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

Just read the news on ISPreview then looked at the Register it is hotting up..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...t_westminster/

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

i would read that as no one can do it, but "Public Authority" can in those set circumstances as its in the exception part 2 not in part 1

bit pointless having a law in place that lets eey one bar the goverment snoop on you

for wouldnt that mean i could tap all goverment data as i am not a public authority ( well not last time i checked anyhow ;) ) cant see the goverment seeing it that way :)

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

Pete John has updated the Dephormation plug in for Firefox to V1.5 http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

I would also assume that if the government aren't able to snoop on people the law would also apply to the likes of BT, TT and VM. The fact that it's being talked about in parliament is a step forward too.

With the revelation that BT's webwise server isn't in the UK wasn't Phorm claiming that no data left the hosting centre? As it's not in the UK doesn't this also break another part of UK law?

As has been mentioned before why register the domain through godaddy.com? Maybe they were using the money off offer given with Diggnation and The Totally Rad Show, after all they've lost some money on the stock market of late. :)

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

The government can intercept Internet traffic as part of a criminal investigation, this is covered under RIPA. However such interceptions have to be signed off by minister, usually the head of the home office or whatever they may be called now.

The issue is though whether Phorms equipment or that of the ISP in placing the Phorm system within their network edge breaches the appropriate RIPA legislation in that the data is altered when it is passed onto the interception device.

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

thats were your ISP think they have wiggle room, they all put in the T&Cs that they can export your personal data.

its put there so they can export it to their offshore customer care personel, but they can claim wiggle for the other exporting going on.

THATS WHY its important to override that T&C with your own official Notice excluding or rather nullyfying the Export clause under the DPA legislation.

and OC, it has the added effect (depending on how you word it)of stopping them exporting your data to the offshore customer Care personel, good and bad for you and them in their UK job/cost cutting savings.

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

Re the data leaving UK, there is also the Safe Harbor framework for US and UK firms.

Link

But luckily for us, the 2nd principle supports (imho) the anti-Phorm case
"Organizations must give individuals the opportunity to choose (opt out) whether their personal information will be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose incompatible with the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. For sensitive information, affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice must be given if the information is to be disclosed to a third party or used for a purpose other than its original purpose or the purpose authorized subsequently by the individual."

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

not just "altered" but diverted/copyed and collected in the first place
i beleave, theres some crossover with the DPA and the EU law RIPA is based on, or i might be getting that bit wrong, i need coffee....

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

Your interpretation of ECHR is erroneous I am sorry to say. It does indeed cover companies as well. I received a 5k settlement after working for a company for 1 week when they unfairly dismissed me for imparting my opinion on the subject of copyright in a BBC Newsnight interview. They settled because they had contravened my Human Right to impart political opinion.

So whereas it may be unusual to use the ECHR against a private corporation, it certainly is possible. I have been saying from Day 1 that this is a Human Rights issue as well as a criminal issue under RIPA and I still believe that to be the case.

Alexander Hanff

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

Thats reassuring to know. When I read up on article 8 of the ECHR I too interpreted it to mean that it couldnt apply to companies. Glad to know I was wrong. We should use any and all avenues open to us.

Speaking of which, did you manage to fix your friends laptop and speak to him to get some advice vis-a-vis an application for an injunction of some sort?

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

He is not back from Bristol yet.

Alexander Hanff

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

Alexander, I just looked on the petitions site to try see if the new petition you submitted had been accepted and although so far it doesn't look to have been accepted, I could find no reference to it being rejected either. Am guessing nothing will happen until monday at the earliest though I will check regularly.

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

I checked myself earlier and came to same conclusion. The latest petition was added yesterday so I am presuming they don't work weekends.

Alexander Hanff

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

I did the same and came to the same conclusion. That's government for you :rolleyes:

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

an OT but still interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?

Virgin Media become the first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....

except it seems when it's they that are doing the suspected (clickstream copyright)Piracy perhaps!

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html
Virgin Media Adopts Three-Strikes Rule for Illegal Downloads

thread started here (sorry Toto didnt see your thread here)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...rike-rule.html

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

It's being discussed this in another thread this popper. :)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...rike-rule.html

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

Anybody see the irony in this? People are (quite rightly IMHO) up in arms about the ISPs and Phorm 'stealing' OUR data, but they (maybe not the same peiple TBF), are also up in arms about attempts by the ISPs to stop US stealing other people's data!

Personally, I have no objection to attempts to stop illegal file-sharing, but I have STRONG objections to Phorm stealing MY clickstream data. Let's not be hypocritical about this.

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

you forget the key word "suspected"

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

TBF - in both cases

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

Here is the letter I posted to liberty on friday afternoon. I am posting it here so that others may use it as a very basic template upon which to write their own letters if they so choose.

Please feel free to edit it and rewrite it as you see fit. I am sure its full of grammatical errors. I am sure some of you will be able to refine it a great deal. I will of course post any response I may get.

Dear Liberty

I write to you regarding an issue of great concern to me and others. Recently I emailed your press office to bring your attention to a worrying development in the arena of online-privacy. Notably that 3 of the United Kingdoms biggest Internet Providers have signed a deal with an ex-spyware company called Phorm.

This company, in its previous incarnation as 121media, developed a system called People On Page. This system utilized the Apropos rootkit which was categorized by many computer security companies as spyware. This spyware caused thousands of people hours of frustration trying to uninstall it from their computers.

Now this company has signed a deal with BT, Virgin Media, and Talk Talk/Carphone Warehouse to place servers within the networks of said Internet providers to monitor customers online browsing and then to use the information to build a profile that will lead to supposedly more targeted online adverts.

Put simply, this system is the online equivalent of the Post Office opening our letters, reading them, and then using what they have read to build a profile on us so that they can send us a better class of junk mail.

So far there is no way to opt out of having your data profiled by their system. The so-called “opt-out” only relates to opting out of the delivery of their ads. Even if opted out our data will still be intercepted and mirrored to their profiler within the Internet Providers network.

So far a petition against Phorms’ technology on the Downing Street website has garnered almost 9000 signatures in a matter of only a few weeks and has now broken into the top 20 petitions. More information and background on the story can be found at the links at the bottom of this letter.

Already questions have been raised as to the legality of this system and the Foundation for Information Policy Research has already written an open letter to the Information Commissioners Office arguing that these proposals violate the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and are possibly an infringement of the Data Protection Act.

British Telecom, in collaboration with Phorm, ran a trial of this system last year and did so without obtaining any consent which means that it potentially violated RIPA. Initially when presented with evidence of this by various technologically literate people last summer they denied all knowledge but finally this month they have come clean and admitted that they lied and that they did carry out a trial of this system. Already legal action is in the early stages of being prepared. One person has attempted to report this to the police, given that offences in the scope of RIPA are criminal acts and can carry a sentence of up to 2 years in prison, but they were unsuccessful as the police refused to issue a Crime Reference Number.

I have already written to my MP and all the MEPs for my area but have had only one response so far which is another reason why I have decided to send this letter to you.
Given that you have a well known and well respected history of activism in the Human Rights and Privacy arena I am curious as to whether you have any comments to make or whether you are even aware of this issue and the potential threat it poses to online-privacy.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would look further into this issue. The information commissioner has already warned that we may be sleep-walking into a surveillance society and the technology and systems that Phorm are developing, in my opinion, represent another step in that direction. Lastly, please be aware that I intend to publish any response I may get from you on assorted websites where this discussion is being debated furiously.

Yours sincerely


For background information please visit these links:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/04/phorm_ripa/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03..._fipr_illegal/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...n_phorm_uturn/
http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

************************************************** ****************

The address for Liberty should you wish to write to them is:

21 Tabard Street
London
SE1 4LA

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

To Be Frank (or bob, or even jane ;) ) i did include 'suspected' in both cases.

but it has to be considered OC, once you admit your going to use such copyrighted material such as the Phorm signed ISP's have already said, is it really then suspected!

while the majority have been reading up on the RIPA and DPA part of this ISP/phorm consern, some of us have been looking at the less talked about, indeed hardly mentioned so far such as the Human Rights,the safe harbor/ EU E-commerce Directive/ Conduit questions etc.

for the purposes of this ISP/Phorm related thread "copyright theft" becomes a very real interrelated concern,as does the Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive.

the BT 2007 trial using unauthorised copyrighted material position not withstanding, it's now Virgin Media's turn to stand in the spotlight, indeed they walked right under it and turned the super beam on ;) .

keep in mind, Virgin Media have now put themselves sqarely in the spotlight, and into the unique position of being both a UK signed Phorm ISP AND the very first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....

hence the/a real pressing question is this Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive protection they seek to retain, and its implications for Virgin Media directly, should they loose or have infact,just plain automaticly given up that EU legal protection, by freely entering into both the Phorm signed contract, and now the freely entering into ‘a general monitoring of the network’ for potential unauthorised copyrighted material on their conduit protected network.

#1823 "popper:did the UK ISPs in question, infact give up their legal protection in EU law as a mear conduit,by freely signing up and agreeing to ‘a general monitoring of the network’ in that contract for profit."


only Alexander has make comment on that so far #1825

and while it seems true at the moment only the one HTML protocol is being proposed, the Phorm Patent clearly states that could change at any point.....

this story URL makes for interesting reading when you place your thinking into this ISP/Phorm frame of mind, and from the end users POV in this .

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.14/belgium-isp
"EDRI-gram - Number 5.14, 18 July 2007
UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) made public its opposition to such a move to make ISPs "play judge and jury" whenever customers are suspected of engaging in copyright infringement.

An ISPA representative explained "What we wouldn't want is corporate censorship.

Any kind of censorship of the Internet has to be at the government level.

ISPs are not law enforcement.

We understand that ISPs play a part in combating instances of illegal activity on the Internet, which is why we engage with rights holders and work with government authorities on that basis, but we wouldn't say we're the gatekeepers of the Internet."

"

given the fact Virgin Media are a large part of the 'UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA)' and ISPA's statement above in July 2007.

is it now to be taken that the ISPA position has changed?, or that they dont now represent Virgin Media; or its apparent Uturn policys to freely enter into these two ‘a general monitoring of the network’ agreements, and potently giveing up their EU conduit Legal protection?

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

Good morning PhormUKPRTeam I see you lurking there in the "Currently Active Users" list. Concerned that the only activity on the markets this morning so far has been people dumping stock at even lower prices than last week? Lets see what your shareholders do if we manage to get a court injunction to prevent your "technology" from being deployed shall we :)

I hope it is raining where you are today.

Alexander Hanff

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

Does anyone know why it's all gone quiet regarding Phorm? The Reg hasn't had a story for a while, PRTeam have gone home and even the comms the BT Beta support site are just going round in circles now. Could it be because people who were surveilled last July by BT/Phorm have started legal proceedings and so aren't allowed to discuss it?

In the absence of any other news, Phorm's shares opened down 3.6% again this morning :D

[EDIT] Alexander - you obviously type faster than me :o:

I suspect the PRs are lurking to get the heads-up when that injunction flies...

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

Trust me, there is stuff going on, I am just working out some finer points on a few things myself at the moment as discussed over the weekend. It's going to be a fun week for most, although I am sure Phorm might not be too happy by the end of it.

PhormUKPRteam must be reading the last 10 pages of posts or something, although until now given their complete inability to address the public's concerns and demands, I had assumed they couldn't actually read and could only ctrl+c and ctrl+v but maybe I was wrong ;)

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Tell you what though, I would absolutely love to be a fly on the wall at the Phorm board meetings over the last couple of weeks. I have never seen a fly laugh hysterically before but I expect that is exactly what they must be doing. Oh to be a fly...

---------- Post added at 10:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 ----------

Awww PhormUKPRTeam left maybe they exceeded their cut'n'paste bandwidth quota last week?

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------

Can you tell I am really bored and waiting for 54GB of data to backup from a 5400rpm laptop hard drive to the file server?

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

That should come in handy for the job applications they'll be filling in soon...

---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Knowing how tech-savvy they are :dunce:, they've probably only just realized we can see they're here if they're logged in :p: I'm sure they just hate the feeling that we're spying on them...
(Oh - did the number of guests just increase by one? ;))

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

Naaah same number of guests.

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

I got a reply from Liz Lynne MEP this morning telling me she has written to Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the Minister responsible for Information rights and Data protection, and also to Ofcom. She will write to me when she gets a reply. Still no word back from my mp though:confused:

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

:LOL:

Very funny...oh, look, here they are again:D

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

Just checked the petition site again and so far I guess its a matter of no news is good news. So far the new petition doesnt seem to have been accepted but I cant find a record of it being rejected either.

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

I too wrote to Liz Lynne who is one of my MEP's, not had a reply yet, but the fact that some ministers are talking about it is a positive.

We can't ease off, we have to keep the pressure on all those parties involved with the whole Phorm spyware deals.

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

Agreed. As my own MP has not responded whatsoever to my letter to him I am considering starting writing to individual ministers instead. Usually they recommend that your first port of call should be your own MP or MEPs etc but as my mp has not responded in any way, and its now been 10 days since I wrote, it may be time to consider alternative options.

So far one MEP has responded to the points I raised and another of my MEPs responded saying they were passing my letter on to one of her colleagues as they have an informal agreement where she is responsible for everything south of the M62 and Humber Estuary while her colleague takes everything North of those points. She assured me I should have a response shortly but as of yet I have heard nothing from him.

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

I am so aghast at VM et al. to have even contemplated getting in to bed with Phorm that I have joined CF (after lurking for a long time) and I've also emailed my MP. He is usually good at responding and having previously worked in IT he should have a better understanding than most MP's of the technical aspects of what Phorm do.

Other ISP's should capitalize on this issue with a slogan like " We have form not Phorm"

Now I'm off to see how much the subscription to Anonymouse.org is...

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

:welcome: to cableforum unicus.

In any letters you send to MPs or other organisations remember to put in the letter that you intend to publish their response on this and other forums.

There is a list of Phorm-free ISPs somewhere but I cant remember where off the top of my head. Am sure someone will be along with the link.

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

http://phormwatch.blogspot.com/

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...ewforum.php?11

http://www.antiphormleague.com/isp.php


Personally id recommend Aquiss, they have been very vocal about having nothing to do with Phorm - http://forums.aquiss.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3457 , plus I've used them in the past and have always found them to provide a first class service :)

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

Thanks None

Saved me from the trouble of finding the links.

Share price down another 4.6% today. Makes me think of limbo dancing where you see how low you can go under a horizontal bar. Phorm, how low can your share price go? Answers on a postcard to PhormPRTeam!

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

They're lurking again.

Just thought I'd remind PhormUKPRteam and everyone else that I'm still awaiting responses from Ian Woodham (VM Group Data Protection Officer), Neil Berkett (VM CEO) and the office of Sir Beardy himself, Sir Richard Branson. If/when they do come they will be posted here.

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

Did you know that phorm is an anagram of............................


[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisaston/2123898724/[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

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

It's after 5 o'clock so PhormUKPRteam must go home then.

Please don't ruin my childhood by associating one of Tony Hart's finest creations with this company of intrusive, invasive, evasive people with questionable values.

That last point is The Guardian's by the way. Reminder to everyone that The Guardian rejected Phorm, saying that "Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company."

That's a very politely worded but massively condemnatory put down.

Edit:

No, they're back lurking again. Maybe they just went off for a fag or coffee break or whatever it is PR people do.

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

Time for some command and conquer 3 tiberium wars. Every time I attack the enemies base I shall fantasize I am attacking Phorms offices and destroying their servers. Hey-ho.

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

Just got a reply from Liz Lynne MEP, virtually identical to the reply Patinstoke got in post 1926

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

I see the Phorm PR people spent a lot of time here today without contributing to the thread. Clearly, they've learned that their attempts to qualify their invasive proposals in this clued up environment are ineffective. Still, it is good for them to read that the opposition to their propsals has not abated and is gathering momentum.

However, they will be back after thinking more carefully about their strategy. That's what PR are paid for. We know how it works and we should make ready for the spin.

That said, I still feel that there is no advantage in getting embroiled in discussions with Phorm. Indeed, it could even be distraction tactics whilst the hardware preparation goes ahead ready for the switch to be thrown at the green light.

Several have taken up the privacy issue with their official representatives and this must be focussed on ISP's, not Phorm. Phorm cannot realise their intentions without complicit ISP's so let's no longer contribute toward the notoriety of their brand (there's no such thing as bad publicity they say).

It is surely not good business sense to partner a scheme that confronts the values and (even perceived) privacy of millions of people. There is the danger of the Virgin brand being besmirched with such unpopular proposals.

A deal that sells out those who have loyally supported you has never historically been successful in the longer term. Phorm's position is becoming untenable; when something is sinking the best advice is to let go.

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

As long as they're being paid Phorms PR teams will continue baling with the collander of untenability:)

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

Well I think that Phorm Team's arguments need to be countered, but then, yes I agree they should be ignored. When they pop up again like a dodgy cookie, they should be countered again and ignored again.

You have hit the nail on the head regarding ISP's. Without a dodgy ISP to 'procure' for them, Phorm is nothing. To their credit, many of the more reputable ISP's have shown them the door, but unfortunately VM have very little reputation to protect.

They must have hoped this would go in 'under the radar' and they were clearly wrong. Their silence discredits them even more and it is a faulty strategy, as clearly the campaign against will continue to grow and become more mainstream. It won't go away.

Are they furiously changing their plans (webwise dropped the VM logo) or do they have a lot to hide (undisclosed trials perhaps)? Is project coaxial more than just a rumour and has Phorm become an acute embarresment?

The continued silence will only lead to more speculation.

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

more Phorm newswire coverage.

cheaper ads are todays official spin... and it seems trying to sweet talk the Press that they can profit by Phorm use!.

is the current plan now to give the press a good deal in kickbacks and discounts so Phorm get an easyer ride?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...65&newsLang=en

Internet Profits Will Rise for Advertisers and Web Site Owners, Phorm CEO Tells Journalists

...
“If you [are] interested in the survival and thriving of the press, then you want a model where the press can truly monetize its audience, rather than monetize a few key words that happen to be part of news pages that trigger ads,” Ertugrul said.

Because of the Phorm technology, bloggers, too, will be able to evolve from poorly compensated hobbyists to well-compensated publishers.

Ertugrul said that the first stage of Phorm’s rollout in the UK is “happening very shortly.”
....

Ertugrul acknowledged that Phorm is in conversations with a number of American ISPs about integrating the Phorm technology into their networks. “Obviously our interest is in entering the U.S. market,” he told the journalists.
...

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

Phorm and their various PR drones should surely have figured out that their attempts at spin will not work in these communities of technically and legally aware people. Instead of technical people responding to the technical questions asked here, at DigitalSpy, on The Register and on other blogs, Phorm sent PR people and irreversibly damaged their already questionable reputation.

That doesn't mean the war is over. Phorm will no doubt continue to peddle its wares and spin to those elsewhere who are more easily swayed by bulldust and marketing speak. We need to keep our eyes open for such occurrences and react with information and education. We must continue to spread the word as much as we can to inform others who are not as aware as the intelligent, questioning customers here on CF.

As for the ISPs, only Carphone Warehouse has emerged with any credit. Its decision that whatever Phorm implementation they have is opt-in only reflects well on their management. The pressure needs to continue to ensure this decision is not backtracked.

I never expect anything less than the unacceptable from BT. In my 13 years in ICT BT have been the single biggest cause of problems. In my professional opinion BT has no credibility, customer focus or moral standing whatsoever. I sincerely hope that people affected by the unannounced trials take recourse to the law and that BT gets the heavy judgement it so richly deserves.

As for VM, with whom I have been a customer for at least 10 years (in one form or another), their letter to me comes across as evasive while they consider their position. Even in the face of an open letter from CF they still refuse to respond.

Actions have their consequences.

So does inaction.

VM stands condemned for its inaction and fobbing customers off with standardised replies. BT stands condemned by its own actions.

A number of the leaders with whom I have had the pleasure of working love to say that "perception is reality". This thread here is the perceptions of customers. Their realities.

I challenge VM, BT and Phorm to prove me and the others who challenge them wrong. Not by spin and "please visit our website" placatories but by open, honest and straight answers.

The questions are already in the public domain. The only thing that's missing is the open, honest straight answers.

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ----------

Looks that way.

"If we're nice to you will you give us an easy time over our intrusive, invasive technology?"

I see Virgin Media are still mentioned even though their logo seems to be missing from the Webwise page. And not surprisingly there's no mention of the humiliating rejection Phorm received from The Guardian. (Note to Phorm: their put down line about values was so great there's no way I'm going to Phorget it. I'm going to remind you of it every chance I get.)

If you read the latest bulldust ("is poised to deploy a proprietary, patent-pending technology" - given there are likely legal challenges and parliamentary, OFCOM, ICO and EU investigations I think that might well be a bit optimistic) they are still peddling the lines about no identifiable data being stored and being given an opt-out *but not mentioning the customer's data still gets fed into their systems*

If I'm not mistaken you'll see a couple of e-mail addresses towards the bottom of the page. And a phone number as well?

Naturally I look forward to full unedited transcripts of these and future proceedings being published in the public domain.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenheart (Post 34518215) Just got a reply from Liz Lynne MEP, virtually identical to the reply Patinstoke got in post 1926

HI i just got this reply from one of my other mep's and im not quite sure whether he is saying they do or do not condone phorm. Any other views on this would be appreciated

Thank you very much for your email.

I have met with Phorm Technology and I am aware of the claims that they are making about anonymity and lack of reverse traceability that their system embodies.

My colleagues and I in the European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy in the context of proposed reforms to the Directive on Privacy in Electronic Communications. We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses and whether they should be treated as personal data and the Phorm system will certainly be included in this review.

We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications, combined with clear information for users if they are giving their private data to marketing organizations.
I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Many thanks.
Malcolm Harbour.


Malcolm Harbour
Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands, UK

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

Well it's not a ringing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. Strikes me as a non-committal "We know what they're claiming. It's something that we're looking at and we think more could and should be done" sort of thing. It neither endorses nor berates them and it doesn't say anything about taking action against them under EU legislation.

It's a bit like my cover drive - looks good initially but is a bit wet at the point of impact and ultimately a bit disappointing.

I've got a vague recollection that the EU had already said that IP addresses were classed as personal data?

I'm sure someone more knowledgable about the EU and legal issues can out me right there. It's late and my making cricket analogies means it's bedtime.

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

Although this isnt meant to be public, and im not giving dates out or who was involved for various reasons but....there was a meeting about VM's future with phorm not so long ago ;)

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

that coming from a MEP is quite good , you just need to parse it.

and he seems to assume you should know the EU/MEP talk, most people dont, and even i that have looked, find it hard to work out whats happening sometimes.

the political readers here are better at that than i.

i may be wrong and time will tell ,but i read it as:
"European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy " basicly there are holes in the old revision so we are going to plug them to make E-privacy stronger.


"We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses "
given that the head EU Data commissioner has recently stated that your ISP given IP address is your personal data, the MEPs are now moving to clarify this point in better EU legalize.

"the claims that they are making" equates to Hmm if you say so Mr US ex-spyware.

"Phorm system will certainly be included in this review."
we suspect your messing with the personal IP address in some way,so we will make sure we close any loopholes already told to us, so you cant do it easly anymore.

the point here seems to be , have people told them all the possible abuses
of IPs that are out there, so they can put the right clauses in the new directives?

"We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications"
trust us to make you feel safe and spend all your E-cash in the EU so we can tax it to the hilt.

"I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal."
we dont know what else we might put in the new directives yet, but we are looking for more feelgood Ecomerce and be better than the US directives

---------- Post added at 02:24 ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 ----------

TD ;)

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

Well to me it says absolutely nothing, a typical polichickens answer, sit on the fence.:td::td:

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

funny iv not seen any DigitalSpy threads mentioned, any info in them thats not been mentioned here already?.

it just struck me about another potential option and perhaps some fun for the right readers.

lautresteve http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...ail&id=3974313
points out that "... I could sit down and build my own version of Phorm's technology inside of about a month (less if I hired on some contractors.), it's nothing more than a bit of Deep Packet Inspection and some proxy server tricks.

It's so simple in fact, that I can't understand how they spent so much money developing it. If it were truly worth anything, I'd be on the phone to a VC right about now,...."

looking at the patent, it seems an accurate claim for any reasonable coder team.

and so, that also means there might be prior art already out there, or it might be that its so simple that you might even manage to get it revoked perhaps ;)

i dont know the US patent rules and regs, but perhaps someone that does, can find the company that holds prior art, or can find a way to have the Phorm Patent revoked :p:

cant easly capitalise on a non patent can they:angel:

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

What a BUNCH of BS! I just got this email back from the PM Petitions Web Team:

Hi,

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Duplicate - this is similar to and/or overlaps with an
existing petition or petitions

Further information: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BTCrimina...hKUBpe7FzAMWa4

You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'Order the
Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings against BT for
their secret trial of Phorm in July 2007'

BT have admitted to running secret trials of Phorm technology
in July 2007 and have further admitted to lying to the media,
press and their customers when questioned about this at the
time.

In carrying out this trial without receiving consent from their
customers and the web sites they visited, BT appear to be in
criminal breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000; as this (as defined by the Act) is classified as an
Unlawful Interception.

The number of counts for this offence potentially runs into
millions dependent on how many communications they intercepted
over the period of the trial.

Whether the data was discarded or anonymised after the fact is
irrelevant and does not alter the fact that all these
interceptions were in fact Unlawful as defined by the Act.

-- the ePetitions team

How the hell is my petition -anything- like the original ISPPHORM petition? Not impressed at all. My petition is asking for direct action by the Home Office to start criminal proceedings against BT, the ISPPHORM petition is asking the government to intervene and stop Phorm from being deployed. The two are both very very different in their goals and purpose.

Time to go on a ranting spree...

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 03:13 ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 ----------

My reply:

Hello,

I think you actually need to read the ISPPHORM petition. It is completely different in its purpose to the petition I added on Friday; my petition is asking the PM to ask the Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings against BT for running criminally illegal trials of Phorm in July 2007, the ISPPHORM petition has the purpose of asking the PM to stop Phorm from being deployed in UK ISPs -in the future-. They are both entirely different.

I have published your response on the following URL:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post1951.html

I can guarantee you it is going to cause an absolute outrage and I will personally be writing to the PM himself by registered post to complain about the decision to reject this petition. It amounts to nothing more than trying to protect BT executives from prosecution and it WILL NOT be tolerated. Could I ask you how many shares of BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and Phorm you have in your stock portfolio or do I need to put in a Freedom of Information Act Request for those details?

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

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

thats outrageous, i wonder if they were running it past their lawyers today given you got the reply so late, is there other options open to force this through i wonder?

rememeber the date though, perhaps they thought it might be fun to fool around....

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

And what about all those cushy, lucrative part-time directorships at BT so beloved of government ministers? (Patricia Hewitt....) Maybe it's time someone took a close look at the Parliamentary Members Register of Interests and compiled a list of exactly who has a finger in the Phorm/BT/VM/TT pie? :mad:

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

Oooh you tease ;)

---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 ----------

The rejection of Alex's petition highlights that some people simply don't understand the whole Phorm issue. As already stated the two petitions are completely different and I suspect the government has taken this step to protect BT.

Mind you government bodies don't have a good record of late with regard to privacy of data.

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

Sadly, writing to anybody in the government about pretty much anything is not going to work. I have a rough justice type site and the feeback I have had over the years has shown that the ability to make legitimate complaints about most things has been turned into a sham.
There have been government reports about the situation, but the bottom line is that the various Ombudsmans and departments set up to fend off, (for years if necessary), complaints by the public, has become honed to perfection.
Each minister has a department to handle such letters, so if you want a reply (of sorts), you have to go through your MP, and if he decides to agree with you, he will write to the relavant minister, who will usually answer to him.

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

Plenty of April Fools buying Phorm stock today.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Nowhere near enough to bail them out of their sinking ship though bwahahahaha

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

That is absolutely outrageous. The two petitions are totally different and distinct in my opinion. First the police refuse to issue a Crime Reference Number then the petition site refuses the second petition. This is annoying. Resubmit the petition Alexander.

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

AH - You are correct. Your petition is pretty clear to anyone reading it.

Just to remind anyone reading

(RIPA)

1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of�

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

BT have admitted publicly that they did indeed intercept communications last summer. What's the problem? Part 1, Chapter 1, Item 1. Why do we even require a petition? BT at least have clearly crossed the line.


Something else I have not seen any questions about is the Patent aspect that Phorm are selling. My understanding was that you could not patent a computer program or a business method in the UK. (Phorm's patent seems to be a hybrid computer program and business method) What's going on there? Patent applied for but not yet granted? PhormTeam?

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

BT and Phorm secretly tracked 18,000 customers in 2006
Spied on, profiled, and targeted for credit cards

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

Just in time for AH's petition

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

I'm hoping this isn't an April Fool.

From The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

"BT secretly intercepted and profiled the web browsing of 18,000 of its broadband customers in 2006 using advertising technology provided by 121Media, the alleged spyware company that changed its name to Phorm last year.

BT Retail ran the "stealth" pilot without customer consent between 23 September and 6 October 2006. The technology was approved, pending a further trial.....

We asked Phorm on Monday how it squares such claims with the fact that it participated in tracking and profiling 18,000 BT customers without their consent. 'Does Phorm believe its actions were ethical and if so, why?', we asked. Rather than answer the question, the company chose to send us this retort..."

I'm not going to give space here to Phorm's petty attempt at a flame war. Suffice to say it's typical Phorm, failing to answer the question and making the same claims which have been challenged and not answered wholly, openly and honestly.

Emboldening is mine. The Register assures that this story is not an April Fool and points out a number of caveats in Phorm's "argument".


The full report is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

I believe it is dishonest to refuse to answer openly, honestly and in the public domain technical questions and challenges which have been placed in the public domain.

I believe it is unethical to secretly track without customers' consent their web browsing habits.

I believe it is unethical to mount a PR campaign consisting of spin and obfuscation on the forums and websites of knowledgeable customers who reject Phorm and challenge its claims.

I believe it is unprofessional to try to engage in a flame war when your claims have been challenged and those challenges have not been satisfactorily answered.

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

Absolute Dynamite Will you need a petition or will someone in HMG step up

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

Assuming that isnt some kind of twisted April Fools joke, then that there is the smoking gun we needed.

On another note I have just received the following email from one of the MEPs I wrote to:

Dear Mr *******,

Thank you for your very interesting email. If I may, I will pass it on
to my colleagues who work in this field and to the Commission experts
who work on privacy law and information technology, and await a response
from them.

Kind regards,

Timothy KIRKHOPE MEP

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

As I commented on El Reg even I didn't see this coming, for once I am lost for words.

Alexander Hanff

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

RIPA does not have a "get out clause" except for those relating to criminal/state investigation. It does not matter if BT and Phorm later sent their users data on an all expenses paid holiday to Disneyland. It was intercepted illegally in breach of criminal law.

In plain English "we can back out at anytime we are just waiting to see what BT gets away with"

Just what I want from VM - a nice non-committal weasel statement

TIME TO TAKE A SIDE VM

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

The BT and Phorm executives in charge of that trial should start googling countries with no extradition treaty with the UK

:clap:

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

ok I can't be speechless too long. I have resubmitted the petition after adding the new information as below:

BT have admitted to running secret trials of Phorm technology between 23 September and 6 October 2006 and July 2007. They have further admitted to lying to the media, press and their customers when questioned about this at the time.

In carrying out this trial without receiving consent from their customers and the web sites they visited, BT appear to be in criminal breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; as this (as defined by the Act) is classified as an Unlawful Interception.

The number of counts for this offence potentially runs into millions dependent on how many communications they intercepted over the period of the trials.

Whether the data was discarded or anonymised after the fact is irrelevant and does not alter the fact that all these interceptions were in fact Unlawful as defined by the Act.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

If it gets rejected this time, I respectfully request everyone goes and submits the exact same petition over and over again until it is accepted. Oh and don't forget the opening paragraph from the first edition I didn't cut it all in the above amendments.

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

The words tail and donkey come to mind

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

:clap: :clap: :clap: for Alexander and you can count me in. If they reject your petition again I will resubmit it with subtle changes in wording and will keep resubmitting it until such a time as they accept it.

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

Are you sure it's being manually rejected?

Is there a chance that the site is rejecting it on the basis that the content is sufficiently close to the other petition that they look the same?

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

Raistlin I LOVE your signature pic. Very funny.

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

Well according to the site all petitions are reviewed by real people, so it should be the case that it was rejected by a person not an automated system.

Alexander Hanff

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

Cool, didn't know that - just checking :)

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

These **** need to be beaten down hard - the BT trials are very clearly in breach of RIPA even if you base that on the Home Office advice they were given.

PhormUKPRTeam - your employers clearly have no morals, and no sense of shame. Their response to the Register is a complete disgrace. No-one wants anything to do with your stinking criminal company or its stinking criminal software. You're not going to get away with this.

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

wow 141 people reading this thread currently.

Alexander Hanff

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

And no PhormPRTeam

Funny how they go missing at each detrimental announcement

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

Does anyone think writing to the computer crime unit of the metropolitan police would be any use? They can easily sidestep a phonecall but maybe it will be harder for them to ignore letters?

EDIT: I have also emailed Daljit (who does the understrictembargo blog that commented on the PR aspects of the phorm controversy) to update him on the latest developments. He answered that he would be returning to the issue again if/when Virgin Media go live with Phorm and asked that I let him know if we hear any concrete information on it starting

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

I'm actually stunned (despite the fact this is Phorm we're talking about) that they had the nerve to accuse El Reg of being unethical given the current state of play and their track record!

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

Scotland Yard is part of the Met and they refused to issue me with a crime number. I doubt they would pay more attention to a letter to be honest, not on this matter. We need someone who was actually part of the trial to step up to the plate and start swinging the bat with a criminal complaint.

Once a criminal complaint has been lodged it should be relatively easy to get an injunction until that investigation is complete. Certainly from my reading of the relevant legislation over the weekend it would appear to be easier to get an injunction in parallel to an existing action as opposed to independently.

I hasten to add I am not a lawyer, I read law purely as a hobby, for academic purposes and to educate myself with regards to my legislative rights and responsibilities; so if anyone has any feedback on any of my comments please feel free to leave them.

Alexander Hanff

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

From around mid-day people have started selling their Phorm shares again...

However, come on, own up :o: who was it that bought 4 shares :D

09:07:59 1666p 1615p 1700p 4 £67 BUY

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

Yeah that made me laugh too. Child Benefit was paid today (£72) so maybe it was some poor single mother and that is all she could afford. The way society is going if she has kids those shares in 20 years might put them through University...

Alexander Hanff

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

Yeah you may be right. If I was involved in one of the trials my letter would have already been winging its way to the police. I just want to capitalise on the new developments. Thats why I was thinking of writing to the computer crime unit.

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

It's funny on that Google Finance page http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON:PHRM it makes no mention of any of The Register's reports.

So how do we get the BBC to report on this latest story?

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

Were the people that were part of the BT trial, albeit afterwards?

If not then it could be any BT customer?

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

Some dodgy buys going on again today. I noticed this last week as well, high buys coming in after multiple low sales. I know nothing of stocks but it just seems odd to me that people would buy stock at a higher price than the markets indicates. Has happened 2x today so far.

Alexander Hanff

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

You don't - they apparently consider the routine wire-tapping of millions of people a bit of a protest group issue.

I have to say that the BBC have been off my list of news sources since their initial article (not that they have written much since). It was simply a cut and paste of Phorm PR and said basically "nothing to see here move along". How wrong can an organisation the size of the BBC be? Darren Waters "Technology editor, BBC News website" should publicly apologise.

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

Buying to try and keep the share price above a certain point? The more places that hear about the latest Phorm/BT revelations the better - I'd hope it would really hit the share price.

---------- Post added at 14:38 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------

In wartime Mr Waters might well have been accused of being a collaborator. Their initial article was a disgrace and unworthy of being called journalism.

Journalism is what The Register is doing on this issue. "Protest group issue". Not now it isn't.

[Edit] A mate of mine just posted to the BBC via their newswatch section. With a little input from the Captain :)

"Why hasn't the BBC Technology pages given more coverage to the issues surrounding the proposed tie up between 3 of the UK's major ISPs and Phorm, a company with a questionable product and a questionable past?

I suggest that a few blog posts and copying chunks of Phorm's PR statements here and there do not qualify as proper investigative journalism. You will be aware that there is a growing backlash against Phorm particularly because in the eyes of many Phorm's "product" breaches the Data Protection Act and the RIPA legislation as well.

The Guardian newspaper recently rejected Phorm saying that it doesn't fit with the values of their business. I saw no mention of that on your website. Surely BBC News holds values similar to The Guardian and takes them as seriously?

Today The Register has revealed that "BT secretly intercepted and profiled the web browsing of 18,000 of its broadband customers in 2006 using advertising technology provided by 121Media, the alleged spyware company that changed its name to Phorm last year."

That means that 18,000 customers had their web browsing data passed to Phorm without their consent. That is illegal wiretapping.

Please tell me how that story is not newsworthy?

Surely BBC News has a remit to educate and inform. 18,000 people have been illegally wiretapped. Surely that's a story woth pursuing?

It's not just a protest group issue. It's about the routine wiretapping of internet users. Something one might only have expected in a dictatorship."

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

Yeah it -looks- like someone is buying to try and keep the price around the £17 a share mark, but this is purely speculation as I said I know nothing of stocks. If the price continues to drop I fail to see how Morgan and Stanley are going to be willing to pay £20 a share at the end of month if they can buy them on the open market for £14 or £15 a share; so it would seem it is in the best interests of Phorm (and their investors) to keep the share price as close to or above £20.

When you further consider that in Phorm's own press release on the Morgan Stanley deal they stated they would be using the revenue to fund UK deployment, even the casual observer can see that a 25-30% decrease in investment on that sort of scale could seriously jeopardise the project from going ahead.

But as I said, just speculation :)

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------

Maybe the ever lurking PhormUKPRteam could answer that last question ;)

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

I notice PhormUKPRteam haven't contributed to my karma on the forum, how unsporting :p

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

Google's April fool is out of this world:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3659176.ece

"Google and Virgin Group this morning announced a joint-venture aimed at creating a human settlement on Mars by 2050, in a project the two companies called the Virgle."

Hey Virgin Group, instead of wasting time with lame April Fools jokes why dont you get off your a$$es and come address your Virgin Media customers concerns regarding Phorm.
I am getting more and more irritated by your companies silence on this issue. If you have time for April Fools Jokes then you have the time to deal with this more urgent matter.

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

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?2579

See Frank's post (post #9 @ 2.52pm)

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

Duly noted.

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

That would be nice. Would be even nicer if someone could either link to an online video of it :) I'm without tv here and although I'm loving the tv free existence I would like to see this report when it happens.

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

Well Frank was one of the victims of the 2007 trial so his comments regarding criminal action are interesting too.

Alexander Hanff

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

Well here's something interesting. On 18th March I wrote a firm letter to Virgin Media pointing out the obvious. I also wrote a brief letter to Sir Richard Branson pointing out the damage Phorm could do to the whole Virgin brand, not just Virgin Media. This afternoon Virgin Media Customer Care in Sheffield called me back and stated that yes, the Phorm deal was seen as potentially damaging to the Virgin brand, and also unequivocally that Virgin Media were not going to do business with Phorm.

Should I believe them?

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

Sadly I have to report that I must step down from this campaign. Earlier this afternoon some strange burly men with Baltic accents visited our house. When we answered the door we were greeted with IDs claiming they were from a meter reading agency and needed to check our gas and electric meters, so we let them in.

Everything seemed to be ok until they started speaking to each other in Russian and moving towards my 2yr old son who ran to hide behind my legs, screaming "Daddy Daddy!!"

I asked to look at their IDs more closely and upon inspection noticed that the photos had been attached with Bluetac. They realised I had sussed something was wrong and explained they were with a Rusian "business" group and that their investors were concerned about a man in the UK called Alexander Hanff who is making a lot of noise over the deployment of Phorm technology throughout UK ISPs. They indicated that it would be in the best interests of myself and my family if I was to shut up on the issue otherwise less "nice" men might pay us a second visit.

Alexander Hanff

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

Call them back and ask them to confirm in writing what they have told you.

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

Good one. Wondered who would be the first here to post a Phorm-related april fools joke.

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

I sincerely hope I am wishing you a happy all fools day.

Thing is, if someone has posted an announcement in the News section today saying that VM and their companions were going to start examining all your internet data so they could serve you better targeted adverts someone else would be replying, ha ha, good april fool.

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

Yes the 07 trails (if BT confirm them) would be in addition. You have to assume that they involved (at least) a similar number of customers. Don't forget that one customer is multiple interceptions. Between 23 September and 6 October 2006 - How many sites/pages did you visit in this two week period?

I am at a loss as to why HMG and "the media" are remaining silent on the issue. No matter what they did with the data afterwards it was clearly an unlawful interception of communications under RIPA and one on a scale that is quite unbelievable. There is no safe harbour provision in RIPA for BT or Phorm.

If it was a case of "yes we intercepted 18,000 mobile phones over a two week period but we didn't listen to them, honest" what would there be to talk about other than appropriate sentencing of those involved?

AND STILL NOTHING FROM VM

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

Thanks OF1975 - I will see if I can get Virgin Media to confirm this in writing.

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

yeah it was an April fool but I have to confess it is not the first time I have thought of the possibility since all this started given Phorm's links to Russia as previously reported in the online press. We have cost their share capital something like £60M in the last 6 weeks given they reportedly had something like £130M in share capital at the beginning of the slide and they have slid over 50%. Some people have paid heavily for this publicity nightmare...

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

If they come round again just point them my way .... I'm Sparticus

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

No. I am Sparticus! ;)

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

If you do get them to confirm it in writing please do let us all know immediately you receive the letter. At the moment I remain sceptical but hopeful.