ground and has been said so many times.

There is nothing wrong with standing up to the ISP which so many people appear to be doing. Well done for them.

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

I have resubmitted Alexander's original text and asked them to follow their own advice and check carefully the wording of the petition and compare it carefully with the text of the original ISPPHORM petition.

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

Despite what Peter N said on the BT forum, I’ve had no problem with that secure link. The website is providing both secure and insecure access to what is otherwise identical content. The ‘phormed’ poster would have posted using the insecure access. We just happen to be using HTTPS to look at what was posted. Having both secure and insecure access allows people to choose to visit your site with out interception, while still allowing search engines to index it.

I now fully endorse Phorm. As it’s impossible to report Phorm intercepting sensitive information, I’m off to buy my Reg-S shares…

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]
 

Please keep us inphormed (sorry!) Simon.

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

Just been snooping around with Phorm's (and Ke(u)nt's) history as 121media/Peopleonpage and quickly looked at whether VM's Pcguard recognises any as spyware and it does (peopleonpage) Also PCguard's Privacy Manager deletes cookies so any system based on that would be useless without explicitly trusting the cookie and if they did it for you then you've lost even more of your privacy. :mad:

The key point about Phorm's system is that it intercepts and analyses ALL the data (it has to to know what to profile) and without explicit consent or a court order this is illegal. I will never give my consent and changing the T&C's just will not cut it. There are already big legal questions over companies T&C's and EULA's and I very much doubt a court would agree that changing the T&C's to include that 'you give your consent for all your data to be snooped on' would be fair, however they word it.

The thing that gets me is that this technology of packet intercepting and analysis is not difficult to implement but the reason I see that it's not been done before is because it's wrong and illegal. Why didn't VM/BT/TT see this? Is Ke(u)nt such a good sales rep to pull the wool over their eyes with the BS about privacy? I can only think he is - but how do they feel now they know he's ph*cked them? Abused maybe...

The only thing that VM can do now is to dump Phorm (go on VM tell Phorm to go ph*ck itself). It would make financial sense, before their shares are affected (like Phorm's have been :p: ) by the truth coming out regarding this system.

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

And how do you do that?

Leave in droves or sit around, debate and wait for it to happen?

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

Seeing as you mentioned People On Page I will take the opportunity to repost about the rootkit they used in that software. Its a very important part of the reason why we CANT trust Phorm and why we shouldnt swallow the whole "it was adware not spyware" line that the PR monkeys keep posting. The Apropos rootkit:

http://www.f-secure.com/sw-desc/apropos.shtml

This is a key as it comes back to the issue of trust/credibility. Phorm seems, with its PR posts relating back to this issue, to almost buy into the old metaphor I have mentioned before; the Poacher-turned-Gamekeeper. Their argument goes something like this:

"we used to be an adware company but people didnt like that and couldnt distinguish between adware and spyware so we stopped that business model and are now working with the ISPs to protect your privacy. We are the good guys now. You can trust us. Honest. We have changed. We are on your side now."

The problem with that argument is that it has already been torpedoed by the revelations about BT and the secret trials in 2006 and 2007. The leopard hasnt changed its spots.

The poacher hasnt turned gamekeeper, they have just changed their method of poaching. F-secure and other companies labelled them as spyware. They WERE spyware. Whatsmore they still ARE spyware. All they have done is change the method they use. Instead of installing rootkits on end-users computers they are installing servers on the Internet Providers Network.

No amount of PR spinning is going to overcome our resistance to them.

DO NOT WANT!

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

I understand what you're saying but unfortunately people won't leave in droves. I for one have got a rubbish telephone line so I'd get a very low broadband speed through it, hence why I'm with VM which I've always had the speed it says on the tin :)

If VM did implement this then I'd go with using anonymouse.org with encryption (£4 for 1 month, £14 for 6 months and £21 for 12 months). Therefore VM nor Phorm would get any revenue through this ad system from me :D

I like my privacy and I'm prepared to pay for it - are you listening VM...

PHORM IS NOT A GOOD REVENUE SCHEME, DUMP IT

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

Unfortunately, the script on that web server to produce a ‘printable version’ of forum posts, presumably with no images, seems to be broken. Although, I don’t know if ‘adult’ words alone would have been just as big a problem.

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

My third petition has been submitted with slightly different wording and calling on the Prime Minister to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to examine the possibility of bringing charges againt BT (I didnt mention Phorm in the petition this time) for the illegal trials and I also in the comments at the end pointed them to the BBC link. Maybe they will take more notice now even the BBC is reporting that the trials were illegal. I doubt it but its worth a try. I gotta go out soon but will let ya'll know when it gets rejected.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

Not all of us are just sitting around and debating. Some of us are taking concrete steps to combat this threat by writing to MPs, MEPs, Privacy Organisations, taking on the Phorm PR machine on blogs/news stories. We must be doing something right otherwise why would Phorm need to employ 5 PR outfits?

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

Notice Talktalk are starting in June this year to use phorm and webwise.

So that seems to show that this isn't going to be that easy sadly, they are trying to force customers to conphorm to their idea..

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

TalkTalk have heard customers' feedback as discussed at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...hares_plummet/

(emboldening is mine)

"Company representatives have told users in forums that they are working on a way to ensure that traffic from people who opt out will never enter the Phorm system. "We had a meeting yesterday and based on customer opinion we decided to use a different method, yet to be decided, to split the traffic so it doesn't hit a Webwise server at all for those that opt out," one wrote. [img]Download Failed (1)[/img]


In an email to a customer seen by The Register, Carphone Warehouse CEO Charles Dunstone confirmed that Webwise will be opt-in only on his firm's network. He wrote: "We have never stated what our policy was. This is the first clarification given. We are still many months before the system is meant to go live."


A post from TalkTalk admin "Matt" here adds more details. He writes: "There is no Phorm equipment in our network. We have never run any trials, nor implemented any aspect of this nor any of Phorm's previous systems in our network.


"By making the service opt-in, we feel the onus remains firmly with Phorm to make the service useful and compelling enough that subscribers will choose to join it. If it fails to do this, it will itself fail."

TalkTalk are listening to their customers and have made a public statement.

---------- Post added at 15:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

You might be prepared to do nothing about Phorm. Others, like people here, are doing more than debating it here, they are actively protesting, informing and educating people in positions of regulation, government and influence to what Phorm is and what Phorm stands for.

What have you done?

I said it would probably be about the start of the month when Ian Woodham's reply arrived. I came home to find a white envelope on the floor. On it was written in the top right hand corner "COMPLIANCE".

The reply itself was a bit disappointing but again is something we can use if Virgin Media start to behave like BT. Again it is hand signed. I've put some bold in where points we can capitalise on are relevant.

"Dear CaptHunter

I write in response to your letter dated 19th March 2008.

Whilst I understand your concerns and would like to thank you for your feedback, I must stress that although Virgin Media have signed a provisional agreement with Phorm, we still have a lot of work to do in evaluating various aspects of a possible deployment. As a result it may be some months before we are in a position to confirm how and when the solution will be implemented. However, to reiterate my letter of 14th March 2008, currently no Phorm solution has been implemented on Virgin Media's network and will not until we are confident that it is compliant to do so.

We will of course be communicating our intentions openly and transparently and will let all our customers know before rolling out the Phorm solution and we'll clearly explain how the system works. Ultimately customers will not be forced to use the system and will be able to keep their internet experience just as it is now should they wish.

With regard to customer's [sic] opinions, I can confirm that consumer concerns around privacy are (and will remain) an important element in our deliberations. Similarly we are fully aware of the adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation, and again this forms an important part of our deliberations.

Whilst I appreciate that this letter may not provide the level of detail you require, we still have a lot of work to do in evaluating various aspects of any possible deployment and as such until this work is complete I am unable to provide this level of detail."

Points we can use:

Provisional agreement. The more information that reaches Virgin Media about Phorm - The Guardian's rejection, the BT & Phorm illegal trials - and the more people who tell them, the more Virgin Media will realise Phorm isn't a good brand to be associated with.

Possible deployment. That suggests to me that there is no definite commitment to implement Phorm yet. If we keep up the pressure then we can reduce the chances of the possible deployment to make it an unlikely deployment and then perhaps a non-existent deployment. Something to aim for.

"Currently no Phorm solution has been implemented on Virgin Media's network" - Ian Woodham has repeated this to me in the knowledge he will be quoted. That doesn't mean we must blindly accept his word as to VM's future conduct. If Phorm is found on the VM network in any way, shape or form before any announcement they need to scream like Bruce Dickinson here and to The Register.

"We are fully aware of the adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation" - that means we are really making a difference. Again we need to keep spreading awareness and ensuring people realise what VM is looking to do. Something else to aim for - VM's brand becoming a byword for intrusiveness, invasiveness and inability to listen to and act on customers' feedback.

Grateful for anyone else's reading of the letter.

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

CaptJamie

Is this letter a reply to your DPA notice then ?

Does this mean that they have ignored you compliance letter ?

It does sound as though they are going to wait for all the fuss to die down before introducing Phorm if at all