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

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33628733)

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

Some great examples there vis-a-vis "terra-phorming" and I wish I could use them all. I may submit 2 or 3 and then if they accept the submission maybe others can go and add their own appropriate definition and examples to help flesh it out some too.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OF1975 (Post 34530452)

Hey guys I need some help. I have decided, partly as a bit of light relief, to submit the new term I coined yesterday (terra-phorming) to urban dictionary. My definition is as follows (major thanks to Alexander for this, he WILL recognise it):

A process which aims to turn people into products; a global warehouse selling pieces of everyone and our privacy to the highest bidders.

Taking inspiration from this quote, I offer something in the way of current internet speak, the lolcat. No, there are no cats anywhere here. )I'm allergic to cat hair). Featuring former rock guitar legend Ritchie Blackmore during his performance at the 1974 California Jam (he trashed a tv camera with his guitar and blew up an amplifier in an explosion that nearly blew him into the audience)

Anyway,

Ritchie says...

BTW, it's Kent's presentation that's taking ages to upload here...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo (Post 34530465)

Hello everyone. I had tried to stay away from registering here (you guys are doing a great job - I just prefer to read what goes on here) but I would like to reply to pasanonics comment here:

I think getting some kind of justice for the 2006/2007 trials is key in getting Webwise stopped in it's tracks for this reason:

If the ICO, Home Office or whatever make the right decision and confirm that those trials did contravene various laws then it is quite likely that BT would be forced to identify and write to everyone who were unwittingly used in those trials.

The current "total" so far is 108,000. If that is true BT may have to write to all those 108,000 customers stating exactly what they did (spied on them). Now how do you think the vast majority of those 108,000 customers are going to feel once they realise how they have been violated?

Not only will many decide to drop BT as an ISP and phone service but an extremely high percentage of them will stick two fingers up to any form of Webwise opt-in system presented to them.

Of course, if BT can not identify those 108,000 users then they may be forced to write to EVERY customer stating that they may have been part of the secret trials. That would be even more damaging for BT and should ultimately see the end of Webwise and various directors.

100% agreed. I'm here because I hate the idea of what Phorm/webwise is all about. I'm certainly not a VM fan!

At the moment, BT customers have the biggest stick with which to beat Phorm and the Phorm connected ISP's in general. I think they should have all the support we can give them.

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

Maybe hes clark kent , anyone got any cryptonite,,,,, il get me coat:rolleyes:

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

Ok I have submitted it with 3 of the examples were supplied. Hopefully it will be accepted. No one says we cant have fun while trying to bring about the demise of Phorm.

As for Kents presentation taking the longest to upload its reassuring to know that even the computer doesnt like Kent/Phorm.

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

I've not had a good day.

I fear I have given people the impression that I dislike Simon Davies and that I don't support BT customers.

Bad day indeed.

I'm off to stick to what I'm good at and finish a portrait I'm working on.

I'll look forward to seeing the video.

Craig.

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

Being the silly bitch that I am, sat here listening to some rock/metal classics.. I've threw together a song specially for Phorm.

Now if only I could get some folks together to record it :P

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenheart (Post 34530506)

Being the silly bitch that I am, sat here listening to some rock/metal classics.. I've threw together a song specially for Phorm.

Now if only I could get some folks together to record it :P

I'd be tempted to do it as a spoof a la Spike Milligan with the chicken and teapot orchestra. I've got a Guitar Hero controller :)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34530492)

I am a BT customer that was involved in the 2007 trial and I have proof of it. I recently emailed our local PC contact (as we live out in the sticks) from his email address as stated on the Kent Police website, briefly explaining the problem and how to progress further in reporting it, but it has just bounced back after several days, so I will have to try again in person this time.

In the meantime I have just written a 2nd letter tonight to the BT Chairman's Office asking why they had not replied to my 1st letter but now stating that I now demand my MAC and cancellation (after successful migration) of my recently renewed contract (just prior to all hell breaking loose) without penalty due to their ILLEGAL interception of my data stream on 1st July 2007. Along with the cancellation of my BT Vision and BT Talk service and I said as soon as we get an LLU provider I will move my phone account also. I even stated that I would even cancel my frequently used DABS Online account as it is BT owned and have nothing else to do with BT ever again. Their loss. If a large number of BT users did the same they would lose a lot more money than PHORM is paying them.

Colin

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

OK, last night's meeting. I'm sorry I couldn't stay long enough to chat more with Simon and Alexander in particular. Had to run like a nutcase to get the trains as it was, so I have only the presentations I mentioned before. Sadly I don't have the Q&A session or Marc Burgess's talk. As I mentioned before I place a high value on being able to see people in the flesh and hear what they do and don't say on a particular issue.

These are my perceptions on last night's meeting. The footage here is unedited and offered as a way of getting some informed discussion going on.

Simon gave an introduction to the meeting. He believes that there is a way forward with Phorm and, as 8020T are contracted to undertake a PIA with Phorm then 8020T are being asked by Phorm if there is a way forward. That's a statement of fact as I see it. I don't doubt Simon's earnest beliefs either generally or on this issue. He said that Phorm are being open and honest with him. They haven't really been open and honest with us though. That's why I doubt Phorm.

Kent's presentation, well you'll see it for yourself. I was struck by what I felt to be a definite lack of class on his part. This isn't about Google, Yahoo or FIPR, it's about his company and what he wants to do with my (and our) data. He repeatedly said "That's an interesting question" and wandered off - His slating of FIPR over RIPA was not the act of someone going out to persuade a rightly cynical public that Phorm is deserving of anyone's trust. Spin, PR and gloss but nothing that changes my perception that Phorm has nothing to offer me or the people who are my clients. 10-15 minutes was supposed to be allocated for each speaker. Kent went on for 20 minutes.

Let me also say that I have worked alongside managers, directors, MDs, CEOs and COOs whose mantras are openness, honesty and respect. I know their beliefs, opinions, general attitudes and behaviours. What I saw from Kent doesn't match those people.

There has been mention of a "letter of comfort" from the Home Office. Perhaps Alexander can clarify what a "letter of comfort" really is and whether it has any status as legal opinion in law?

Richard Clayton's presentation was about as technical as things got during the time I was there. One heckler persisted and was eventually put in his place. I wonder who that person was and what his interest was? Richard and Alexander seem to have a far better comprehension of the law than Kent and Marc. If Phorm are to be as open and honest as Simon expects them to be then all of Richard's points will be addressed openly and honestly in the public domain. I managed to get some of Richard's Q&A session.

Marc didn't give a presentation as such, just spoke from notes. If only I had bought one more set of batteries! The point that "If a search engine can index a site we take that to mean we [Phorm] can too" grated with me. The user agent string enables website owners to specify who can and cannot index their site. Phorm is not a major search engine.

Alexander's speech was excellent, putting these events into social, legal and historical context and speaking for itself.

Sadly I had to dash at that point.

A reminder - here we were told that "please do bring along vid cameras if you wish, just to be on the safe side."

In conclusion...

Phorm have not convinced me that they are in any way deserving of my trust or that of my clients. I'm not talking about Google, Yahoo, MSN or anyone else, I'm talking about Phorm. Their persistence in saying "well G does this" is nothing more than attempting to evade questions. Stop doing that and peoples' perception might just start to improve. Phorm have not convinced me that they offer anything of value to me or my clients. Anti phishing is a redundant offering. Firefox has that capability anyway.

Phorm's entire approach has been arrogant from the start. Assuming that it will be mandatory for all users (until the backlash started), the use of manipulative language via overzealous and unbelievably accident-prone PR, and only engaging with people when the product is almost ready to roll.

The arrogance continues over the user agent. My clients want to be able to be found by search engines but not to be indexed by an advertising company. Talk about opt-out has had to happen because of the backlash. Phorm would rather nobody knew about any kind of opt-out because the more people who do opt out the less likely they are to succeed.

If Phorm are to be as open and honest as they are claiming and as Simon Davies wants them to be then here are a few starting points for them, all to be published in the public domain. Consider them "interesting questions" to use Kent's favourite phrase.

There are issues about the legality of Phorm. Publish the full QC's opinion and also the QC's details as well. Phorm say they are legal and are confident of it - publish the legal opinion. Why hasn't it been published? Is the QC scared that their association with Phorm will harm their reputation? Does the QC suddenly lack confidence in their opinion?

There are claims about the data they record. Publish it - verified by an independent security expert and let the community explore and test Phorm's claims.

Allow ISPs and independent IT security auditors (not accountancy houses) access to the Phorm provided equipment on the ISP's infrastructure. Allow ISPs to monitor and report on it for audit purposes. Anything less makes it an alien presence on the network for which the ISP should not accept any responsibility (and which they should refuse point blank IMHO).

Create a user agent string so website owners can say yes to search engines but no to Phorm.

Ultimately this may (and perhaps should) end up in the courts, the final legality of Phorm being decided on by legal minds for once and for all. And the sooner the better.

BT certainly should be taken to task for its (IMO) illegal trials in 2006 and 2007.

We as ISP customers and website owners should make our arguments to 8020T for the PIA process (especially our refusal of permission for our sites to be "Phormed"), judge the PIA when it is published and then make our own decisions.

Personally I'd love to see Phorm told its system is illegal, BT dragged through the courts and VM actually speaking out and saying "Thanks but no thanks". That needs people to do things over which I and maybe we (as VM customers) have no control. We need to keep this story going, spreading the word and pressing for government action.

Thanks again to Simon for organising the meeting, Dr Richard Clayton and Alexander for speaking so well. If anyone did get a recording of the group discussion I'd love to see it.

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

Many thanks Cap'n. :tu:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pasanonic (Post 34530324)

I appreciate That Alex is upset that some people have seemed disrespectful to Mr Davies and I hope I was not one of them as that was not my intention. but his ( SD) statements last night dismissing any talk of legality for the DPI system smacked to me of a whitewash and they should have arranged for legal counsel to be there as the legalities are the whole issue here.
However I thought,'benefit of the doubt'.
That was until I saw Mr Davies on the Channel 4 item today. It is clear from his comments given to 4 that he is clearly not an independent person working to produce just a PIA but was quite clear in his words that he is a supporter of the phorm system and is working to see that it is implemented for commercial gain. He did not appear in my view to be anything like the independent he keeps claiming to be.

So regardless of his work in the past with respect to 80/20 Thinking I personally shall be accepting that any further statements from them are to be treated as positive spin from a company with a vested interest in moving this technology into the mainstream.

Craig.

I'm sorry, as I know that Alexander has great feelings of respect for Simon Davies but I also still feel very concerned.

Why does the problem exist? Because some people want to break the law. There is no imperative to seek any compromise with that position. I don't understand why Simon seems to feel bound find a "solution" - I thought he was running a privacy impact assessment process, not brokering some kind of compromise. There is no problem that we or anyone needs to find any solution to, other than just say "no" to interception.

Personally, I don't see what acceptable solution there could be: I can opt in until I am blue in the face, but how can I ever give consent on your behalf to the interception by my ISP of messages that you send me? That would be like saying, as long as I give consent, BT can tap your phone calls because you are talking to me. So even if I wanted to find a compromise, (which I don't), I don't see how there could be one that was legal.

For Simon to say he is sure a solution can be found is in effect to say that interception without consent can be legal. But there has not yet been a proper legal debate.

I repeat, I appreciate and respect Alexander's feelings about Simon Davies as a person, but I don't know Simon at all, and perhaps selfishly, what I really care about is not having to live with this grotesque invasion of my privacy and everyone else's.

And where did all this stuff about ISP funding come from, all of a sudden? That's a matter of policy and outside the scope of a PIA. It is, however, on-message as far as Kent's current sales pitch that "everyone can make money".

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by wecpc (Post 34530524)

Why not email it to the home office aswell I can supply an email address for Simon who has been answering my emails about phorm. I have no asked for answers to two questions.

Quote:

my Email to Simon Watkin today..

The opt-out from Phorm is not as it should be you are still intercepted yet you have selected to not be. Phorm will still access my clicks making this opt-out a red herring. Enforced opt-in is most objectionable since many have children using the internet that could accidentally be tracked. Phorm is supposed to give anonymously our harvested clicks and information, this very information can with enough give out who you are stopping you from being anonymous. To make this more unpalatable the person doing this is someone I wouldn't trust who also has Russian programmers who like Kent have been part of the whole spy/adware problems in past years. Some servers IP numbers have been showing up as the servers are based in China. Security could be compromised..

To move on the trials already carried out by BT as this is definitely interception and those customers were not given the chance to opt-in or out. This would make those trials by BT and Phorm of thousands of customers without informed consent. As this interception was without consent of either the customer or the website visited going from RIPA this would be illegal.

1.With this in mind BT and Phorm carried out trials without informed consent these trials should be investigated as breaking RIPA ?

2. Will the Home Office bring to court those who instigated these trails during 2006/2007 without customers consent?

These are two very important questions that need to be addressed.

The ISP I had trusted with my details were only given the necessary information, I did refuse to have anything sent from their partners even though my phone was with them they knew I was registered with TPS. I personally would never fill in any information to a company like phorm or any company that has a past history like Phorm's.

The outcome of a women in America proves that your clicks can and will still give away who you are so the phrase totally anonymous is not working. The fact that even though I opt out I will still be intercepted and go via Phorm's equipment is not an acceptable compromise.

The only way you could compare how I feel about this program and trust in the management would be to make a comparison. . It is like putting a pedophile in charge of a primary school you wouldn't due to the temptation putting Phorm on our ISP network, with access to our clicks plus the harvesting it does from reading our pages. With a system patent showing it has the ability to go beyond what is offered to a group of people with past history which is somewhat untrustworthy would be the same.

I will not post on the forums any part of your last email to me as requested but really feel that the questions need to be addressed and justice for those who had their privacy, security and in a few cases had the added expense of buying new PC's as BT blamed the customer for having something on the pc when infect they were in the trials.

I hope this email will be enough to make the trials legality be checked first then those whoi were instigating the trials brought to justice for the customers who were used.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by wecpc (Post 34530524)

In the meantime I have just written a 2nd letter tonight to the BT Chairman's Office asking why they had not replied to my 1st letter but now stating that I now demand my MAC and cancellation (after successful migration) of my recently renewed contract (just prior to all hell breaking loose) without penalty due to their ILLEGAL interception of my data stream on 1st July 2007. Along with the cancellation of my BT Vision and BT Talk service and I said as soon as we get an LLU provider I will move my phone account also. I even stated that I would even cancel my frequently used DABS Online account as it is BT owned and have nothing else to do with BT ever again.

:handshake

Well done, Colin, that's great work!
Thanks for being in the vanguard...

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

Reminder
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will be in Downing Street on 17 April for a live webchat from 14:00 BST.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page15259.asp

:knock: