|
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:
This would mean that their current model would not satisfy the requirements as they need to intercept to verify whether a user has opted in or not (using DPI to look for the cookie). This also means we need complete disclosure from BT with regards to how their upcoming trials are going to work. If they are going to use the same methods as described in the technical analysis by Dr Richard Clayton, they would be in breach of PECR as they will be using DPI (which requires interception) to detect the opt in cookie in the traffic data. This means we need to ask questions about how the upcoming trials can circumvent the requirements of PECR. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Chris Williams of The Register has posted his latest article, with the ICO U-turn
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...phorm_tougher/ |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Yup another very good article.
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Quote:
7.1.b. the data is modified to remove person data 7.1.c. not applicable only happens to home users 7.2. n/a nothing to do with billing 7.3.a it is (supposedly) value added as they've added a phishy filter.. at least that's their get out 7.3.b. user has been informed and opted-in.. or even not opted-out.. doesn't make the distinction 7.3.c. i.e. forever if they're still serving you adverts also according to Richard Clayton http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf Quote:
have they covered all the bases and we're dangling by the short an curlies?? (obviously this only goes for any furthur implementations.. the 2 previous trials by BT sholdn't be covered as they were under the radar so not covered by 7.3.b) edited : 15.29 with some extra detail from richard clayton |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle3714098.ece
Looks like Kent is spinning this to a positive story!!!!! |
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]
It seems this is also occurring in the US:
Quote:
Quote:
It's such a tremendously bad idea that it's almost bound to succeed. Microsoft has filed another patent, this one for an "advertising framework" that uses "context data" from your hard drive to show you advertisements and "apportion and credit advertising revenue" to ad suppliers in real time. Yes, Redmond wants to own the patent on the mother of all adware. The application, filed in 2006, describes a multi-faceted, robust ad-delivering system that lives on a "user computer, whether it's part of the OS, an application or integrated within applications." http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...e-systems.html It seems that they are all at it. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
It looks as if the bandwidth needed to serve all these ads is soon going to overtake that used by P2P traffic.
It's very sad that something as useful as the web is going to be largely reduced to the role of pushing space filled with ads for stuff nobody wants nor cares about. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Maybe we should get reduced rate for putting up with all this crap we are about to see.
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
www.openrightsgroup.org
80/20 Thinking are organising an open meeting for Tuesday 15th April 2008 at: The Lecture Theatre, Brunei Gallery, School of Oriental & African Studies, London. 18:30-20:30. Anyone in the London area, please attend the meeting. My paper will be complete in time for the meeting so there will be plenty of questions you can ask. I am the other end of the country so I can't attend due to disability and costs. It is an open meeting but attendees are requested to email info@8020thinking.com in advance. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
I haver one question regarding consent requirements under PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003)
Does active consent have to be gained from both ends of the data stream? In other words, both the traffic data to and from the user AS WELL AS the traffic data to and from the website that the user is communicating with? Ali. P.s. I'm reading through the PECR now (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm). Can someone point me to the relevant paragraphs please? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Maybe this is vm masterplan to get us to move to 50megs which with all this impending traffic slowdown will act like 10 megs service as all the traffic gets queued into phorms rubbish while our computers patiently waits for packets. I would not be suprised one minute if we get an overload which just completely crashes the whole vm broadband or turns it to 56k modem. I still dont trust the bunch of criminals to honour people who opt out. I bet the find a way to track us anyway with a rootkit embeded in opt out users machines. ---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Good Afternoon to "Alex @ Phorm"
I don't recall you telling us if you were part of the PR team or not. Come on, don't be shy... |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
if it's the same one that visited my blog, he's also a member of the illustrious phormcomsteam
Phorm PR, like bailing out a sinking ship with a thimble. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Ok, after reading PECR, as far as I can tell (I'm no expert) conse3nt has to be sought from both the end user and the website they are communicating with.
I say this because reg 7, pt 3 says: Quote:
Ok, I subscribe to a hosting service (a provider of public electronic communications) that provides me with space to host my website and forums. Sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but me, as a website owner is also a subscriber, therefore under 7.3b I also have to give consent for my (the website) data to be processed. This is V important, because if I've interpreted this correctly, Phorm will have to ask permission of all websites as well as end users, which is almost impossible, and immediately makes Phorm a dead duck. Ali. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Don't forget section 27 of PECR:
"To the extent that any term in a contract between a subscriber to and the provider of a public electronic communications service or such a provider and the provider of an electronic communications network would be inconsistent with a requirement of these Regulations, that term shall be void." Which would indicate explicit consent should be obtained as opposed to a change in terms and conditions. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Alex @ Phorm here
With regard to PECR, the law is quite clear stating that any system requires valid, informed consent. We believe the approach that we will take to user notice will not only provide for such consent, but will in fact exceed the level of notice provided by anyone else. We also believe, as has been the case with the DPA and RIPA, that closer scrutiny will demonstrate that the way in which we obtain consent will substantially exceed any legal requirement. http://blog.phorm.com/ |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Alex, will you also be seeking the valid, informed consent of website owners whose sites will be profiled?
If not, why not? |
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]
Alex
Will you also have consent to have your servers pretend to be the url I asked for? What is in place to stop you redirecting small businesses and viewing all their details? I also find this an important issue noone has picked up on but if you intercept a child or young adults online search then being targeted with adverts. Many do search online to help with their education this can be misinterprited by phorm so question below. Children and young adults doing online search to help with their education? One close to my feelings if a customer opts out this should be before phorm system and not be redirected in any shape or phorm, should not be mirrored, redirected, intercepted, cookied or even scanned by phorm What can you do to comply with that request? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
@ alex@phorm But we dont want to consent to anything we DONT want it, good luck in your future job btw.
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I disagree with you completely. In light of the technical analysis published by Dr Richard Clayton (which Phorm reviewed as accurate) it is clear that in order to detect whether or not someone has either opted-in or opted-out that the Layer 7 technology must perform DPI on the traffic data. That in and of itself requires interception -and- processing of the traffic data; which means the current model fails to meet the requirements of the Directive. Section 27 of the Directive (see my previous comment) also indicates that a change in terms and conditions by the ISP will not satisfy the consent requirements of the Directive. Phorm have repeatedly been asked to comment on the legality of the trials of 2006/2007. It is very clear to me (and many others) that the trials of 2006/2007, which could not possibly have obtained consent as they were secret trials; were in fact in breach of the following laws and statutes in the UK (and Europe): Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 Human Rights Act 1998 European Convention on Human Rights Computer Misuse Act 1990 Fraud Act 2006 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 Data Protection Act 1998 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime Why do Phorm repeatedly avoid replying to questions on these points? Furthermore, it is all well and good saying you feel Phorm believes they have exceeded the requirements of the law, but where is your evidence and sources supporting this statement? I believe that my 2yr Old son is more intelligent than Einstein was but without some evidence and references to support that claim, it means absolutely nothing in the real world. I would seriously consider looking for a new job "tout de suite" if I was you Alex, because I fail to see how Phorm will not be involved in the criminal prosecution of BT (complicity) for the illegal trials of 2006/2007. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I'm sure the wording will be an art of spin. It will be interesting to see your interpretation of 'informed'. But, it's an opt-in and your share price will continue to reflect that. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Alex @ Phorm
What about the potential Fraud that may be occurring by your system pretending to be a web site that it is not? From Dr Richard Clayton white paper on how Phorm works: "The Layer 7 switch will see that the request does not contain a Phorm "cookie" and will direct the request to a machine located within the ISP network that will pretend to be www.cnn.com and will return a "307" response which says, in effect, "you want that page over there". The page that will be directed to is webwise.net/bind/?<parameters>where the parameters record the original URL that was wanted." The key is "will pretend to be www.cnn.com" (or obviously any other website you are surfing. Is this not a Fraud against Fraud Act 2006, and exactly the same type of Fraud as Phishing, by impersonating a website that you are not? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
This made me laugh:
"We’ve had an informed and productive dialogue with ICO and look forward to working with them and other stakeholders to ensure that UK internet users enjoy unparalleled choice, privacy protection and transparency online." (Phorm's Blog) By transparency online I presume they mean "All your browsing are belong to us!" and will be transparent due to the fact that DPI can see through our traffic data. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
All you pr guys and workers at phorm could opt in but i dont think you'd make much revenue off 5 people, glad to see with this whole debate that people are sick of just rolling over and getting shafted in this country when anyone feels like it if more people keep these kind of attitudes i still have hope for this country and sticking up for what they know is right.
@jca111 i agree completely what phorm are intending is exclusive phishing rights nothing more nothing less they offer the phishing service too as they dont want any competition on the phorm phish ;). |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Come on Alex @ Phorm, it was you who posted to my DenyPhorm blog inviting me to engage in telephone meeting with Kent, so why are you now so unwilling to address my questions? I am merely an undergraduate with limited experience in Law, you are supposed to be the expert on this, so why not engage or attempt to disprove my analysis? Surely you are not scared of an undergraduate who lives in a 2 bedroom terrace and drives an 11 year old car?
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
As for the Anti-Phishing, which company/database are you going to use. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Alexander, I know you are not a lawyer, however I was wondering if you could give me a quick opinion regarding my post above (2717). Do you feel I've interpreted the PECR correctly with reference to website owners also being users and therefore also required to give explicit consent to Phorm ?
Ali. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Damn we scared him off.
Alexander Hanff ---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ---------- Quote:
The main points of PECR are, it would seem to prove the trials in 2006/2007 were illegal and also reinforces that explicit informed consent must be obtained as opposed to a change in terms and conditions. Furthermore, is clearly states that consent must be obtained before the fact, therefore using DPI (which is exactly what the Layer 7 technology does in order to detect the opt-in/opt-out cookie despite an argument to contrary earlier today on this thread) to intercept and process the traffic data fails to meet the requirements of the Directive. It is an incredibly basic principle to comprehend and I fail to understand why Phorm and BT are having so many difficulties making an accurate interpretation of said requirements. If Phorm would like, I am happy to visit them (at their expense) and offer my consulting skills at the cost of £160 GBP per hour (my usual consulting charge) in order to clarify this matter for them. Alexander Hanff ---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ---------- BBC are a bit slow on the uptake as usual: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
[QUOTE]
Quote:
charge £10,000 a minute and stay few days at a top hotel at there expense and bust there ass:D Go get them:) |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
[QUOTE=mertle;34524311]
Quote:
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Sorry if its been posted already, but the El Reg article indicates that a) the 'secret' trials ARE under invetstigation and more interestingly, VM seem to be backing off.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...phorm_tougher/ "Virgin Media meanwhile says that despite Phorm's claims to the contrary, it did not "confirm [an] exclusive agreement". A concerned customer was told by CEO Neil Berkett's office: "We haven't signed up with Phorm, we've expressed an interest." "The ICO's tougher stance also means that as far as the ICO is concerned, BT and Phorm's secret and allegedly illegal trials without consent conducted in 2006 and 2007 are subject to investigation under DPA. A spokeswoman said more news on the probe will be forthcoming, but was unable to provide a timetable for when the tens of thousands who were tracked and profiled can expect to see those responsible held to account. BT has refused to answer questions on why it believes it acted within the law." |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
VM backing off for sure! That's what I've been waiting for!
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Did this rumoured annoucement by VM actually manifest last night?
|
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:
Alex, Take a step back for a moment. Look at what the product is that you are trying to sell to the end user. Where is the benefit? Where is the added value? What do I get out of it? I'm sorry, but from the users perspective, Phorm is "I Give - You Take". I don't want Phorm's anti-phising, thank you. If Phorm think's adverts tailored to my perceived needs is adding value then they are very much mistaken. If this was so brilliant it would be up and running and users would be begging for more... I don't see that happening though. |
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]
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
bet Rupert Murdoch would love to be able to do what Phorm are attempting... |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
If VM implement Phrom(whether its an opt-in or out is irrelevant)should VM be forced to open its network to competitors, especially non-phorm ISP. I believe Ofcom has the power to do just that.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/internet/ Why should i or any other user of VM be forced to pay £125 to BT, if there was competition within the cable market i could avoid those costs. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
from that marketingvox above, Interesting.
" In a phone interview yesterday, Ertugrul said that in two weeks Phorm will start serving banner ads that inform users their information is being collected. The ads will enable them to opt out. To disassociate themselves from whatever data Phorm has on them now, users can just clear their cookies, he said. But an Off switch may not be enough. Yesterday the UK Information Commissioner, which is responsible for enforcing certain data protection and privacy acts, published an assessment of Phorm's technology. The ICO concluded "Phorm products will have to operate on an opt in basis to use traffic data as part of the process of returning relevant targeted marketing to internet users." |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
One slightly shattered Captain is back. I see Virgin Media hasn't issued any kind of statement. Oh well, if they won't actually say things publicly as was strongly hinted then that's their own fault (the moral of this story is if you say to me that you're going to do something, do it!). They've had a day and a half already. To me that is plenty of time.
People here know that last month I wrote to Neil Berkett outlining my concerns about Phorm and that I've already had a correspondence with Ian Woodham, VM's Data Protection Officer. Ian's response has been carefully worded on his part (understandably) and thus a bit unsatisfying. That's no criticism of Ian, at that time there was only so much he was able to say. It seemed a good idea that Neil Berkett should know more about Phorm and why there is a backlash against it. On Monday morning I received a phone call from the number 08454 540000. That number had called the previous evening while I was out. I Googled the number and it showed as a VM office number. When it rang this morning, it was someone saying he was calling on behalf of Neil Berkett and we talked for about 35 minutes. As part of the chat said chappie read to me a prepared statement which he said was "just this minute from his colleague in the press office". The statement made a number of points which could be seen as being aimed at clarifying some of the spin from Phorm's PR statements. I asked if the statement was available online anywhere so people could read it for themselves and he said it wasn't online yet but that it would be. I was just out of the shower so it didn't occur to me to ask when it would be issued. I was able to note down a few snippets: "We (VM) haven't signed up with Phorm, we've expressed an interest" "VM are looking into concerns about legality and customer privacy" "There is absolutely no foregone conclusion that VM will implement Phorm" "Concerns about customers' security and any effect on our reputation will be at the forefront of our thoughts" I re-emphasised my concerns over my belief that Phorm is illegal and that any opt-out must prevent data from going anywhere near Phorm's network. I made and re-emphasised that point. Chappie assured me that Neil Berkett had seen my letter and that he is "taking my concerns seriously". No doubt the bit about VM's reputation taking a hammering struck a nerve. "The people with whom you associate has a huge bearing on your reputation" is another point I made. The Guardian's rejection statement may also have some influence as chappie mentioned the Guardian is quite influential amongst its peers. I emphasised (as a VM customer who wants to stay a VM customer because I loathe BT) that VM needed to issue this statement publicly as soon as they could because their is a customer perception of inaction on their part. Having had a statement read to me and been told it would be issued, I am disappointed that Virgin Media have not done so. Maybe I should have recorded the call, maybe I should have asked for written confirmation. As requested, I have not named the contact at Virgin Media although I do have his contact details here. I was also complimented on the tone and conciseness of my letter (concise? moi? surely not!). Had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming! I suggest that everyone here who is a Virgin Media customer writes to Neil Berkett (and I mean write, not e-mail) with a polite letter making brief points. CEOs don't like techie stuff so keep it summarised with impact points such as illegal, interception without permission, VM reputation, Phorm reputation, customers moving away because of perceived inaction. Please keep it polite. If we can convince the CEO this is as wrong as we believe it is and that VM is and will suffer reputation damage and loss of income then we have a very influential ally. It's important that VM realise this isn't about not wanting them to make money - it's about customers being able to trust their ISP to not get involved with what many (including some very eminent people) believe to be an illegal scheme. Time for some hot tea and a hot bath... |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/p...Impl133605.htm |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Hi Alexander - yes, I made the offer for you to put all your questions to Kent in person which you declined
The offer still stands so let me know how we can make that work Alex @ Phorm |
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:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Given the misquoting of Dr Richard Clayton over the weekend on Phorm's blog and antics on Wikipedia, I am not comfortable with the prospect of a telephone/voice call. I fear you would be able to deny anything I may wish to bring to the attention of the public and that you may misquote me for your PR campaign. If Kent would like to have a discussion with me, it would need to be in an open, online environment which can be logged by independent 3rd parties and witnessed by the general public. I would suggest a chat room where I can pose my questions to Kent and the public can see his responses in real time. If Phorm truly want to be transparent, surely they will accept these terms? Furthermore, I am still awaiting your answers with regards to the questions I raised concerning the illegal trials of Phorm Inc.'s technology by BT in 2006/2007 which the ICO statement today has effectively reinforced the opinion of myself and many others that they failed to meet the requirements of PECR. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
It would appear, although I wouldn't wish to speak for Alexander obviously, that he's chosen to 'opt out' at this time :D ---------- Post added at 20:19 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ---------- Looks like he beat me to it :) |
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]
Quote:
From CaptainJamieHunters post below, Kent might want to think about chatting up Neil Berkett as well. ;) ---------- 8 posts down. Such activity! |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
opening the cable market might be the best thing, but id settle for a
"mear conduit", as in no phorm type operations etc. 3rd party Co-location internal space. 3rd party STB's DVB-C cards +VM smartcard for sale and rent. and the foolish 1 cable modem per account rule removed. plus other bit and bobs OC. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
With regards the public meeting in London on Tuesday.
It would be useful if we could come up with some fliers over the weekend for people who are attending the meeting to hand out when they arrive. Also it would be great if we get a bunch of people turning up in anti Phorm t-shirts! I realise it is short notice and would require people to spend some of their hard earned money, but I think it would be worth it, especially as I fully expect members of the press to be present. If someone could come up with a vector graphic which people can download and take to their local T-Shirt printing company, it should be possible to get them on time. Another good idea would be for people to take banners with them. if we could have a contingent outside of the meeting making passers by aware of the issues, it could go a long way to raising some more public awareness on this scandal. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I can't wait to read your paper once it's finished Ali xx |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04..._ico/comments/ " Dressing up By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 8th April 2008 10:21 GMT Wayland Sothcott makes a good point in saying "It's gonna take some people dressed as spiderman to get this really noticed." So why not? Lets all pitch up outside Phorm/BT HQ/ICO's office/Trafalgar square identically dressed in "Spy" gear - you know; trilby (with BT logo in the hatband), CIA mac, mirror shades. Bring along conspicuously large notebooks and start writing down behavioural patterns of passing members of the public / BT staff. I'm sure the odd newsroom could be persuaded to take an interest; take pics, video etc and knock out a press release for later dispatch. Any takers?" |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
We should maybe start a new thread for people who are intending to go to the meeting. That way they can arrange to meet up if any anti phorm publicity material gets put together and get organised.
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
I've emailed 80/20 asking if the meeting can be broadcast on a web feed or recorded as a podcast. I'm sure there are many people such as myself who would like to attend but are unable due to location or other commitments.
Ali. P.s I can understand the meeting being held in London, but at times I think people forget that life exists North of the M25. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Have Phorm come phorward and ophered the name of the QC they used?
A cursory Google on the phrase "QC opinion" just happens to reveal a link to Backlash UK which is a campaign against the Criminal Justice Bill. They have a QC's legal opinion to back up their case and guess what? His name is at the bottom of the opinion document (Please note that this is a discussion of proposals relating to "extreme pornography" in this proposed legislation so please bear that in mind when clicking the link) Just wondering. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...al-thread.html
I have started a new thread for people who intend to attend the public meeting on Tuesday. I would urge people to use the thread to organise things in time for the event. Alexander Hanff |
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]
Quote:
There has to be a catch somewhere though. I can't see many targetted ad fans turning up for this, so the attendees are likely to be mainly anti-phorm. Why would they agree to this? What have they got up their sleeve? What sort of anouncement might they make, with max publicity? Is Phorm 2 about to be released, the cuddly version, which nobody knows about? Something is fishy, unless you think this is an open and above board company. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
I would just personally like to thank Rory for the compliment ;)
"Some of the finest minds in the world of privacy, encryption and the law, have turned their minds to these issues" http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ish_phorm.html Sorry couldn't resist hehehe. Alexander Hanff |
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:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Hi,
Question for the legally minded/those with more knowledge than I. I see a lot of reports of groups etc, taking legal action on behalf of 'the general public' on various issues. If this is the case would it not be possible for the Foundation for Information Policy Research to apply for an injunction (my legal knowledge minimal, my red wine knowledge three large glasses) against Phorm? Nicholas Bohm, general counsel for the Foundation for Information Policy Research said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm): "This is not the end of the road. We will be taking it further. We are not satisfied with the ICO response on interception," Could this mean they could/will? Regards WinstonS |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
"We've only heard from a small group of vocal opponents so far. The public has answered very clearly in neutral polling that this is something they want." (Kent)
From what I recall the poll was 2000 users? I expect it would have been spun around the Anti-Phishing service too? Ok PM Petition currently stands at what 11000? somewhere around there. That trumps their poll by almost 6x. The poll here? 95.6% against Phorm from a sample of over 700. That's a pretty clear contradiction to what they claim the public want. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
It's the source of the poll which is invariably going to be the difference. I suspect this announcement of "our customers want this" is based on ISP's asking generically;
-Do you want less advertising? -Do you want more phishing protection? Because in a survey, teh off the cuff responses to those are going to be yes to both. I suspect Kent is actually talking about the above instead of a question based around "Do you want Phorm specifically?" |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
I would hope FIPR will apply for an injunction but I am not sure it is feasible at this time. There is work being done with regards to filing a case from at least one of the trial victims, so if that goes ahead, it is certainly (in my mind) a legal option. Alexander Hanff ---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ---------- Of course it is unlikely that we will ever see the actual poll they did as I doubt they obtained informed consent from the participants. This might actually be the one time we see their interpretation of consent match what we all interpret as well, which will simply show them for the hypocrites they are. Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
- a claim that one side has breached a duty imposed by the common law without the need for there to be a contract, for example, a civil action can be brought if a person defames you or trespasses on your land. Does common law include RIPA etc? Regards WinstonS |
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]
Quote:
Alexander Hanff |
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:
The public meeting concerns me some. I can't help but think there will be lots of Phorm drones there lapping up every word Ertregrul says. Will Dr Clayton and those who oppose Phorm be given the same chances to speak as Phorm? Will it be recorded and posted in full for those who can't get there to see? Part of me thinks Phorm has got something lined up here and their PR drones will be there in force. Now if I was the paranoid type I'd start to think along the lines of the "Anonymous" organisation who protest against the Church of Scientology. A lot of them wear V masks to mask their identity... ---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ---------- Quote:
"Hi Rory, as you may be aware if you've been following any of the various discussions about Phorm, the opt-out "presented" by Phorm is based on a cookie. This means that although you've said "no" to receiving adverts your web activity is still mirrored to Phorm's systems. Many people have made it clear to Virgin Media (of whom I am currently a customer) that an opt-out has to guarantee that their data goes nowhere near Phorm's systems. Mr Etregrul's assertion that "neutral polling that this is something they [customers] want." is complete and utter hogwash. Internet advertising is a bugbear, a nuisance and is tolerated with a heavy heart by many. Solutions are available which minimise the amount of advertising a user is exposed to and I use a number of them myself. The difference it makes in the speed of a page downloading is considerable. Mr Etregrul's logic is flawed and is that of a spin doctor trying to fight off a growing resistance. Check The Register's ever growing report file on Phorm at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/ Phorm is (in my view) illegal and offers nothing of value to the broadband customer. I will not be opting in and I will be advising everyone I know to have nothing to do with Phorm." |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
A bit of light entertainment at Phorm's expense - b3ta's photo challenge this week is "Advertising from the future" and one member has already dished up a Phorm-related offering:
http://www.b3ta.com/board/8270099 :D |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
[QUOTE=CaptJamieHunter;34524473]
Now if I was the paranoid type I'd start to think along the lines of the "Anonymous" organisation who protest against the Church of Scientology. A lot of them wear V masks to mask their identity... ---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ---------- Well I'm up for heading up to London wearing a V mask, Next question is where do I buy one? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
[quote=Winston Smith;34524483]
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post1085.html That was from the second web chat they did in mid march, so he's got nothing new really. Broken record syndrome, he's on the desperate side now I think if he's resorting to that line again after all this time. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Fair enough, I don't mind turning up wearing one, but I would rather not be the only one. Any more volunteers? I don't want to be the only one shot.
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
On the speakers' list for this meeting, who else is listed? Will there be a code of conduct in force? (Public meetings I've heard about from work colleagues have often been dangerous and rowdy affairs) If Dr Clayton is outnumbered then how can the meeting be an independent and fair one? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Move over Lolcats.. here's a lol phorm
http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/V...px?ciid=896279 http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/V...px?ciid=836361 |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
As Kent Kurtugurl has some Russian connections, if I was being paranoid, I would worry about Polonium radiation poisoning...
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
http://www.8020thinking.com/events Don't forget to email 80/20 Thinking in advance to let them know you are coming (as is requested on the event web page). Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
It's fair because they've decided the meeting should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
The "V for Vendetta" mask is an excellent idea by the way.
Alexander Hanff |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Just another thought - if people are going to attend the meeting and hand out flyers, etc, there may be local bye laws about such. And taking photos anywhere in London can end up getting you stop and searched. I note that the panel discussion does not feature Dr Clayton. Where is the impartiality there? ---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ---------- Quote:
A quick check and they're £4.99 from your local Forbidden Planet, though your local sci-fi store might well stock them as well. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
now we need to do a Phorm version of the V speech :P
Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
We intend to use feedback from this event to inform the PIA. A final version of the PIA will be published by the end of April 2008...." more like they finally took my advice #1398 (18-03-2008) and are only now following the PIA as required. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
you didnt read it all,or misunderstand it perhaps, first of all the section you quote is "Restrictions on the processing of certain traffic data 7. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), traffic data relating to subscribers or users which are processed and stored by a public communications provider shall, when no longer required for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, be - ..." just above that is "Confidentiality of communications 6. - (1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not use an electronic communications network to store information, or to gain access to information stored,in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met. (2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment -
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information -
they cant go looking on your machine for any cookie or other data they might have placed there in any Yes state earlyer, after you say NO at any time later. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
The 80/20 meeting. I do think we should go with the 'V' masks. Yes it looks theatric but that is exactly the kind of thing that goes down well on a five minute news reports.
The time has come. Now we have to switch from the technical viewpoint - its bad, and we all know it it is, to a view that your average user will respect and understand. The 'techies' all grasp it now, they know it is bad but it has to spread beyond this. It has to reach the average user and what better than a mass theatrical protest? Look at what 'Fathers for Justice' did with one man in a spidersuit. It is all very well all of us(and we are all worthy) talking about it in forums but it HAS to reach the average user. We have to make sure our point is seen (and understood) by the average net user. If this abomination is to be opt-in then the average user needs to know what they are choosing and why they are chosing. Even a few minutes news reports on a national channel would be priceless. We need to get the major news channels interested,and what better wqay than hundreds of people turning upto this meeting wearing 'V' masks? |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
BT have published a diagram showing how their implementation of Phorm would work: http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html
Nice firewall, and also good to see it's truly opt-in only. Also, if Phorm cookies are blocked, the invitation page is not displayed. ---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:20 ---------- New article:INTERNET LAW - Does Phorm's 'Webwise' Online AD System Break U.K. Law? Blog comment on itpro.co.uk: http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/davea/2.../09/bad-phorm/ “Dave, can I use your PC to check cinema times?” “Yeah sure, just let me log out and log into a guest account.” “Why? What you hiding?” |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
It's best that people go as suited professionals, carrying a briefcase etc. Phorm would love for this to be characterised as an anti-global, dressed up as beagles, nutter fringe. Outwardly there is no good reason for them to be doing this, so be careful. They have something up their sleeves. I'm all for getting this wider coverage, but not like this. |
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Alexander - have you come across a way to, at a European level, force a national government to enforce it's own law? It is clear from both the 06/07 BTPhorm trials that they were committing at least 18000 individual criminal offences. We see from the lack of reaction that our "political masters" simply want this to go away.
After all when you have "friends" (read: senior party members) on the (BT) board and your personal portfolio could take a severe hit why would you care? I can just see it now - HMG decides to prosecute but in the week running up to the announcement (BT) shares are dumped faster than we can follow. My understanding of the EU is that we have recourse and even if a "ministers" portfolio takes precedent in the UK, the EU could deal with them for us. A little bit like corrupt politicians in a US city being hit by the federal government really. Quote:
|
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Fair enoujgh, but which is going to grab the headline:
Men in suits and ties attend meeting; or: Spiderman says No to spying. I see where you are coming from and in a real world I would agree with you, but without a serious sponsor (and so far we have nothing more than tech blogs), we have to get our views across. And to be fair 'Fathers for Justice' aare now seen as a serious pressure group |
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:
But of course, nobody died from being cautious - not to my knowledge anyway. And Richard Clayton doesn't seem one to be easily out foxed, I hope that is also the case for him on the fly in public. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum