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

Losing VM will be a big blow for them since they pwn the cable industry in the UK. Would be an even bigger blow than losing The Guardian I expect.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Someone just posted to iii in the discussion on PHRM.L called Stazi Phormistan, I am presuming they are one of us and therefore wish to correct the post.

The 2 Year prison sentence is for cases heard in the Magistrates Court, if the case makes it to Crown Court the maximum prison sentence is 5 years with no limit on the fines. You can find this information in the notes which accompany RIPA (or it might be Crown Court and High Court I would have to double check and I am very tired right now). Needless to say a case of this magnitude would be heard in the highest criminal court.

Alexander Hanff
PS. If you are one of us or anyone else has posting rights on the iii discussion, don't forget to mention that VM have allegedly stated today on the phone that they are dropping Phorm.

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

That was me Alexander. I will quickly go check if they have an edit function so I can update it.

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

There is a silver lining to this cloud though. Publicity scandals like this and others like the Bank Charges publicity campaign do serve a very important purpose. I wouldn't like to guess how many 10s of thousands of people are more educated about their Rights and their Privacy as a result of such campaigns but I would be willing to bet it is a lot. The more scandals like this come out into the open the more empowered the general public become as a result which only serves to increase awareness in future situations. Hopefully long term the British people will wake up from their apathetic haze and start fighting to get the rights back which have been eroded away over the past 10 years.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

"Earl of Northesk to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are taking any action on the targeted advertising service offered by Phorm in the light of the questions about its legality under the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts. [DfBERR] HL2635"

http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/ldcumlst.htm

---------- Post added at 16:46 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

3 Cheers for the Earl of Northesk. Who wrote to him?

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

OK peeps, lets start the petition action:

Hi,

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

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/

Your petition will now 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
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.

-- the ePetitions team

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

The Earl of Northesk brought that up on the 17th March, so it's been a few weeks ago.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

Here's a nice page on the Earl of Northesk

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwi...rl_of_Northesk

Well worth a look

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

New petition added:

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 2006/2007'

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.

Even members of the House of Lords want answers on this issue,
see Earl of Northesk:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/ldcumlst.htm

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

Hi Alex - just hopped over from Badphorm. Noticed some woman Carol posting on iii for a while, at first seemed to be pro-phorm but now showing her true colours. Not you is it?!

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

No lol. Wrong gender firstly, secondly I have never been anything but anti-Phorm and finally I don't have posting access on iii

Alexander Hanff

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

The House of Lords is a wonderful thing. Truly highlights the checks and balances of the UK Parlimentary system. Hope Labour really does not manage to crush this with all the elected peers. The standing peers that do it for love of the country and have little dependancy on the earnings stream from that role.

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

"The figure shows a client process, “AutoUpdate (1620)” connecting to a remote host (207.44.186.90) via a socket whose state is “CLOSE-WAIT.” However, the pop-up information window and the packet dump window both show that data is actively crossing this “closed” connection. This behavior is reminiscent of a covert channel."

The Fink Paper (page 7) http://people.cs.vt.edu/~finkga/Rese...tal-Divide.pdf

*whistles*

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

Further to my earlier posting I was called again by Virgin Media. Their representative told me that the previous representative who had spoken to me had advised me incorrectly because she had misunderstood the issue. I'm not sure what wasn't clear about:
"I understand with growing concern that you plan to partner with Phorm to use deep packet inspection to monitor your subscribers' web activity, in order to present targeted advertising to them on sites which are also signed up to the Phorm service. This proposal is fundamentally immoral ... ... ... should you deploy Phorm I will move my broadband, television and telephone services to other providers. This is regardless of any "opt in" or "opt out" arrangements which might be agreed – any partnership with Phorm is unacceptable."

According to the representative, Virgin Media is still considering working with Phorm, though the decision is some way off.

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

Alexander I submitted a petition too. Details are:

British Telecom have admitted to carrying out secret trials of the Phorm system in 2006 and 2007. Neither BT/Phorm obtained consent from those customers involved in the trials and therefore violated section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This is an offence which can carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison for each offence.

We request that the Prime Minister immediately order the Home Office and police to take steps to initiate a criminal prosecution of BT and Phorm for these offences.

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

On the page where it said if you wanted to make a comment to the web team I also said:

Please note this petition is very distinct in substance from the current petition relating to Phorm which relates to future changes of privacy laws.

This petition, in contrast, is calling on the Prime Minister to act in order to enforce the current laws and ensure that BT and Phorm are prosecuted for past actions that contravened the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Refusal of this petition on grounds of duplication would be erroneous.

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

Lets see what they do now. I arent giving up.

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

They already rejected my last one, I just resubmitted it again about 5 minutes ago. I have added comments to the Web Team to each one I have filed so far, they don't seem to be equipped with that ability which allows one to decipher strings of alphabetical characters into meaningful information; I think they call it "reading" or something.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

k nap time for me be back later

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

Before I go...

Wouldn't it be cool if we could organise some direct action along the following lines:

1. International No Web Day
A single day where in mass protest against privacy violations people don't use the web. Would cause the loss of millions in ad revenue.

2. International No Click Week
Where for an entire week in mass protest against privacy violations people don't click on ads on websites.

Just ideas :) now I really must nap.

Alexander Hanff

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

I've seen petitions regarding specific criminal cases rejected on the grounds that these should be specifically directed to the Home Office. This is in the last couple of days, and I don't know where this new Justice Ministry fits in. It might be worth a look around just to see if there are any contacts.

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

My petition was rejected not only the spurious grounds of "duplication" but also because in their words it is:

* Potentially libellous, false, or defamatory statements

To say I am angry is to understate things. I immediately fired off an email back to them pointing out that BT have themselves admitted to the trial last july and that they had no consent. I gave them links to the relevant articles and forcibly reminded them that BT executives are NOT above the law.

I will be resubmitting another petition in a few minutes time then going to watch channel 4 news and then the Manchester United V Roma match.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

OK another petition submitted which is smaller and a little gentler... added a few "potentially" and "may have contravened" etc etc What are you betting they reject it again still saying that its libelous etc

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

I could understand that if they were to reject it on the grounds it may prejudice any future legal proceedings etc but that isnt the reason they gave and the petition I submitted explicitly asked them to order the Home Office to investigate. Good idea about Ministry of Justice. Will look at that after watching the football match. :)

Be back later on....

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

Enjoy the game. Anyone told Phergie about Phorm?:)

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Found this straight away at the Ministry of Justice. Apologies if its been posted before. There is a link to contribute so a few e-mails may be in order.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/reviews/datasharing-intro.htm

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

The BBC jump on the band wagon - will Phorm be telling them that they are also being unethical?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm

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

What about a petition calling for a judicial review? (is this the right terminology) of all data profiling at an ISP level, including Phorm, Xiam, NebuAd (currently US only) with a view to set out clear guidelines over what ISPs can and cannot do under RIPA and the DPA legislation. This should include advertising technologies, copyright infringement detection (see IRMA vs Eircom in Repulic of Ireland), DPI technologies for speed.

The problem though with a new petition is that it may "split the vote". Since petitions are only a gauage of public opinion and have no legal or parliamentary significance it could be argued it's best not to bother. Admittedly the new one could be better worded, or more specific, but I think we're probably better off just getting the current one as high as possible up the list, using it as an example of public opinion.

Check the BBC technology page. I think there'll be enough authoritative voices calling for BT to be strung up on this.

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

Naturally it wouldn't have anything to do with the e-mail my chum sent to the BBC via Newswatch...

Love the comments from Nicholas Bohm...

"If the customers in 2006 and 2007 weren't invited to do anything and it was completely surreptitious, and assuming that BT and Phorm trialled a version of what they are planning to launch later this year, then it was a massive scale illegal interception."

Hell, the BBC actually posting something against Phorm and BT. Who'd have thought that?

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

Of course not, which is why I didn't imply as such ;)

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

trouble is, the BBC story is still buried in the technology pages rather than on the main news page where an item of this magnitude belongs

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

Nice spot. We should ask the BBC to expand, even have a 'your say'?

If we all 'e-mail to a friend' from the BBC site, we could get this on the front page tonight as a 'most e-mailed'.

Anyone with accounts elsewhere cross post e.g. BT forum, The register etc.

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

Damn fine idea Sir :) Doing it now

Don't forget to Digg, Reddit or Facebook the article if you have an account with them.

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

Or Stumbleupon...

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

Josh, above is one of my new friends to 'e-mail a friend' from the BBC site.

Posted by Jackson ....

The BBC jump on the band wagon - will Phorm be telling them that they are also being unethical?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm

E-mail your friends from the BBC site now to get it on the front page as 'most e-mailed'. Cross-post wherever you can.

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

:welcome: Portly
well thats good to know Portly , given your returned call (almost never happens two times)it appears that some higher up personel (perhaps a UK executive?, if not the real deal US board member stepping in and giving direct orders) are infact monitoring the chat here about mass DPA notices, Injunctions against the CEO/COO and other named personel etc, and the willingness to file criminal charges....

theres nothing like seeing your name being mentioned in relation to (mass?)legal Injunctions (ASBO's for the high flying company boys and girls ;) ) to give them far more focus, i imagine. :angel:

deep packet inspection
is also a good thing to keep mentioning here, there and on the phone, along with what it does, and how it works to spy on all the data passing through it etc.

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

In lieu of a BBC 'have your say' page on the story, one such commentable alternative exists on the Guardian's (Ex-Phorm customer) blog.


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...customers.html

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

like i said about Alexanders first one, they took loads of time with that ,but yours came back rejected dead quick.

they must have had the lawyers look it over and anything now comeing in with BT and Phorm in there now, will get a 'dont pass go' sticky slapped on it, perhaps that accepted totally seperate one is serving their purpose and keeping the real hard one's off the page.

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

Soooooo BT conducted trials in 2006 with real ad targeting taking place for Egg (to name just one). Now the sociologist in me asks did these trials actually result in any sales for Egg (either credit cards or loans) and if so could the targeted advertising which happened as a result of these illegal trials be seen as "behavioural modification"?

Let me clarify. Normally, under the current way web advertising works, one would expect based upon the law of probability that web browsers would receive an even spread of adverts for all credit card/loan companies and as a result if they chose to purchase based on an ad the spread of those purchases across the customer base would also be reasonably normal with customers picking many different credit cards and loans.

However, with the illegal BT targeted ads trialled over that period, it is likely that those 18000 people would have received increased exposure to Egg products instead of a normal spread. Given the power of advertising with regards to initiating a specific response out of consumers (which is why advertising works and simply cannot be disputed) it is therefore analogous with behavioural modification and where the customers have not agreed to the system they are essentially victims of brain washing.

By limiting exposure of other "brands" and focusing exposure on the Egg brand during this trial; they have in effect prevented their customers from making an informed decision about whether or not they actually wanted any Egg products as opposed to other brand products. Given that the trials were criminally illegal under RIPA if any customers actually purchased anything as a direct result of this targeted advertising we could be looking at the potential of other sinister crimes being committed as a knock on effect.

I need to check the legislation but I am pretty certain that behavioural modification is covered under law (see things like subliminal messaging for example) which just makes the entire affair even more sinister.

And yes we are -all- effected by advertising whether we want to admit it or not and there really is nothing we can do to avoid that, but the difference here is the advertising here is the direct result of a criminal act.

Just a little food for thought that I was mulling over as I was falling asleep earlier. Perhaps more scary is that I think of stuff like that before I fall asleep :(

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

It should be noted too that if any company involved in the trials did make sales to trial victims then that money should be seen as "proceeds of a crime" which would make all the companies involved in the trials complicit.

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

Good question. If informed about it am sure Phergie would see it for what it is. He was always good at spotting a duff - well, there was Juan Sebastian Veron but then no ones perfect :D

Time for bed...

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

A quick note on the Earl of Northesk:

http://www.8020thinking.com/our-team.html

He is on the 80/20 Thinking "advisory group" so I wonder what he advised with regards the 80/20 Thinking report on Phorm?

Alexander Hanff

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

Phorm Comms team Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...et-with-phorm/

....
6) I disagree — if you truly care about your privacy you should lobby for an industry standard of no storage of personal data, which is in fact what our system represents and delivers. Please see the following flash demo for more information: http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/slideshow.php
Best wishes,
Radha "

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...ID=16246#16246

Mark H asks a very interesting question, perhaps we should spead it around ;)

"Mark H [img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: BT Webwise technical trials to begin from mid-March 2008 [Q&A thread]
Posted: Apr 1, 2008 11:17 PM [img]Download Failed (1)[/img] in response to: Mark W security , phishing , spyware , adware , phorm , webwise , illegal , snooping , wiretap , t&c's , ripa , dpa
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img] Reply
Since Mr Liversage seems to have done a vanishing act, maybe you can help with this question Mark W...

How much has the implementation of phorm changed since the sysip trials?

http://www.bikegirl.co.uk/forum/foru...?TID=2418&PN=1

https://www.bluffmagazine.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4108&PN=1&get=last

http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/forum/d...1&ThreadPage=2

http://www.angelways.co.uk/forum/for...326&FID=3&PR=3

http://www.pwcforums.co.uk/wiz/forum...TID=10314&PN=1

All of those sites had javascript inserted into users posts by the SPYware that 121media as they were, phorm as they are now were trialling with you, but since the official line is you don't do such things with webwise, can we have some technical details of how things are done differently now please.

Can you also say what changes have been made to prevent the profiling of family orientated sites etc, because one of those sites is obviously about parenting, I don't want BT or phorm knowing which, if any, sites I visit for child upbringing/welfare advice.

Lastly, and most importantly in my opinion, you will notice that one of those sites is SECURE as in it uses a https connection, yet still had the javascript inserted, how can we be sure of BT and phorms assertations that all secure pages will be ignored after seeing that?

These questions need to be answered, and I am sure I can speak for the majority of people here when I say they are extremely important questions.
No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority. - Robert A. Heinlein."

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

Suitably kicking response posted.

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

https://www.bluffmagazine.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4108&PN=1&get=last

lol, i took a look,and on checking the TOS FOR that https'ed phormed site mark h on btbeta mentioned above.

its a shame about the first part as it may or NOT let them wiggle
https://www.bluffmagazine.com/bluffinfo/tos.asp
thepokerdb terms of service (Effective 11/25/2005)

*The following is only applicable to paying subscribers of thepokerdb.com Pro service. Users of thepokerdb.com's Standard servic
e are not bound by the Terms and Conditions, as outlined below.

....
1.3 Except as specifically provided in Sections 1.1 and 1.2, you are prohibited from downloading, storing, reproducing, transmitting, displaying, copying, distributing, or using Materials retrieved from the Online Services.
.....

did anyone check the other urls for tos that forbid the isp's and phorm collecting data?

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

I have brought this over from ISPr since I thought this was interesting and felt it needed to be added to the info we have gathered in this epic thread.

taken from http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/showthread.php?t=26766

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

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...customers.html

charles and his rehash of the Elreg....
but heres a comment of interest to follow in coming days perhaps

"
simplepieman

Comment No. 1023314
April 1 15:18

To the uninitiated The Register article has just been posted on ukcrypto mailing list, where the likes of FIPR and other respected academics may discuss the legal implications.

The list archive is publicly readable, so those wanting to follow any legal discussion on this can do so here:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...to/2008-April/

I'm shocked that this latest revelation appears to have included some form of injection of JavaScript into pages at a network level. Although it happened nearly 2 years ago which reduces the likelyhood of logs being around to prove the trial, should anyone wish to start proceedings against BT.

Around the discussions on whether the action was legal it would be interested to know what evidence The Register has in its posession!"

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

136 pages and people still dont get it, they dont care about you, all they care about is the money it will generate, they will fobb you off until they finally get their way and release it.

If you want to fight back - move ISP and tell them WHY your moving - simple, if that happens Phorm has NO chance.

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

Phorm is currently the worst performer on the market in the last 30 days according to iii.

Nice way to start the day.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Maybe we should have a whip around for them, wouldn't want them to go hungry or anything...

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

Done :D

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Excellent! Next target: let's see if we can talk it below 1500...

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

So will YOU do that if SKY sign's up to this ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old ground and has been said so many times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please keep us inphormed (sorry!) Simon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And how do you do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DO NOT WANT!

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

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

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

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

PHORM IS NOT A GOOD REVENUE SCHEME, DUMP IT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emboldening is mine)

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

What have you done?

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

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

"Dear CaptHunter

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

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

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

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

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

Points we can use:

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

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

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

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

Grateful for anyone else's reading of the letter.

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

CaptJamie

Is this letter a reply to your DPA notice then ?

Does this mean that they have ignored you compliance letter ?

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

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

Interesting wording in that letter. I note he says ”will not until we are confident that it is compliant to do so “ which seems like a good indication that they are no longer sure on the legality of the system – well doh!

Overall it sounds like a bit of a stall with a hint of 'how do we get out of this in the best way', well I can tell VM – JUST DUMP PHORM

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

Yeah, to be honest I see that letter as a qualified backing off. They're no longer saying "yar boo sucks we're going ahead" - it's much more cautious and sober, even hinting that they may not go ahead with it.

It also looks like they're finally getting the message that sending out the "Webwise benefits you" form emails a lot of us got just winds people up instead of placating them.

I'd say they're spooked - people don't like having their company splashed on the Beeb next to the word "illegal", and they don't want to be next. So, keep up the pressure, looks like it might actually be making a difference.

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

Sorry, I inadvertently missed that para out. (Crikey, the post was going to end up longer? Hellfire!) Ian Woodham writes that he has acknowledged my compliance notice and amended my customer account details accordingly, and apologised for not acknowledging that point in his initial reply. Of course, with no Phorm implemented yet this isn't an issue for VM.

I'm sure we're having an effect but am disappointed that Sir Beardy hasn't said anything publicly about the damage his brand is taking. My comment to The Register about "Virgle" went thusly:

"While thousands of your customers are pressing for an answer on where Virgin Media stands on prostituting their customers' data to Phorm, Sir Beardy is making jokes (I didn't laugh) about going to Mars.

Let's joke about how Virgin Media's reputation is taking a hammering then shall we?

Q: What's the difference between BT, Virgin Media and Robert Mugabe?
A: Mugabe realises he's in the sh*t and losing. The other two either don't know or don't care."

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

It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.

Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.

Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.

[EDIT: Saw your post - I think it's worth stressing that investing in Phorm looks like being bad business, never mind the legal and ethical aspects. Of course, it's the legal and ethical aspects that make it bad business, because it's the legal and ethical aspects that will either see it a) dropped by the ISPs it needs, b) reduced to an opt-in which hardly any customers will take up, or c) prosecuted. Any combination of the above would massively impact shareholder value.]

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

Done. Thanks for the headsup as I hadnt noticed they had responded. I was busy helping a friend on IRC and responding to another thread. My guess is they are upset that their investment has crashed by 50% over the last month. Cant say that I blame her. I would be upset if I was in her shoes. Then again, I wouldnt invest in a company like Phorm in the first place.

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

I'd go with Barkotron. Damn good idea.

We all have our own sets of values here, things that define us as who we are. That makes up peoples' perceptions of us. And as I've said before, the leaders with whom I've had the pleasure of working fervently believe that "perception is reality".

"Hi, we're Phorm and we've got this great idea for making you, advertisers, us and shareholders shedloads of money. What do you think?"

Due diligence always seems to miss the kind of information it should pick up. Dunno why but there you go. I've experienced it myself.

Then facts start coming to light. Not from due diligence as it should but from potentially affected parties - industry correspondents and customers. OK, shareholders might not care for the ethical stance of a company or brand but as more facts come to light and these become wider knowledge, questions start to be asked.

"Is this company all that it claims to be?"
"Can this company deliver on its technical claims? Many knowledgeable people think not. Why is that the case?"
"What are its clients doing about these concerns?"
"Why has one major client rejected it with a scathing announcement?"
"Why is the company so unpopular?"
"Why is the company getting bad press?"
"What is the company doing about these concerns?"
"Why is government getting involved here?"
"Why are there potential legal proceedings?"
"What is the potential impact on my brand in being associated with the company?"

I keep hearing that the markets are based on confidence. All of these questions should be aired so people can learn from our information and education (rather than Phorm's PR and spin) and then assess how confident they are in their investment. After all, it hasn't done so well recently.

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

Ive had a written reply to an email I sent to my MP about Phorm

He has written to John Hutton MP , Secretary of state asking for assurances about the Phorm system and the privacy of end users

I havent seen anything else that has gone to the secretary of state so maybe this is another angle of attack

I will post any further replies on this matter

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

I notice alexander has been very quiet today. I wonder if hes been too busy with work or maybe he finally got to meet up with that friend of his that is a court clerk?

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

Nicholas Bohm (FIPR) has said on ukcrypto that the BBC has interviewed him for tomorrow morning's BBC breakfast.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/083940.html

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

Yes I know all that but I also read this http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?2683

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

Great news. I will make sure to tune in nice and early.

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

LOL I've had another reply on my blog.. Gee what a wonderful job this PR team must have, surfing people's crappy blogs all day for mentions of Phorm, money for old rope :)

Now to ready my reply :)

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

Hmm... someone spinning the standard Phorm PR. E-mailed to The Register. Anyone know any TalkTalk customers and if they've received any (mis)information about Phorm?

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

Ravenheart make sure you add in your reply about them using the Apropos rootkit and how difficult it was for non-techy types to uninstall. That f-secure and other security companies categorised it as spyware etc.

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

Funny you should mention that, I was just looking up a few links for my reply.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=820

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

So far :)

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

So why was it classified as SPYWARE, not ADWARE, by many anti-spyware companies?

So your defence is that all your "customers" were stupid, is it? Way to go in winning the PR battle :dozey:

Yes you had to shut it down quickly because a well-known American privacy advocacy movement was about to sue your ass if you didn't. (*Yet another example of the precise phaseology employed by Mr. Ertugrul: He has claimed in interviews that nobody was ever sued or taken to court over the rootkit saga - and that is absolutely true - but what he fails to mention is that had he not shut it down when he did, then he most certainly would have been sued- one influential group had already announced their intention to do exactly that)
Translation: One avenue of spying was closed down, so we decided to exploit another one, in a country where the electronic privacy laws were sufficiently ambiguous for us to slip it in under the radar. Oh boy, that last calculation was a duff one wasn't it!

You call what happened to 18,000 BT customers in 2006 and again in 2007 "transparent" do you? Is English your first language?


Come on PR Team, these same platitudes are getting very old. Haven't they issued you with a new set yet?

PAY ATTENTION VM - THIS ISSUE IS NOT GOING AWAY

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

Add in this one too detailing the Apropos rootkit they wrote:

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

:D

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

Apologies if most of you have already seen this but its great and I am posting it just in case people havent seen it:

http://www.thespoof.com/editorials/index.cfm?eID=2564

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

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I've only just cleaned my keyboard from the last toastie splattering! (Comments about quitting sniffing glue at El Reg on the T5 cock up)

This reminds me of a Spitting Image sketch set in Apartheid South Africa. Permit me to borrow from it and offer a scene to you.

An online video broadcast. A gentleman with an Eastern European accent is stood behind a microphone.

"My fellow internet citizens! I feel the time has come for me to tell you the facts as they really are."

*cheers from the PR drones assembled there*

"Bananas are marsupials."

*cheers from the PR drones assembled there*

"Cars run on gravy"

*louder cheers from the PR drones assembled there*

"Salmon live in trees and eat pencils!"

*even louder cheers from the PR drones assembled there. Two PR drones pass out through excitement*

"All your data are belong to us! Trust us to give you the protection we say you need!"

*cheers from the PR drones drowned out by the corporate anthem*

This is satire. Or is it starting to come true....?

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

My reply is done,

My reply.. So users became confused? Well it seems the anti virus and trusted anti spyware software producers didn’t. When you say the company “voluntarily” shut down the business model is this another way of saying they shut it down before they appeared in court?

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

It's like shooting fish in a barrel :)

---------- Post added at 23:38 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------

Ooh just in time for the stock market to open ;)

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

Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn't it be "Rats"? :)

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

The new Firefox 3 beta is out and one of the improvements over the last beta version includes:

http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/f.../releasenotes/

Wonder if it includes Phorm :P

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

Good to have cableforum back up and running.

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

\o/ it's back :)

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

One disappointing thing is that people are still buying Phorm shares. Someone bought 1208 shares at 10:31am this morning. Maybe Phorm staff/directors trying to shore up the shares?

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

Did anyone see the BBC Breakfast interview this morning?

Good to have CF back - I was worried something unpleasant had happened.

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

BT Have updated there FAQ about there forthcoming trial of webwise

Its about time virgin provided some more information

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

For anyone who missed it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/c...bbram=1&asb=1l

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...news=1&bbcws=1

And just in...

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

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

Usual BBC spin and whitewash. Pathetic.

It's already been proven that the technology works by monitoring *all* your activity, not just your search activity. Pah!

And no mention of BT's partner in crime, Phorm. I wonder why this is? Does the BBC have some kind of hidden alliance with or interest in Phorm? It might go some way to explaining their poor reporting of this subject thus far.

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

Interview? I saw the "item" in the 8-9 slot. I don't remember questions just a simple introduction and then a PR droid from BT giving a speech about how it's OK because it was all anonymous. Then off to the next item (babies & nannies?)
If there was a question I didn't hear it - just a pre-recorded speech from BT PR. perhaps the earlier slots did?

Two questions only needed to be asked. "Did you intercept customers communications on the following dates? " What safe harbour provision within RIPA do BT believe authorised those illegal interceptions?

The BBC "news" is a joke.

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

Bottom of that latest Register article says that BT will get a grilling on Channel 4 News today too.

Things are heating up on the BT forum again.

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...t=450&tstart=0

(thanks for the link Matty you lurker) ;)

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

Where are you seeing that? I am only seeing 3 trades so far today, one at 08:05 a 208 hare "sell"; one at 08:17 a 500 share "buy" and one at 10:31 a 500 share sell. The total comes to 1208 but over 50% of that was from the 2 dumps.

Alexander Hanff

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

Posted on virginmedia.feedback earlier this morning

turbo wrote:
Just announced on BBC24 news ( 10.23am) that the information Commissioner has declared BT's testing of Phorm with customer data is a clear case of intercepting data , and further action is being taken...

Is anyone able to confirm this.

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

Mea Culpa. I made a mistake. You are right Alexander.

That zoiezoie is really getting on my nerves on the iii comments board. Anyone think I am out of line with the posts I have made to that board as Stazi Phormistan?

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

Did anyone just see channel 4 news? They were grilling a BT spokesperson over PHORM. :)

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

Not on BBC web site a lot of hot air / I think / he thinks but nothing that firm

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

Cheers - I couldn't find anything either.

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

I am desperately trying to confirm this from another source but I can't find anything yet and nothing on ICO web site either. BUT if it is true this is a MAJOR piece of news. If ICO declare it is an unlawful interception then surely criminal charges -must- follow as there is no provision under the law for this to be diverted through litigation. There is an option under the guidelines for RIPA to litigate in addition to criminal charges but not instead of.

I hope we find some confirmation soon.

Alexander Hanff

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

I saw the item on news24. I need to correct something.

The IC has NOT said that BT's testing of a new advertising protocol was illegal, a privacy expert said that, what the report went on to say was that the IC are now investigating.

Worth noting too that the report NEVER mentioned Phorm by name. The news piece was done by Julia Caesar.

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

The IC doesn't need to state it was illegal, all the IC needs to confirm is whether or not there was an interception. If there was then this would logically have to go before a Judge (and Jury) in order for a judgement of guilt (and thus illegality). So if the IC has stated this was an interception as the News24 headline suggest, then it is a very significant headline.

Alexander Hanff

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

for anyone that preferes to use a 3rd party player such as VLC directly on your other OS heres a working direct mms URL
mms://wm-acl.bbc.co.uk/wms/news/media_acl/mps/fix/news/business/video/163000/bb/163377_16x9_bb.wmv

lol, you were spying on your customers......
mms://wm-acl.bbc.co.uk/wms/news/media_acl/mps/fix/news/business/video/163000/bb/163376_16x9_bb.wmv

from Elreg "
Bootnote

Friends tell us BT will get a grilling on Channel 4 News today."
so keep your eyes open ;)

cant find the clips if they exist yet?

Concerns over data pimping deal
Last Modified: 04 Mar 2008
By: Channel 4 News

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...g+deal/1703547

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

Oh Goddess forbid that people who didn't know anything about investing before now should start educating investors about the real issues surrounding Phorm! I often thought city types lived with their heads inserted up their posteriors - this goes a long way to confirming it.

Sadly I can't reply to her comments yet. Got to wait 48 hours until I'm approved :( The real world is impacting on zoiezoie's little dream world and she's going to scream and scream and scream until she's sick!

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

Have just submitted a question to 'Question Time' have your say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ay/default.stm

I assume the main issues are decided beforehand but if a few more peeps on here submit questions relating to this issue it may elevate it somewhat.
The more mainstream publicity the better.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm

The BBC now have it on their website.

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

Alexander, my point was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the news report that was quoted by the poster, I am not passing my opinion on the outcome of any investigation that the IC will make.

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

OK, I just got off the phone with Catie MacDonald from the ICO press office and the findings are frankly shocking.

Apparently ICO are -not- investigating Phorm at all, they are reviewing documents they asked Phorm to send them but it was reiterated over and over again that there is definitely no official investigation by ICO with regards to Phorm.

Furthermore, there is no investigation with regards the BT secret trials of 2006 and 2007 in any capacity whatsoever.

I asked why ICO are not investigating the BT and it was just reiterated that the only thing regarding the Phorm technology that ICO are doing is reviewing documents requested from Phorm.

I just had a call back from ICO and was told that RIPA is nothing to do with ICO and falls under the umbrella of the Home Office.

This is shocking news given the reports in the press over the past month claiming ICO are investigating. They were not very happy to talk to me at ICO either and stated I was not permitted to quote them and would not even give me a name until I first gave them my name, address and phone number. This was despite me explaining that I am a student at University studying privacy issues as part of my Sociology major (which I can prove with half a dozen academic papers I have written over the past 15 months on privacy issues).

Alexander Hanff