![]() |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Come down off that tower immediately! :D |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
OK everyone time to put our Digg hats on:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Unedited_V...rm_PIA_meeting Alexander Hanff ---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ---------- yeah I know I typod the title, can't fix it though so sorry. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Has anyone else had a response from BT today offering to exclude their website from profiling by the BT Webwise system? All I have to do apparently is provide the URL's.
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
If a customer who is invited to participate in the trial adds www.webwise.net to their local HOSTS file with the resolved address of 127.0.0.1, they will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC for the period of the trial. This is because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status of the user during the trial. Instead, and as per the advice on the www.bt.com/webwise site, the recommended approach for excluding a PC from the Webwise service if the user regularly deletes cookies is to add www.webwise.net to the browser's blocked cookie list. As previously stated, in parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received." Blocking dodgy domains is a reasonable action. The default position on this should be opt-out, so if the question can't be asked, that should be the assumption. Unless you are prepared to visit a dodgy domain they will break your browser. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
The reply from the BT manager is interesting reading, and if I've read it right his answer to point 11 could open a whole new can of worms for BT |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Given the answers given by the BT rep, I think it may be worth all you VM customers asking the same questions of your CS help desk. OB Edit: Apologies to those posting the same time as me who have already read Mr Jones' reply. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
See my post above and the detail on BT Beta Forum http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...ID=18175#18175 |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Interesting comment on the vm webwise fact site
We found that this system met our high standards for simplicity and privacy – so your privacy is assured. Given virgin media's silence on the whole issue im a bit worried about how they found this information as some sort of test would have to be carried out on the vm network they cant rely on bt data as its a seperate network :(. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
But that aside, I think it needs careful reading - I THINK it means that if you opt-IN to the forthcoming 10,000 member BT trial of Webwise, and THEN block the dodgy domains, your browsing will break totally. I can see the logic of that - if you "agree" to be redirected and then block the redirection domains, of course your browsing will be broken. But it COULD mean that even if you don't opt-in, your browser will still be broken. BT have not yet worked out a cookie free way of opting out/avoiding the system, so this trial is likely to depend on cookies. I'm not clear on that yet. What I really want to know is what happens to an ordinary BT customer who blocks these domains while the trial is on, but who has not opted in (and has blocked the relevant cookies so doesn't have any) or who has actually opted out and kept the cookie, but blocked the redirection domains. Remember BT are saying very little about how their trial will work, and virtually nothing about how the final system will work. I think they are running backwards fast - redesigning it as they go - as each legal pronouncement comes out from ICO or Home Office or whatever - precisely what Simon Davies of 80.20 warned about in his interim privacy report when he said it was very late in the day for a genuine PIA - in fact a PIA would not actually be possible -which is why he is calling the latest bit of work a (quote from interim privacy report) late stage implementation†PIA model that aims to satisfy most, if not all, of the criteria of a “full product cycle†PIA. (end of quote) I don't think BT have fully realised that even the invitation to participate in the BTWebwise trial will require very careful handling to avoid it being an illegal interception of browsing traffic. If the invitation pops up while I am visting www.bt.com, and logged into that site, or perhaps visiting my BTYahoo! ISP customer service pages at http://home.bt.yahoo.com/, or the webmail at http://bt.yahoo.com/webmail, as a logged in customer, it could be regarded as a legal interaction with a customer. (but not if they ask an underage child using one of my sub accounts - especially as I have notified them that they must ask me as the contract holder, and not anyone else in my family) But if the Webwise trial invitation just pops up when I am trying to visit anywhereontheweb.com, while connected via my BT Broadband connection, then I reckon that will be an illegal interception of my browsing with a third party by my ISP. Reading the questions and answers it is clear to me that as yet, BT don't know some of the answers that they NEED to know before starting their trial. Bear in mind that it was due to start in March, and it hasn't happened yet. I think it hasn't happened because they are still trying to sort all these sort of things out, and they know they are on dodgy ground legally and commercially with several of the details they thought they had in place but which have now been publicly questioned and found wanting. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Dugg as per request.
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
To add my view, I was really taken by the phrase "if you are invited to participate" in the answer to that question. To me that suggests the webwise.net domain will be needed to browse the web wether you are opted in or out. It also mentioned the need for that domain in order to determine consent. that to me suggests that opt in or out is detected by a process using that domain - so if it isblocked, it cannot tell your status and doesnt let you proceed with any browsing. However, if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick I am more than happy to have it turned around :) |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Anyone care to comment on this
from here :http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=14453044 ferdinandling - 18 Apr'08 - 21:00 - 1441 of 1441 Don't know who the RIPA expert was. His name was Casper something. The chairman (previous chairman of FIPR) knew him by name and explained to the audience that eh was probably the world's leading light with regard to RIPA. He agreed that the system was legal under that law. Whilst we are on that subject, Dr Clayton admitted that the ICO had made an error about another law PECR requring opt-in. I'm not a techie so don't quite understand but along the lines of...Regulation 7 of PECR is referring only to traffic data. The Phorm system does not use traffic data, therefore the ICO's recommendation about OPt-in is not valid. FInally, the last law that Phorm has been accused of breaking is the Data Protection Act. Dr Clayton's own review of the Phorm system (in MArch) agreed that it did not fall foul of any data protection rules. Summary - legal underall three relevant laws. Question - do you really think that BT's legal department would have spent 6 months looking into this and made an error when they decided to give the green light. Same with the Home OFfice, the ICO, the QC's thta gave legal opinion etc etc. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
How can they even trial test this out when full independant test's of the system by any relevant government appointed person's or company's has not happened (all we have is hear say by the companies involved with all these test's carried out without any of the public's knowledge and paid for by the company's) is there no government protection involved when ANY test involve the general public?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are Cable Forum