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

First up the usual IANAL disclaimer. :dunce:

The problem with the CMA is that it is old. It was written before the internet came of age and so is often not very relevant anymore. A rewrite is well overdue. Having said that it can still be used effectively for many nefarious activities. The crux of the matter may well be the "without authorization" clause. It could be argued that by running a web browser that accepts cookies you are giving permission for cookies to be placed on your computer. It is common to imply consent for data to be changed on a computer. However that may fall down when the cookies are forged to look like they come from a domain they have nothing to do with.

I know there are people on here who are for more knowledgeable on the CMA than myself though so I look forward to reading their opinions.

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

Here's a quote for you - in email from Director, Value Added Services, to me, 02/07/2008, responding to a query from me which contained the words, "Please note - I will infer your consent to the publication of any reply to this email unless you expressly and explicitly withold such consent." - there was no reference to witholding consent to publication in the reply, the bulk of which is copied below. As this is the last email I received from this person of course it is very precious.

ES says
"Neither of the previous small technical trials or our future trial of BT Webwise involve infringement of the copyright of any website holder.
Anyone who puts a webpage on the internet does so for the purpose of people making copies of it for the purpose of looking at it and assessing the information contained in it. There are of course some exceptions to this, which is why, for example, BT Webwise does not profile pages transmitted via HTTPS.

Accordingly I am afraid no royalties or other payments are due to website owners - aside from those that want to participate in the OIX of course (www.phorm.com).

We believe that we can rely upon website owners implied consent, especially if websites are happy to be trawled by major search engines such as Google, as if they are unhappy with this and use robots.txt to block the likes of Google then Phorm will also ensure such sites are excluded. It is not reasonable or practical to contact every website owner in advance or to identify sites displaying Webwise messages.

Over and above this we are also taking reasonable steps to exclude specific websites upon specific request from the website owner, so if website owners provide us with the url's of their websites (and confirmation of ownership) then we will ensure that they are excluded by
Phorm.

I can assure you that we have taken advice and believe our approach is both entirely reasonable (straightforward) and that it complies with relevant legislation."

The email (and no other communications I am aware of from BT) takes no account of the inability of all customers with BTOpenworld or BTYahoo! Geocities websites to use robots.txt exclusion statements, nor do they refer to any communications attempts made by BT to let proactively let even their own webspace owners know this or apply for their sites to be excluded from Webwise profiling. (I know we don't likethat solution, but as it is the one BT are offering, along with robots.txt, they need to have a coherent plan for informing customers about it and they don't.)

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

Not really Phorm related but an article which shows how easy it is for invasion of privacy for online activities in one country to quickly spread around the world and affect everyone.

As part of the 'Housing Bill' running through the good old USA is a clause which requires payment processors to pass info to the IRS for merchants processing more than $20k per year, which includes holding a database of the purchasers, wherever they are in the world.

See More on the "Housing Bill" about half way down the articles.
http://www.i-cop.org/journal/08-11-08.htm

(And, I don't know why, but for some reason the joke at the end of the articles reminded me of forum moderators - with apologies to moderators here.)

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

I have a very similarly worded email. Dated a little earlier so is somewhat shorter in content.

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

As regards the MCA you could just refer to Richard Claytons letter.

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

I like it - I've already sent an earlier version to a fairly litigiously minded Irish company, concerning their own concern (and SUCCESSFUL legal case) about website copyright. I put that in the letterbox today along with my DPA notice to BT.
My DPA request from BT about what data they may have passed to Phorm comes due in about 3 days, so I'll be getting some more stamps. I'm really looking forward to them missing the deadline.
My ICO complaint is acknowledged and pending.

I would imagine the "what you can do" section for a concerned company, would be for them to write to BT Retail legal section and tell them that they would regard it as actionable if Phorm profile their sites on the back of Webwise-linked visitors.

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

I'm not sure they would be too interested in joining the campaign - they are more likely to think in terms of "sue or not sue" - in otherwords whether their own commercial interests are threatened.

Given the comments about the risk that they might just join OIX - I think that needs to be countered by simply making sure they are aware of the considerable legal challenges to the whole system. Any company with any sense (BT excluded for unique reasons) would be mad to invest any of its advertising budget in such a leaky ship as OIX.

Perhaps a brief reference to the turbulent time the whole technology is having with both EU and US regulatory concern would be enough to deter them (for now) from investing in OIX - after all there are better legally safer, more proven systems for them to spend their ad budget on.

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

I assume that you are referring to the use of the word 'spyware'. An interesting point, considering that 121Media and Phorm have continued to deny any connection with spyware.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps the following amendments are in order:

"... 121Media was responsible for writing a piece of adware software (often packaged with free software or other downloads) which antivirus companies such as F-Secure classified as malicious Spyware.
....
Phorm's 'adware' technology may make you lose customers and revenue
....
The deep packet inspection system sold by Phorm to broadband suppliers sees everything on the web before it is sent to the person surfing your sites. So that the 'adware' technology can keep track of web surfers across the net, it forges a webwise cookie that it appears to come from your website when visited by the person surfing the web.
... "

Or, perhaps there is some other error which your long association with 121Media/Phorm has enabled you to spot? Please share your knowledge.

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

With regard to defamation Madslug, - I find it beyond the bounds of credibility that BT would bring a defamation case. They would be insane to do so.

In a court there are serious penalties for perjury.
In a court you can subpoena witnesses (directors and press officers) and force them to testify.
In a court you can't dodge questions.
In a court you cannot control the outcome.

Given the things I have read on various forums and blogs, that are far far more critical of BT than anything in the Open Letter to Businesses, I really don't think defamation would be an issue.

BT suing for defamation is about as likely as Jonathan Aitken or Jeffrey Archer doing so.

Generally to succeed in the courts, you need deep pockets and a very very clear conscience. BT certainly have deep pockets. But they seem reluctant to proceed with legal action.

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

I was thinking more about Phorm rather than BT. Phorm still have a few millions not spent.
I can just see a judge being somewhat confused by mention of malware and rootkits on PCs and then trying to get to grips with the technical differences experienced by a surfer whose every data packet is subjected to interception via DPI.

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

Defamatory? I see opinions, not accusations! Maybe you should visit the Solicitors as you suggest - take some 'humble pie', as you will need it!!!

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

This is a crucial point - that unless we have enough money to properly defend ourselves then I wouldn't be so gung-ho about defamation.

Also from an educated reader's point of view we should be careful to lay out the facts as they are. Quoting press articles on anything contentious shifts the responsibility "blah said it could be described as spyware" then referring in the remaining piece as adware, as Madslud suggested.

BT are unlikely to defend Phorm's reputation for them - I believe Phorm took the PR chalice as part of it's early agreement with BT. Phorm is unlikely to hold back correcting something they believe is untrue - possibly Phorm's top brass are on a bit of a mission to get back at "the very few but vocal" anti-Phorm protestors!

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

Old article - still an interesting read about tracking. Who would have thought that Yahoo tracks more than Google? - only gets 3rd place

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ount-the-ways/

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

I've changed 'spyware' to adware in the last paragraph. I'll add the ending paragraph soon.

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

Home Office FoI releases uploaded, and my current conclusions updated.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=12

This FoI release confirms - the Home Office were advised about Phorm as early as November 2006.

Shortly after the 2006 trials.

They remained in correspondence with Phorm through 2007, up to the launch in February 2008.

They haven't released any details of the correspondence other than dates.

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

Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.

This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.

If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.

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

I'm glad someone else spotted that.

Ironic really isn't it? Its too 'confidential'.

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

A friend of mine in the Civil Service was explaining (unrelated to Phorm) how decisions were made in the DTI (now BRRRRRRR), and I think this applies across the civil service.

Basically for any decision an assessment is made on what the likely public interest would be, and the chance of it blowing up and coming back to haunt them. If it is considered low risk then decision making takes a different path to that otherwise (I'll leave the reader to read between teh lines here!)

I pity the HO and BRRRRR on Phorm here, as I'm sure the people dealing with BT and Phorm didn't spot the likely public interest on this technology being stealthily installed at ISPs.

At the time of dishing out advice and emails I'm guessing that the civil servants involved never dreamt of FoI interest from teh great unwashed.

If correspondance hasn't been prepared with the likelihood of public scrutiny being considered, then of course it won't be released under FoI without an appeal.

It's a pity FoI didn't exist when they were still making "Yes, Minister!"

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

I have had a quick read of what you have put up and I think you have earned yourself another bone Pete. ;)

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

Which ISP did they use for the communications? Was there DPI being used? Maybe their communications got intercepted? There might even have been a secret trial going on at the time that the Home Office weren't told about and the communications might not have been secure.

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

Given where it started with my initial assertion, and the Home Office reply...

“…. it is clear your office were advising Phorm in January 2008. Well before the public announcement of agreements between Phorm and Internet Service Providers”

The Home Office was approached by a number of parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The single response to those requests was made in the informal guidance note, dated January 2008, which was not made available to any of those parties until 4 February 2008.

Please now inform me

- Whether the Home Office were made aware of the secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7

It wasn’t.

- Whether the Home Office authorised secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7

The Home Office was not aware of the trials/tests.

- When you first started advising BT and Phorm (and other ISPs)

Asked for a view we gave that view to all parties who asked for it on or after 4 February 2008.

... the information we now know paints a quite different picture of Home Office involvement, and awareness of Phorm.

I hope at some point the mainstream press will step in and rip this corrupt Government, and BT, to shreds over the Phorm scandal. (contact me here).

Pete.

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

Well, what do you suggest? A campaign of writing to the mainstream press? Have you tried at least contacting the BBC with all that information, Pete?

If anyone has any call to action regarding Phorm, you right now have a very receptive audience at The Register, with those reading the latest Phorm article. I suggest you register and post your suggestion.

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

Could bring it up in the appeal that sine the homeoffice does understand privacy with the reasons for withholding the information. So could they explain why we have no rights to privacy from companies like phorm.

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

I seem to remember the last BBC article had some good input from Pete. (Well done!)

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

I find it interesting that there were at least 2 advertisers receiving the response and more than one ISP.

Why would what appears to be one legal representative have helped edit the HO paper and then have it sent to more than one advertiser?

At the end of the day, all the ad networks sell any spare advertising to anyone who is short: if there is web real estate, they will fill it, even if from low paying stock from a minor network.

The ad networks are as much in bed with each other as the ISPs are when the senior management get together for their joint meetings.

And that is all I can offer on that subject.

Next line of attack - monopolies commission. If 70+% of UK ISPs are to offer Phorm or some other ad network, where is the independent service which acts as a balance to the monopoly?

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

I have a list of newsgroups we can post to once the Open Letter To Business is finished:

http://www.newsgroup-access.com/business-newsgroups.asp

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:34 ----------

OK, updated Open Letter:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

I will have a section after the first which is titled: 'Phorm legality in question' or something...

Thanks for the input RJones

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

I am a bit concerned about the use of the word 'Stealing'. Perhaps 'using' or 'exploiting' might be better and legally less dangerous...

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

I think that would be wise.

Not a good idea IMO to accuse anyone of actually "stealing" anything, as surely that could be classed as defamatory/libellous.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:50 ----------

Ah, changed already.

Good letter, btw :tu:

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

Right argument, wrong target. It is not Phorm who are invading our privacy, it is the ISPs.

Whether you take Phorm, NebuAd or Adzilla, they only write the extra software which allows the ISP to take the DPI data and convert it into a form which can be used by the ad networks to deliver targeted adverts. The ISP buys the DPI kit - and each box will be costing thousands. If the ISP was not already wanting to make our personal data available do you think the ad networks would have been able to get a foot into the door, getting them to agree to such a large capital outlay with only the promise of an income in return?

On the other side of the coin is the DPA - websites are businesses and as such do not have any protection under the DPA, not even when staff or minors use the business ISP connection for personal surfing.

There are only 2 sides to attack.
The first is the need for ISPs to respect their customers and not try to make an additional revenue stream out of something over which they have no rights as per the original agreement with their customers. If they try to do otherwise, they are in breach of contract. The amount of money involved is small enough for a small claims court action to decide who has rights under any change to the relationship between ISPs and customers.
The second is for the rights of websites to have communications between themselves and customers treated as confidential and not be intercepted or copied for any purpose by a 3rd party. Copyright and SSL - both are rights which no one can take away from the websites.

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

I feel that the most important concept in the letter is "BT and Phorm are, in effect, using your content to create demographic profiles of your customers. Phorm have no legal right to snoop on it, intercept it, redirect it or profit from it." and that this sentiment should also be mentioned near the top of the article. Preferably within the first paragraph as not everyone will read more than the first 3 or 4 sentences.

Otherwise, I spotted a Security 'expoert' .

Another point to consider adding is that even though BT and Phorm are currently only operating these interceptions in the UK, customers will be visiting sites anywhere in the world so no one is able to escape from this exploitation.

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

OK! proto-final draft of the Open Letter To Business is complete.

Please check for inaccuracies, or potentially libelous statements. Also, if you have any other suggestions for 'What business can do', then please share them.

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

Don't forget that UK businesses also need to know about the #10 petition.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

16,900

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

I'm not sure businesses would be interested in signing the petition...

Dunno... not sure it's appropriate.

What do other people think? Remember, we don't want to come across as hacktivists.

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

I'm sure, for most small businesses, the distinction between the commercial and personal traffic carried over broadband is non-existant. So for many there will be a personal interest as well as commercial interest.

I don't think it does any harm to add it.

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

As I've said it will be unusual for business readers to be interested in joining a campaign. But convince them that their business will lose money and they will ring their legal department and get drafting letters to BT. If we point them to anything it would need to be an article in a reputable trade/business journal and I don't have a clue where that might be. I don't think it is necessary.

They might contact their MP but they ain't going to join campaigns. Their contribution will be a very different one, couched in language that BT may just understand.
"I represent Global Widgets plc and my clients have instructed me to inform you that if ....."

Now that WILL get someone's attention at BT.

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

The DPI advert issues and the profiling greatly affect businesses in many ways.

Without dwelling on the issue within the letter, in the interests of transparency, I see no harm in mentioning it if it could be done in a subtle way.

Many smaller business owners may wish to sign it on a personal basis.

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

OK, I added both - write to your MP, and sign the petition...

I preceded 'Sign the petition' with: 'Sign the 10 Downing Street Petition as a private individual:'

I guess that's acceptable.

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

Erm... some grammatical corrections?

which is run by a person called Kent Ertugrul
could be better phrased
which is run by a person named Kent Ertugrul
or
which is run by a person whose name is Kent Ertugrul

121Media was responsible for writing
could be better phrased
121Media were responsible for writing

Richard Clayton, Security expert and Cambridge professor has said this,
should be
Richard Clayton, Security expert and Cambridge professor said this,

Internet starts with a capital "i"

letter to the British government asking it to clarify whether Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.
should be
letter to the British government asking it to clarify whether or not Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.
or
letter to the British government asking it to clarify that Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.


sorry...

Apart from that it's a brilliant letter :)

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

Don't apologise. Thank you for the corrections. I'll do those immediately.

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

Can't understand the HO "commercial in confidence" stance unless they have seen a different system/patent from the one published. More likely to be some kind of Civil Service embarrassment clause in the FOIA.

I still can't find any change to the EU patenting system (despite many attempts at change recently) that would allow Phorm's patent anyway. My understanding is that you still cannot patent software or a business process in Europe (inc. UK) and Phorm's patent is both and nothing else.

As for BT's view on copyright I have just a few lines to quote ...

<Directory "/web" >

Order allow,deny
Allow from all
ErrorDocument 403 "/error/noscumware.jpg"

Deny from every.BT.address.I.can.find

</Directory>

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

Has anyone had any feedback from VirginMedia or Carphone Warehouse about how they are handling the copyright issue?

More lines covering....

Deny from all.phorming.ISP.IPs

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

The rewrite has already happened and is currently enacted within Scottish Law, England & Wales version of the Act are due to be fully updated with the additions to Scottish Law this October afaik.

I wrote about both the English and Scottish versions of the Act in my dissertation and explained how both versions of the Act were relevant to the Phorm trials (even the usually more difficult English version).

Alexander Hanff

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

Hey Alex. Would appreciate your input re: the 'open letter'...

Everything appear to be factually correct? Do you see anything there which is potentially libellous?

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

I can't get to it at the moment my ADSL is being very flakey (which is why I didn't post over the weekend) and keeps dropping. I presume it is BT upgrading the exchange to 21CN (due for completion on the 18th) so I just have to grin and bare it at the moment. If you can email it to me it would be easier as it would download with the email when my connection is active even if I am not at the machine.

My connection is so bad it just took me about 12 attempts to post this reply.

Alexander Hanff

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

Front page of the Metro paper this morning:
"Spy more on your citizens - Councils are urged to snoop"

Oddly this is advice from the man who my local police said was responsible for investigating illegal interceptions under RIPA 2000 (they were wrong as you know) but it's true: Sir Paul Kennedy says that councils should be doing more to request phone call details, emails etc to identify criminals etc. Fair enough I s'pose but it's not possible, (is it?) that Sir Paul's office might havebeen the one who spoke with BT and got excited about the possibilities?

Can Sir Paul's office be issued FOI requests? Office of the Interception of Communication Commissioner... I don't know if they can be requested info in this way but he is appointed by the PM in consultation with others: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page3375.asp

Hank

---------- Post added at 06:50 ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 ----------

re: the 'open letter'...

It's excellent and I could only spot one typo :)

In this: "The valuable content on your commercial web sites should not be used for this purpose without your consent (and your customers consent)."

"your customers' consent"

(I think I am right that the apostrophe should be after the 's' on 'customers' because it's the consent of all of them that would be needed to proceed with the interception and profiling activity)

Great letter! And I do think it's worth sending to the editor of prited papers for their letters page (and maybe some mags too, like PC Advisor, Computer Weekly, maybe some small business enterprise type mags too?)

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

Its so ironic given the copyright infringements BT are attempting to defend.
el reg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...g_piracy_fine/

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

The thing that worries me most is that so many people JUST DON'T GET IT!

BT: We're ONLY watching your habits for advertising
COUNCILS: We're ONLY targeting criminals
GOV: We're ONLY stopping terrorism and organised crime

So many people in positions of responsibility see the benefits of snooping for whatever reason but no-one seems to see the down-side.

I suggest a dose of reading up on life in 1980's communist Germany and other Eastern Bloc countries, where the first worry on the mind of many, who were not terrorists or criminals, was what they said on the phone or hotel rooms or even their own home for the worry of being monitored and misconstrued.

Okay, terrorism is very bad, but what about a life free of terrorism where you're always looking over your shoulder?

Or an interenet where you're afraid to type something totally legitimate into a search engine because of a worry that it will be misconstrued? Children researching 20th centuary history google Atomic Bomb to read about the lead up to the bombing of Japan in WWII?

Are law makers today really so blind as to see the long term damage to society that short term gain may bring?

Profiling, monitoring, Phorming, it's just wrong, plain and simple.

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

Google - We're not like Phorm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...uad_and_phorm/

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

BT obviously need some more revenues to invest in upgrading the network - can anyone think how they can monetise their ISPs better ?

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

:clap:

I'm sick to death of complacent morons who come out with "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." They obviously cannot be bothered (or are incapable) of thinking through the consequences of allowing DPI systems like Phorm into our ISPs.
Blanket surveillance of every citizen (well, technically, we're not citizens, we're "subjects") together with a universal ID and DNA database encompassing everybody on this island is the ernest desire of some elements of the government and security services (one police commissioner is on record saying as much), and when that happens the ancient concept of "innocent until proven guilty" will be well-and-truly dead: instead it will have been replaced by the universal assumption that everyone is a suspect in every crime committed; a data-package to be sifted for matches with crime scene data.
In short: total dehumanization of the entire population.

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 ----------

(1) By being honest about what an internet connection actually costs to provide and charging their customers that, instead of subsidising it at the expense of their customers' privacy and security

(2) By not squandering their revenues in the form of obscene pay rises and bonuses for top executives, especially when they oversee disasterous company performance

(3) By ploughing what profit they do make back into the service, instead of giving it to their shareholders in the form of dividends.

It's not rocket science.

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

Ten years jug eh? There's something to make a BT executive think carefully!!

I think website copyright issues are now moving up the agenda very smartly!

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

Hi all,
got acknowledgement letter from MP
waiting for replies from NSPCC
Affiliate Windows (bet they think its a good idea)
Paypal (just got acknowledgement email from them)
Spoke to director of another local firm about Phorm. Doing his nut. Pointed him to Dephormation Site
No reply from PrivateEye

Big well done to all here
Phil

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

Google Phorm.

Looks what's top... its not Phorm.

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

As has been said here many times - it is foolish to offer a product below cost.

BTW charge the independent ISPs a market rate for supplying broadband - over £1,000 per month for a Max connection running at full capacity - and their customers are happy to pay a premium for a service which does not have any of the capping that BT Retail customers suffer during 'peak' times. Only a badly run ISP tries to put too many customers down the same pipe.

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

Wikipedia?

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

Would you recommend robbing a bank?

Because its the same warped logic that justifies copying web site content without a licence, processing it, and flogging the result to advertisers.

And the same warped logic that justifies intercepting a private point to point data communication between a web site and a visitor without consent of both parties.

Its probably illegal. It was probably illegal in 2006. And it was probably illegal in 2007. And so its doubtless the reason why a dossier of complaints has been handed to the City of London Police.

ISPs need to strike a reasonable balance between pricing and product investment. Ultimately, if customers refuse to pay the price of the infrastructure they use, and ISPs see no case for investing, the answer is simple.

Either there isn't a market for that product, or someone with a better product will prevail.

Pete.

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

Alex drop support an email to check the line could be exchange or could be the line from your home to exchange either way support can run some tests. Remember our support ius UK based no India calling...


Oh hammy you just don't get it do you, when you visit here and post please bring along some inphormation about phorm so we can have a really good debate. Don't come here to bait members or try to mock them.

As for BT's network well too many Cheifs not enough workers and the Cheifs get payrises in the thousends of pounds a year one actuall had a pay rise of over £150,000 just think what that could have done for the exchanges..


Agreed :tu:


Remember it is only BT, VM and Talktalk who are talking about this at present. In talktalk case they do provide free internet with phone so can see the need for some help.
VM after years of bad managment and high bonuses making the majority of the workforce redundant. Yet they still fail to understand economics and how to make the network run smoothly and in profit. Had they laid of the over abundance of managers who failed to deliver keeping UK based customer facing staff you never know where thye would have been now.
Agreed seems two of the three are trying to improve at customers expence because they took too high a pay rise for themselves.
Here you need to look at what is paid in divi and think about it the money from shareholders was supposed to be used to improve the company. If this hasn't happened then it is miss managment, bad business plans the problem is for years BT have used shareholders as an open cheque book but the money they gathered wan't used wisely.

I have shares in BT and LloydsTSB which do you think has given the most out in Divi over the same number of years and which is the smallest amount of shares?
WE have motre BT shares than TSB yet earned more from TSB than BT

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

I notice that the wiki page didn't have much to say about the copyright issue

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

Now that is very interesting...

Do you think Google is doing some tweaking, or the net has simply collectively pointed to wiki in sufficient numbers...

That's great news, anyway.

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

@betblow congratulations you just volunteered to update the wiki page with more info about the copyright issue :-)

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

Of course it's been observed for a long time that Phorm Inc. are buying their own keyword from Google just for this very eventuality. But it costs them each time someone visits their page through the sponsored link rather than the top-place serach result they've just lost!

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

HamsterWheel,

Your avatar image appears to be a derivative's work of a copyrighted photograph. I hope you have purchased a licence for such use?

http://www.fotosearch.com/RBL008/a01346/

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

However, it does link to http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlogEntry.425 which is an excellent article for explaining what is being copied off websites.

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

http://www.periscopeit.co.uk/news/ar...ring-storm/257

"The working practices of digital technology company Phorm have been found to be of use to the government in monitoring private web use, according to Public Servant Daily."

Umm... what?

-----------

Ah - here is the article: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=6728

It talks about 'what critics' say...

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

But note that Phorm have paid for a sponsored link.
(No doubt to ensure that they don't get burried)

That point can easily be addressed.

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

I wouldn't read anything into that. I think its based on this article:

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=6728

Pretty shoddy work on the part of the author.

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

A note from a friend...

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

However I would like to add a Glass Houses caution. I for one have many past sins in this field, although now even every single piece of music I have on my PC is purchased.

That is why I dislike the copyright angle, as it throws the light on so much more than Phorm. A few years ago I was working on a news scraper. Without saying too much I was involved with a major national newspaper and their attitude to infringement was: We will not stand for people ripping us off, however we will rip off everyone else as long as we can get away with it, including photo royalties etc. They would literally buy the first edition of a rival paper and scan and clean up a photo and include in their own, and let legal sort it out if anyone complained.

I'm not making such a clear point here, but it is unlikely that a lot of content providers will kick up too much of a fuss in this arena because their own practices may come under scrutiny.

I thought elements of what we were doing with the scraper infringed copyright but it also brought a genuinely new dimension. Alas the service was never launched.

I guess I'm wary that copyright law derives from the middle ages when printing presses were first invented, and let him without sin cast the first stone at the likes of Phorm in the internet age as far as copyright is concerned. However there is RIPA, and I've always thought that this angle is rock solid against Phorm and the ISPs.

I know many of you have differing views on this, and I respect you on those views, no need to ingnite another flame, I'm just pointing something out.

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

It's a fair point, oblonksy.

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

Google were very clever when they decided to allow brands as part of the bid key words. The question is: does each click cost 8p or the default £2.50? It is interesting that the Google adwords tool associates the word 'phorm' with light and php scripts including smarty and forms, also design and maglites / flashlights including clip on book lights. No relevance yet for their products.

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

Of course we know there are other companies called Phorm (http://www.phormdesign.co.uk/) who've been trading in the UK for longer than Phorm, and are in the website design business, so there are at least 2 companies have a right to buy that keyword in relation to internet marketing!

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

oblonsky,

I haven't cast any stones. I was offering a friendly warning to our fellow forum member that he might want to reconsider his avatar. It's quite possible he wasn't aware of the copyright on the image. Even if he has purchased a licence I don't think he is keeping to the terms of that licence. (See 1.4.6 of
http://www.rubberball.com/services/license.html)

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

I know - it wasn't anything aimed at you, merely general points over where this argument may lead...

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

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the paid for link, - a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Edit...
But I suppose it is illegal so we better not... ;-)

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

Anyone have any idea how much a 'click' is likely to cost Phorm? :D

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

I think there is a technical problem. Google have systems to prevent exactly that kind of activity. The referrer will be wrong and the link should change every time too.

I don't think that's a good route to go down ethically either.

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

I think that could well be classed as click fraud. Probably best not to go any further down that route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

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

I like it :D unfortunately, I think it doesn't serve our campaign to become as dishonest as Phorm

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

The phrase 'click fraud' comes to mind.

What would be perfectly legal, if they have included content in the ad options, is to write a page about 'phorm' without providing any links and then add AdSense to the page. The advantage being that you will then earn from any clicks if an ad for the phorm site appears. [There is also the option to exclude certain sites from the content option, so earnings may not last once the page is discovered.]

On the other hand, the OIX wants to help monetise sites which have been written for no other purpose than to earn money by make them attractive for displaying ads ...

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

Madslug has kindly pointed my blind old eyes at the link.

[/slopey shoulder]

I've never updated a wiki page before and I hesitate to start now. I hate computers.

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

The problem with that is that Phorm will not be paying on a per click basis, but via a periodoc fixed fee. Google has more than one way of charging, loads in fact. So you'll probably be wasting your time, and no doubt letting Google know what you're up to. But if you're happy to have them invading your privacy......

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

News stories continue to appear through the 'lesser' news channels.
Is Phorm getting to BT?

Market analyst Gartner even suggests that telco's should gain revenue from advertising and application services based on what they know about their customers.
Delcroix, a Gartner research vice-president, said the issue of customer profiling was overblown. "Telcos do not know as much about their customers as Google or FaceBook know about theirs," he said. Gartner called for regulators to allow telcos to compete on level terms with search and social network firms.

All these comparisons to Google, it has to make you wonder why although google says 'we are not phorm', they still imply that it frowns on the Phorm/NebuAd model - which does not require an opt-in.

Note to Google - Phorm technology does require an opt-in. This is because BT would need to get permission from their customers in order for the trial to take place.

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

Hammy to get the debate rolling since you love our company so much pray tell us a little more on how Phorm will protect my privacy. When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU?
How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy?
How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side?
Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)
If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted?

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate.

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

Telco's... short for telecommunications provider... not advertising provider.

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

Florence

When all links show Phorm as being a company of may paths, mirror servers and most placed outside the EU? THAT IS JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION - WAIT UNTIL WEBWISE IS PROPERLY LAUNCHED TO CONDEMN IT FOR THAT.
How having an adserver based in China protects me from unanted invaision of my privacy? AGAIN, JUST EARLY SUPPOSITION.
How intercepting my browsing gives me a choice when the interception is ISP side? WHO CLAIMED IT GAVE YOU A CHOICE ? YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO USE IT.
Why if this is soo good you Haven't launched your own ISP with this as the main attraction for cheaper Internet surfing ?( This taken from words Kent has spoken no ISP has ever said they would lower prices for acepting this)
If a customer doesn't opt-in is the browsing still going to be intercepted? NOW YOU'RE BEING SILLY - HOW CAN I TAKE ON BT WHEN BT INVESTED BILLIONS ?

Answer those without PR spin and we can have a meaningful debate. I'M NOT A PR PERSON

PS, YOU'D COME ACROSS A LOT BETTER IF HALF OF YOUR POSTS DIDN'T HARP ON ABOUT BT'S BOSSES PAY. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS - IF YOU'RE NOT ONE, THEN FRANKLY THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

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

Since the amount of control Shareholders have over this company is in doubt the amount the BT Execs are paid is partly relevant to this debate.

How about some facts, instead of more spin & rhetoric?

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

This is not superstition this has been proved the domain names have jumped from IP to IP on more than one occasion.
Could you explain why webwise.bt.com was hosted in America for a while at planet?

This has been posted on a forum so I presume they had proof of this at some time has Phorm ever used an add server in China?

Then you have to agree that Phorm on the ISP exchange is nothing like Google?
Since I can choose with Google to join and login or not plus visit other websites without Google monitoring me.

Think you accidently dropped the answer down here Hammy to the one below. Many small ISPs take on BT and win them on Tech support, amount of monthly caps so add this your fantastic security you would be on a winner unless there is something missing.

What an interesting answer so if a customer doesn't opt-in there browsing will still be intercepted?

Possibly not but the answers that have been posted all over the Internet for months have been nothing more than copy and paste from some PR information never answered the questions asked.

Must be your bad day as perhaps you haven't read all my posts I am one of the unfortunate shareholders that BT felt implementing Phorm by stealth even not informing shareholders about it.

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

I think you'll find she is, and you look silly.

:knock:

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

[QUOTE=SelfProtection;34619794]Since the amount of control Shareholders have over this company is in doubt the amount the BT Execs are paid is partly relevant to this debate.

QUOTE]

How is it in doubt ? They've just had their AGM where all the resolutions were passed with at least 90% support. A tiny 3% of voters voted against adopting the remuneration committee's report. 92% were in favour.
If Florence is a BT shareholder, she is in a tiny minority who don't agree with the bosses pay. If she doesn't like it, she can always sell her shares.

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

[QUOTE=HamsterWheel;34619801]
More cost effective for Shareholders to try to remove said Execs & rebuild a decent company so the Shares invested provide a decent dividend & not a constant loss for the BT shareholders.

I wouldn't sell at a loss just because the company is being badly managed!

I'm leaving it there, back to the proper debate.

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

[QUOTE=SelfProtection;34619806]Sorry to repeat myself, but the huge votes in favour of all the AGM resolutions PROVE that the vast majority of shareholders are happy with the management team.

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

[QUOTE=SelfProtection;34619806]Same here the shares cost more than they are worth now.

With the large scale buyin of shares BT were doing towards the AGM what would you expect plus there are a large number of shareholders who just allow the chair to vote for them. I was guilty once of this but never again since BT have shown me I cannot trust them I will be closely looking at everything and will be more vocal. I also think BT shareholders need to be more active sadly many are retired staff who had shares as part of the payoff.


But Hammy still waiting for replies instead of homing in on the shareholder part what about answers to the Phorm related part of my post.

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

Cough..... back on track now.

Has Alex had an update from the police on the file that was submitted to them ?

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

Florence - I refer you to my first reponses.
I'll not waste time defending pre-launch guesses about Phorm. Much better to wait until it actually launches then you can have a pop about what aspects you still have a problem with.
Guesses (however inphormed) about EXACTLY how Phorm will work down to the tiniest bit of code are not worth debating until they are shown to be part of the finished product.

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

Fine, after all we have to obey the law!!!

I withdraw the suggestion.

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

The most important part of all this is if I don't opt-in will I go through the profiler it is a smiple yes or no?

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

I'm sure if he had, he would be quick to post it here. Do we have any idea of the expected timescale for this or is just a case of wait and see?

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Another Reg first:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

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

If BT and Phorm had been more forth coming with information and not PR spin and standard cut and paste responses then a lot of this 'speculation' wouldn't be around.
Since the latest trail has been on hold since early this year, and mixed messages about when it will actually occur, what more can we do but take the evidence that we have and go with it. BT and Phorm don't seem to want to clear any 'speculation' up.

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

I'm sure that info will be disclosed before launch. You will then be able to make an inphormed decision on whether to opt in.

My suspicion is that is the reason for the delay, so once Phorm becomes wholly opt-in you lot will have nothing to complain about on the privacy side as individuals (I accept that the argument will then move on to the copyright one, but I think this is very weak).

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

You could adopt the old "wait and see" approach and stop spending half your lives worrying about it ?

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

As for the copyright one I will buy ssl and move my websites to https which phorm will not be allowed to intercept.

Will Phorm be using its own ID or hijacking Googles?

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

there you go then, nothing to worry about.

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

Reposting just in case it got lost at the end of my post.

Significant Phorm Related article on the Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

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

The thing is, BT already have this option. They have a partnership (often forgotten) with Yahoo!. Many years ago, when ISP's were mere conduits of data, Compuserve had slidden out of site, and AOL was offering dumbed down internet for the masses, BT decided to partner with Yahoo and give all its customers a Yahoo! home page, and Yahoo! webmail. BT ISP became an AOL clone. Content was the buzzword. Delivering targetted customisable content to your customers, not just connectivity. We moaned at the time, but we got used to it, and learned to use it when it was useful, and get our information and services where we wanted to - sometimes via the Yahoo! portal, sometimes just via the wild wild web.

We got all or most of the ancillary Yahoo! services like photo pages, and Launchcast internet radio, and Yahoo Groups, and the great bonus (?) of targetted advertising channels. All quite tacky, but perfectly legal, and if you didn't like it you could always use Firefox, a hosts file, Adblock, and block most (if not all) the ads.

Then BT also decided a few years later to get back into exploiting its own brand identity and after pushing the ISP customers to the off to the edge of the BT group identity, (partly because of competition regulations) dragged us back into the centre of BT Group again, giving us "aligned" billing all dealt with via bt.com, and a bt.com login to manage our phone lines and even our now rebranded yet again BT Broadband internet accounts and our BT Vision accounts, and our BT Anywhere mobile accounts - you name it - BT sold itand it all happened on bt.com. With the bt.com site, came a whole new list of ad partnerships, and of course much more cookie placing.

Again - a perfectly legal form of behavioural targetting of BT's own customers when they as individuals had logged in with a username and password to a BT web page. The sort of thing the quote above refers to..

Not, note, when we were "on the internet" but only when we chose to login to either a BTYahoo! or www.bt.com site.
Not confusing every individual on the home network, with the same IP address, but behind an password protected login page - each individual having their own login.

I may not have "liked" this but it was easy to avoid and it was legal and worked well. And presumably earned BT Retail money.

But then they got greedy. They wanted not just to monitor what I did while using the Yahoo Home page, but what I did while online no matter where I was. Hence the use of DPI, the man in the middle technology.

Hence the current mess they are in.

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

You mean this one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/