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

Points taken!

When I was first ever taught presentations, the lecturer used to just do a paragraph on 1 slide, but I do take your points!

This is a work in progress and I will do more with it soon!

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

:cool: maybe this could be adopted as our theme tune - I hear the eighties are v. cool right now (can't understand it myself, having been there the first time around...)

{edit}

I've just watched the video on that link - the worst lipsync I've EVER seen! Hilarious!! (not to mention the "dancing":erm:)

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

Just found a somewhat pro-phorm article here:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...3-24584218.htm

Quite a bit of misinformation and selective quoting I'm afraid.

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

No, please, don't.
Not the eighties, I remember the music and the appalling fashion all too well, suit jackets with the sleeves rolled up, Mel & Kim and all the rest.
If we have to choose an anthem let's make it something for Kent 'Master of Puppets'?

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

If it wasn't so serious the theme from the muppet show spings to mind!

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

From that article:

"The opposition probably won't stop Phorm. British officials have affirmed its legality."

Have they? My reading is that the official government channels have skipped merrily around the issue, avoiding the question while independant bodies such as FIPR have said 'No. it's illegal'.

One nice paragraph though:

"Yet there's a bit more going on. In a now-abandoned incarnation, Phorm was 121 Media Inc., a provider of ad technology commonly derided as spyware. Also, British Telecom's initial trials with Phorm weren't disclosed to customers.
"

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

The Muppets rock. Phorm doesn't. Muppets win by miles.

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

Didn't the news reader in the muppet show have a name similar to "Kent Ertugrul"?

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

Guys, we need to get back on the clock. There's an air of triumphalism around here whilst in truth, we are still a minority (even though impressively vocal!) with a majority of people still unaware of Phorm. Believe me, all that has been achieved so far could be defeated by the indifference of a majority who don't have a full enough understanding of the ramifications or who just see it as a 'geek' thing that doesn't concern them.

Forums around the web reveal a mixed reception to Phorm technology. Many haven't heard of Phorm and (too) many don't seem too bothered. People can be very very lazy. Phorm and its hired help will be aware of this back door.

The focus has to move away from Phorm itself. We are expending bucket loads of energy on the tail when the head should be our target. We need ISP involvement and Government involvement. The Government are our paid representatives; they serve us and we want their service and we want it now.

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

How about the immortal Joe Strummer:

Sniffin' traffic in motion
I fought the law & the law won (twice)
Using packet inspection
I fought the law & the law won (twice)

My share price's crashing & I feel so bad
I guess my race is run
The great British public can't be had
I fought the law & the law won (twice)


Anyone contribute the next two stanzas?

Hopefully the law will win... :)

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

The problem is, that the government and its repesentatives seem determined to ignore us. Looking back over the two hundred odd pages the best responses have come from opposition MPs/MEPs and Lords. Government departments seem to be falling over themselves to abjure responsibility for this. Whether they have ulterior motives or not, they are ignoring us. At the moment our best bet is the opposition and the public.

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

Minority yes - but a minority who seem to be able to poison every Phorm based article on the net from what I've seen! Governments note what the media has to say...

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

I think we have done well so far and as for Kent well just shows what type of person he is when he will totally ignore somoene like Alexander..

on a second thougth IO noticed one book was over £100 would Cable forum mods set up a small payment fund so those with less money can still donate and the final would be the dearest book on Alexanders list? It would only take about 12 people to pay for the book as a token of appreciation for his hard work and a helping hand into him getting through to the end with a little less financial burden on himself.

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

Does anyone have a recording (or link to) of the general Q&A session that took place after the main speakers? I was there but I want to check a few of the notes I made with with was actually said.

Also are there any plans to publish the presentations of Kent & Dr Clayton in slide by slide form?

Also for the sake of completeness, does anyone have Marc Burgess' presentation/speech?

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

Fair comment. Look, 80/20T will be back soon with a new strategy. A carefully worded PIA will probably validate the technology with a few insignificant qualifiers for realism (when you pay for something, you get what you want). There's a case for us playing less defensively whilst they are hitting problems. Reacting to their developments all the time keeps us on the back foot; I still think hammering it home at high level is our next best move.

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

Anagram:

You can get 'Wrong sewer-like tub-thumper.' from 'Kent Ertugrul Phorm Webwise'

Posted by sassenach on Badphorm, i've not checked it, but it sounds ok!

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

Hi Florence,

This is a great idea, by the the time I got to the list all the books remaining were out of my price range. I'd love to give towards one of the other books for Alexander if this could be set up.

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

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

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

is it this - i posted the link before (3048)

Anti file-sharing laws considered

"He said: "However, ISPs cannot monitor or record the type of information passed over their network. ISPs are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope."

"ISPs deal with many more packets of data each day than postal services and data protection legislation actually prevents ISPs from looking at the content of the packets sent," he added. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7059881.stm

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

Is this the one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm

I particularly like this bit

Kent ???

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

Hi, everyone. Short-time lurker (started reading this a few weeks back when I first discovered the issue) and first-time poster.

While I've only just registered on this forum, I certainly haven't been sitting on my (alas) overweight rear twiddling my thumbs... I'm glad to say that I've written to my MP and also to Viviane Reding, EC for Information Society and Media, expressing my concerns.
I even went so far as to email CNNMoney, correcting them on some of their more blatant mistakes in that report.



Ah, no, if you're looking for child porn and terrorism you won't find it - the article was about the BPI demanding that ISPs be held liable for their customers pirating music. One of the arguments against it, as I recall, was 'if you're willing to waste all that time and money hunting for music pirates, why not spend it tracking down child pornographers and terrorists instead?' - but the main focus of the initiative was to curb music piracy.




Edit: Hmm, looks like you guys beat me to it. I blame the head-start you all had by already being registered :P

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

Time to don the tin-foil hat but..

This Govenrment has shown no interest in investigating this, despite all the emails, letters etc.
I can only assume that they want to see this succeed, as it gives the potential to monitor everyones surfing.
My forum name should say it all, but I thought it would be at least another 5/10 years before it became reality.
I am seriously thinking about emigrating, any suggestions where I can avoid this in terms of countries that will protect my privacy?

In terms of languages, I speak French, German, Arabic, Attic Greek and Latin (not overly useful) and basic Japanese.

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

Hey all.

I've noticed something weird tonight. I'm having real problems connecting to most websites when I have phorm.com and associated IP's blocked via my firewall (Comodo). If I unblock them I get normal operation.

It looks like a DNS issue and that's what I thought it was (hangs on "looking up hostname"), but unblocking the phorm addresses solves it.

Anyone else seeing this?

I should add that if I unblock the addresses and visit a site which was unreachable with the addresses blocked, then after visiting I can visit again no problem with the addresses blocked.

I have the following blocked:

88.208.248.102 - 88.208.250.85
phorm.com

Hmm, I can't even get to my modem configuration page (192.168.100.1) with those blocks.

Not just http, but ftp as well.

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

France, Canada

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

Hello all.... longtime lurker... mostly post on badphorm..

currently contributing by way of Mac request mission.. 54 and counting :)

..keep up the good work alex and all...

oh btw seems we have a certain UKPRteam browsing our user profiles.. worth keeping an eye out eh?

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...pic.php?4097.0

Cog

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

Yep, off topic, but you make a good point in one way. However I would say that interestingly, that large company you refer to has done an awful lot of good as well as lost battles it has gone into which it underestimated. Like the 3 or 4 biggest players in the UK, they have fans and they don't, they have people asking, "Why can't we have X brand supermarket near us?" And others say, "We don't want X near us." It would be wrong to suggest that the company you mention have not made goods and services cheaper (accepting challenges on ethics which are sometimes found in all companies including the retailers in the UK which are 5th or 6th biggest so it's not just the big boys). They are primarily responsible for maintaining lower prices in the retail industry at times of inflation/credit crunch (like now in the US & UK). And posting links to films sponsored by those who are also having their pockets lined by those against them... well, all I'm saying is, it's harder for those at the top to stay there because they are an easier target. So to anyone who might take that on face value... don't believe the hype.

On Phorm, it's not WM trying to open a new general merchandise store. This is very different. The type of store Phorm wants to open is where they put YOU on the shelf and sell you to the highest bidder. That is not democratisation of products (making them more affordable for the masses, taking a lower gross profit and selling lots) - oh no, this is not about democracy AT ALL.

We agree on so much apart from the supermarket stuff (let's continue that off line if needed - you can PM me if you want) and here's where I have got to on Phorm and comms with people:

- Email to the Labour MP on the Non-Exec board of BT - Replied, taking comments on board and will discuss with colleagues in government and BT

- Email to my MP - replied, waiting for detail response from Home Office Minister (that'll be interesting reading when it comes in!)

- Earl Of Northesk - I wrote expressing thanks and support, but did state that I understood he is not an MP (they often have no secretary, offices or team to deal with replies etc)

- Repsonse from BT - pretty standard as you would expect although others who have had the standard response a few days after mine had a few lines of different text due to issues with what they were saying originally being slightly bending the truth (shock horror!)

Post when you get resonses, I'll do the same and we can compare...

Hank

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

Hank, you may have already seen that the Earl of Northesk was kind enough to reply to me even though he is out of the country. Tomorrow, time and work allowing, I'll be replying to him. Anything I do get in reply from him will (with his permission, of course) be posted here.

Again, realism, not triumphalism.

---------- Post added at 23:59 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

Who's being triumphalist? I'm just having a good mickey take after spending ages working on the public meeting videos. I've already said what I'd like to see and that's what people need to work towards. However, much of that is dependent on other people (BT customers affected by the trials for example) taking actions that I cannot.

We need to continue to pressure the legislators to investigate Phorm and BT and to keep highlighting to as many people as we can the lack of government action and why Phorm is wrong.

The videos have been posted because a wider audience needs to be reached. That's not triumphalism, that's realism.

Now, is it just a coincidence that the ICO has started responding to complaints about Phorm? The complaint mentioned here was four days before mine. Both answered at the same sort of time.

Pressure from above or a decision to whitewash all the Phorm complaints in one foul swoop?

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

Yes Cap'n - good reply :) Hope you get some more exchange from him on his views and it would be great to understand how we can actually take the investigation of the interceptions forward becaus it seems so wrong (and just weird!) that the Police and Home Office both don't think it's their job to follow it up (if it's a crime, whose job is it then?!)

Hank

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

Another point worth revisiting is the 32M GBP they are expecting to raise in share deals with Morgan Stanley. The deal was I think 1.6M shares at 32M with Canaccord Adams Ltd. and Morgan Stanley with shares placed at 20GBP per share. At the moment the market price is about £12.80 per share.

I wonder how these two new investors are feeling given they entered a deal which has devalued by 40% before it has even been finalised. Do we still think these 2 investors are going to go through with it? Given that the money raised is earmarked for actually setting up the system in the UK, it could prove disastrous for Phorm if they back out at the last hurdle.

Alexander Hanff

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

My ISP has responded to concerns I addressed to them about my details on web pages being scanned when people other than me are reading them. Here is the response... Can it be right that I exclude details on a social networking site from being viewed by anyone but my accepted friends and that this leads to my ISP assuming "implied consent of
website owners such as Bebo etc"??

"we completely understand the potential concerns
of some website owners, who have sensitive/private/password protected
websites or areas on their website, and are taking the necessary steps
to ensure that password protected sites are excluded from this service
and no information will be scanned from these pages. We are also
excluding a range of more sensitive categories for example medical,
religious and gambling websites. Finally we are also taking steps to
ensure that those websites that do not want search engines to 'crawl'
them (by the use of robots.txt) will also be excluded from the Webwise
service. Otherwise we assume that we have the implied consent of
website owners such as Bebo etc."

Thoughts? Have I read it wrong? Am I misunderstanding the ISP's statement there?

Hank

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

Same here, me too.

Welcome to all our new members :D

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

I'm certainly not a finance bod, but I think all these issues are underwritten by a merchant bank. i.e. if these shares don't sell, the bank buys them. It's part of the costs of placing the shares. This time the bank lost! I don't think they can pull out.

They probably started arranging all this months ago, and finalised it when the price was high.

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

Of course there's consent implied - after all, you're on the internet and we all know that that's all the consent they need :P

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

<dodgy phorm link>

password not needed, just press esc a few times.

interesting that they have a hidden section, talking of proxy and phishing examples.... they would know all about that.

Admin edit Rob: The link has been deleted. Spam, of other sites is not permitted, especially using links that resolve to different addresses than implied by the given link.

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

Really? I'm not saying I don't understand the impact of being 'on the internet', no what I mean is, I grant permission on a social network site to specific individuals to see my data. I don't grant it to their ISP. Why does the ISP think they can assume consent? They did not request permission to be my firend, I did not authorise them to view the content. To me that seems a reasonable argument (in law I hope: my privacy, my data, for my friends given access to see it by me, no consent given to their ISP, no consent for Phorm either - where's the implied consent I gave?)

I understand what you are saying (I think) it was intended as flippant - right? (Rather than a factual answer to the question?)

Welcome to the forum, I'm quite new here also. Don't misunderstand my reply, I'm genuinely interested in how this might work, versus the opinion of the ISP.

Hank

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

It was mostly intended as flippant, but also partly in reference to the emailed response I recall being mentioned on El Reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/) from the Home Office which proclaims that under section 3 of RIPA, private companies are allowed to do certain things which the government are not. Section 3 of RIPA, as far as I can tell, deals with the issue of consent, stating that it's OK to intercept data providing that a) the person who is sending it consents to the interception and b) the person receiving it consents to it being sent in the first place. That'd suggest that simply by being on the internet, consent is implied.

What worries me more is this:

Which would suggest that in fact the ISPs are allowed to spy on you as much as they want to. Of course, odds are I'm completely wrong on this one - I'm a microbiology student, not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand part (b) there. I can explain the molecular mechanisms behind how plague kills you, but not an awful lot of the law regarding wiretapping.

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

Ditto

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

Can someone suggest what the reason for this post was? It is obviously meant to appear once and we will not see the poster again. It is also linked to a phorm page that behaved quite odd ( asking me for a password numerous times. Are phorm now placing links on forums in a hope of harvesting whatever information our browsers will tell them when we visit this particular page or am I being silly.

I just don't see the point of this link and I don't suggest people click it.

Edit:/ thanks for removing the link Rob. I guess I was not being silly.

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

Don't fall for it ! :nono:



---------- Post added at 00:59 ---------- Previous post was at 00:55 ----------

They want people to put in user names and passwords so they can show the value of anti-phishing software. I doubt it's Phorm themselves, they can't be that stupid!

If you just cancel a few times, you get the e-mail adresses above. I think this a Phorm demo that's been around a while, and someone else has decided to post it here. (I don't thinks it's Phorm PRTeam)

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

LOL @ Tharrick

And you can probably explain the biology and some of the physiology around the laughter this end right now :)

Thanks for the references. I think you're right ...it is a concern. All this needs working through by the legal eagles...

Hank

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

Unfortunately the placing has closed people. Don't you just feel awful for the the people who paid £ 20 a share for a stake in Phorm.:cool:

On to pressing business. There was a very good point made earlier in the thread that the battle has been won but the war has not.

So with that in mind.

Alex: any research I can help with in preparation for the interview you are doing next week post it up or PM.

Private discussion area. It might be worth setting up a non public access thread somewhere if possible.

Judicial review - a quick skim of the info suggests it might be possible. What are everyone elses thoughts?

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

About one percent of the Web pages being delivered on the Internet are being changed in transit, sometimes in a harmful way, according to researchers at the University of Washington.

In a paper, set to be delivered Wednesday, the researchers document some troubling practices. In July and August they tested data sent to about 50,000 computers and discovered that a small number of Internet service providers (ISPs) were injecting ads into Web pages on their networks. They also found that some Web browsing and ad-blocking software was actually making Web surfing more dangerous by introducing security vulnerabilities into pages.

"The Web is a lot more wild than we originally expected," said Charles Reis , a PhD student at the University of Washington who co-authored the paper.

The paper, which was co-written by a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute, will be delivered at the Usenix Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation in San Francisco.

To get their data, the team wrote software that would test whether or not someone visiting a test page on the University of Washington's Web site was viewing HTML that had been altered in transit.

In 16 instances ads were injected into the Web page by the visitor's Internet Service provider. "We're confirming some rumors that had been in the news last summer, that ISPs had been injecting these ads."

It seems that ISP are turning into more than just providers, the article goes on to say:

In June 2007 the TechCrunch blog reported RedMoon, a small Texas wireless provider, was using a system built by a Redwood City, California, company called NebuAd to insert advertising into the HTML code of Web pages.

Critics blasted the ISP for meddling with its customers' traffic and worried that this kind of ad injection undermined the integrity of Web sites, which had no control over the ads being displayed.

NebuAd has now discontinued its ad-injection product line and now delivers only the standard type of advertising that it buys from Web publishers, a company spokesman said Tuesday.

The data also shows that pages were sometimes changed by popup blockers within products such as CheckPoint's ZoneAlarm or CA's Personal Firewall, but also that some products actually inserted security vulnerabilities into the pages they processed.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...udy_finds.html

So instead of offering protection, they are making users more vulnerable to infections, well phorm is offering us spyware after all. I bet the malware writers are licking their lips with the thought of phorm being implemented.

Did they know something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5j30b0yuXk

Keep up the good work.

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

sorry,
I did not mean to come across as a spammer,
I came across that link and thought it was interesting,
I realize now it looked like a scam, but its quite ironic that a company basing itself on privacy and to some extent security, cannot secure a webpage/apache server properly. Also it does contain some good information regarding their plans to show off their so called protection. also interesting that one of the names mentioned also worked at BT (among others) and specializes in unix platforms+networks.

the page was uploaded/made 02/19/08. just after the public statement. but the copyright is stated 2007... probably nothing important,

So again, very sorry to come across as a spammer etc.

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

Good post , i agree. :Yes:

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

Can you PM me the link please so I can see.

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

(Sorry for delay in replying)

Maybe you're right - My MP is quite tech-savvy and was really helpful when it came to the slow local bt broadband roll-out scheduling but I've read a couple of times of MP's, due to either not reading or not understanding the issue assuming that it's about P2P file sharing or else failing to reply at all. There's also the instantly denied hidden agendas issue

I forgot that was looming but isn't PIA going to be about how Phorm so care about privacy and they're so privacy conscious it makes people feel all fluffy and warm and can be as relaxing as a radox bath on valium

I'm not sure how they're going to convincingly side step the opt-in consent issue. Regardless of how much they sugar coat the privacy aspects of their system that one operation endorsed by the ICO is going to make or break Phorm. Their business model is reliant on the Internet Service user showing indifference towards (or preferably being unaware of) Phorm's nasty little system. Without a high percentage of data cows to milk - it won't fly!

ICO: "Regulation 7 of PECR will require the ISP to get the consent of users to the use of their traffic data for any value added services. This strongly supports the view that 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."

Phorm: "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're very confident, 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."

Wow - that good eh! When they respond with PR designer statements like the one above historically it means "we'll stall you on that issue and hope it goes away because compliance would hamstring our product but we don't want you to think that it will"

In any other scenario merely changing T&Cs does not constitute opt-in consent. That would have to involve some form of action on the user's part like logging on to the site, putting a tick in the check box next to "Sign Me Up for Phorm & General Abuse Now" and clicking Apply Ok - in other words it would need to be agreed to at account level only carried out the once and lasting until you wanted to opt-out.

As usual they will try their best to conceal the fact that this for them represents their biggest problem which, as usual, will result in being be a mostly futile exercise on their part after their PR spin gets the better of them and destroys their argument...

I realise they've dumbed down their PR - but has Kent dumbed himself down (leopard vs spots etc)

So far it has not been that difficult to disarm Phorm because they always highlight aspects of their system that their target audience couldn't care less about in the hope that they'll be so dazzled they'll completely forget about the real problem areas. That's going to happen with the PIA even with Simon's input - it will still be OTT PR driven and delivered to us in a contemptuous manner because that's Phorm's perception of us and it's not difficult to work out the true company policy with regard to us - the user/doner/victim. Kent Ertugrul gave it away at the meeting by refusing to acknowledge Alexander, if the CEO behaves this way it's a fair assumption that this attitude will be prevalent in the board room which, in turn, reflects in company policy - he can be sooo transparent!

Just my 2p

And


Kent Ertugrul must've listened to this a lot as a child...

Prince charming
Prince charming
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of


Kent Ertugrul vs Amy Winehouse

They tried to make me change to opt-in but I said 'no, no, no'
Yes I've been bad but now we're named Phorm I'm white as snow, snow, snow
I ain't got the time - if BT Retail thinks I'm fine
They tried to make me go for opt-in but I won't go go go

:D

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

I would advise any bt user thinking of being trialed to not partake in any of the bt beta of phorm just to get the message across that its not wanted.

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

as a change of pace, its interesting that when you go to the copyrighted webwise name site, and ask bruce about Phorm he doesnt know about it! ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/


the terms on that page are also werth a read (but you have done that already right?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/

funny how stepping away and looking at other related things brings you to other possibilitys,i was looking for the webwise Amiga clips of years gone by and came across yet another new Classic animation by the much revered Eric Schwartz of Amiga Animation and Graphics fame

you really must see this new classic Added: April 03, 2008

"Still Alive" 'We Do What We Must, Because We Can...'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q
"Animated Amiga Tribute by Eric Schwartz"

there are several re-mixes of this now, and it seems its a very good fit for the Users/ISP/Phorm fight.

heres one idea for the creative users talents collected here, how about you take the Eric Schwartz Still Alive soundtrack and inspiration and adapt it to a CF/phorm "Still Alive" Information video Remix?

heres another good remix example in the informative format im thinking of,and some more remixes on its related video's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIhOj...eature=related

something to pass the time constructively for those that want to do something, but dont know what, to help get the word out in a creative way, while we wait for the click! on tuesday.

perhaps if your work is good enough it might find a link into the click website alongside the CF thread ( i asume they will link in to here and ElReg right, giving credit and all that?)

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

this is an interesting laymans read and something thats not been talked about regarding Phorm in the internal network as yet
http://complianceandprivacy.com/News...at-source.html
Dam Data Leakage at Source

---------- Post added at 07:13 ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 ----------

perhaps someone to chat with....
http://complianceandprivacy.com/blog...ker-index.html
"Rebecca Wong's "DP Thinker" Blog

Rebecca has a commentary on Data Protection, usually with a United Kingdom bias. She is a Lecturer in law at Nottigham Trent University. Recent works include assisting the European funded project, PRIVIREAL , which aimed to examine the implementation of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC in relation to medical research and the role of ethics committees.
DP Thinker is a UK based cyberblog by a legal scholar, specialising in privacy and data protection developments (be it within Europe or the US). Any feedback/views to postings on DP Thinker are always welcome.
Currently exploring the implications of outsourcing and data protection. If you have views on this subject, please email her.
Publications to Date

• Wong, R. The shape of things to come: Swedish developments on the protection of privacy, Script-Ed , (2005), 2.
• Wong, R. Privacy: charting its developments and prospects In: Klang, M. & A. Murray, Human Rights in the Digital Age , January 2005.

"

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

I understand the argument Bonglet, but some of us will attempt to get on the trial just to find out what happens if we get the invite page (which I consider an interception in itself depending on when and how it appears - if it is while visting a bt page fair enough, but if it is when I am visiting any other page then its an illegal interception of my browser) then we will opt out (and then block all the relevant domains) and see what happens - does that break our browsing? What is in the logs? etc etc.

Some will opt in and do a few tests of a similar nature - for example I'd like to opt in and then visit my own website and inspect the access logs to see what happens there. It's the only way of finding out technically what they are actually DOING - because let's face it - they have a history of non-disclosure when they do trials. Non-disclosure is my polite word you understand?

And of course you can bet that if there is anything we don't like, about the trial, we'll be making a fuss with BT and publicly. It's important there are some people on the trial that care - otherwise it will just be 10,000 bits of live bait who swallowed Ertugrul's phishing hook.

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

for easyer search reference later...pecr_guidance
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...part2_1206.pdf

"
There may be different interpretations of the requirement that the user or subscriber should be 'given the opportunity to refuse' the use of the cookie type device. At the very least, however, the user or subscriber should be given a clear choice as to whether or not they wish to allow a service provider to continue to store information on the terminal in question. "

"
The fact that an 'opportunity to refuse' such storage or access must be provided imposes a greater obligation on the relevant party than simply making refusal a possibility.

The mechanism by which a subscriber or user may exercise their right to refuse continued storage should be prominent, intelligible and readily available to all, not just the most computer literate or technically aware.

Where the relevant information is included in a privacy policy, for example, the policy should be clearly signposted at least on those pages where a user may enter a website.

The relevant information should appear in the policy in a way that is suitably prominent and accessible and it should be worded so that all users and subscribers are able to easily understand and act upon it. "


"

3.2 Purposes for processing
Traffic data may be processed only for the restricted purposes outlined in the Regulations.
• To provide value added services to the subscriber or user
A value added service means any service which requires the processing of traffic data or location data beyond that which is necessary to transmit a communication or the billing of that communication. For example, a service which locates the driver of a broken-down vehicle. There is no restriction on the type of service that can be provided but such processing may only take place with the prior consent of the subscriber or user. "

hence the value added webwise anti phishing value added service requirement to allow for the extra processing permission Obviously they require in the act... it doesnt have to be great just there to conform with the 3.2 or so they think

"3.3 Consent to process for the above purposes

Where traffic data is processed for the above purposes, the prior consent of the subscriber or user of the line or account must be obtained. In the case of a corporate subscriber, it is reasonable for the communications provider to accept at face value the assurances of a person giving consent on behalf of the company unless the communications provider has reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.

The Regulations do not prescribe how service providers should obtain this consent.

However, in order to obtain valid informed consent, the subscriber or user should be given sufficient clear information for them to have a broad appreciation of how the data is going to be used and the consequences of consenting to such use (see

Legal Guidance paragraph 3.1.7).

In light of this the service provider will not be able to rely on a blanket 'catch all' statement on a bill or a website but rather will need to obtain specific informed consent for each value added service requested and to market their own electronic communications services.

Where, for example, a value added service is provided by a communications provider by using a third party, in the interests of transparency the person who will be seen to be responsible for providing that service should obtain the consent to process for this purpose.

Whether this will be the service provider, the third party or both will depend on the specific circumstances.

If the communications provider offers a value added service jointly with a third party, the user should be made aware of both parties.

The point is that the way in which a service is provided should be consistent with the expectations of the subscriber or user.

Where the user provides consent to one party to provide a particular service, they should not then be surprised when they are contacted by another party relating to the provision of that service.

The Regulations also specifically require that the subscriber or user is provided with information regarding the types of traffic data which is to be processed and the duration of such processing.

The subscriber or user may withdraw any such consent given to process related traffic data at any time. "

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

Please can someone PM me the link to the 'dodgy' Phorm site, so I can review?
Thanks

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

Copied and pasted from The Register comments section

"We've now blocked all access from BT IP ranges to our websites
By Steve Roper
Posted Friday 18th April 2008 06:52 GMT

As the IT Manager for our company and an admin for 22 commercial domains, I have now circulated the following letter to all our clients who are operating eCommerce websites on our system:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear [CLIENT_NAME],

It has recently come to our attention that BT, a major ISP in the United Kingdom, has allegedly been engaging in illegal interception practices possibly for the past few years. These practices involve intercepting traffic between your hosted website and any viewer of that site who is a residential customer of BT, and passing this intercepted information to a company known as Phorm, a known purveyor of spyware and malware. According to some reports, the possibility exists that even SSL encrypted traffic, such as credit card payment pages, may be intercepted due to the way ISP servers operate.

Obviously, this presents a serious fraud risk both for you and your valued customers. Consequently, we have put in place a system to prevent any person using BT as their ISP from accessing your website. Such persons will instead be redirected to a warning page advising them of the fraud risk and suggesting they use a different ISP. We believe that the loss of some visitors to your site is more than offset by the mitigation of the fraud risk presented by this situation.

If you disagree with our action, please advise us as soon as possible, and we will remove the anti-BT blocking at your request. However, should you choose to remove the blocking, you must agree to assume any and all liability for loss and damage as a result of credit card fraud on your website, since we cannot guarantee the security of your data in the face of such interception. In this case we will provide you with an amended Hosting Agreement which you would need to sign and return to us in order for us to continue hosting your website.

If you agree with our action, however, you need do nothing further, and your current Hosting Agreement and all data security guarantees will continue in full force and effect.

Should BT discontinue this practice and provide evidence that they are no longer intercepting their customers' traffic we will of course restore full access to your website for their customers.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further inquiries concerning this matter.

Regards,

Steve Roper

IT Manager,

[company details redacted "

I salute you Mr Roper.

This is the kind of action that will really get things moving.

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

ohh, alexander and other interested readers of the http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/084332.html for instance ( i cant be bothered to sign up and you dont make it easy to post one off comments, but your reading this thread as you quote it)

did you see and read the
DTI Consultation – The Information Commissioner’s Response

(yack, i have to split the url to stop it scrolling off the page, cut and past it back and remove the carrage returns to use)
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/privacy_and_electronic
/detailed_specialist_guides/privacy_and_electronic_communications_regulations
_dti_consultation.pdf

very interesting clarification in support of users regarding cookies, consent, and even perhaps (through a loophole that doesnt seem to state only phonelines/voice/audio communications that i can find) CLI value added services providers.

"Should service providers be under a stronger requirement to provide a full range of CLI services as proposed?
In our view, subject to any genuine technical impediments there may be, service providers should be under a clear obligation to provide the full range of CLI services that the directive requires. "

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

Did the ICO not read their own guidence document before their original statement on phorm?

This document is absolutely unequivocal on the rights of the users in the BT trials.

It seems that BT/phorm didn't make the slightest effort to comply with privacy regulations in these
trials and it does seem very suspicious regarding the lack of will to take this further by the police, home office and other bodies.

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

I'm still seeing this behaviour today.

I've narrowed it down to the blocking of phorm.com.

Is no one else seeing this?

Does no one else have phorm.com blocked?

Seriously, no internet connectivity unless phorm.com is not blocked -- what else can that mean but all my internet activity is passing through, or relying upon a response from, phorm.com at some point?

Tracert to bbc.co.uk:

Without phorm.com blocked

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 5 ms 6 ms 10.157.4.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 5 ms midd-t2cam1-b-ge914.inet.ntl.com [213.106.239.20
9]
3 7 ms 6 ms 5 ms midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com [195.182.17
6.113]
4 16 ms 10 ms 11 ms ren-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.75.49]
5 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms man-bb-a-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.170]

6 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms gfd-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.252.192.94]
7 18 ms 19 ms 20 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.78]
8 172 ms 223 ms 31 ms 212.58.238.189
9 20 ms 19 ms 17 ms 212.58.238.133
10 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]

Trace complete.

With phorm.com blocked

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 5 ms 5 ms 6 ms 10.157.4.1
2 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms midd-t2cam1-b-ge914.inet.ntl.com [213.106.239.20
9]
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 12 ms 49 ms 11 ms ren-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.75.49]
5 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms man-bb-a-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.170]

6 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms gfd-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.252.192.94]
7 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.78]
8 20 ms 19 ms 20 ms 212.58.238.189
9 18 ms 19 ms 17 ms 212.58.238.133
10 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]

Trace complete.

The third hop seems to be the culprit. Times out on:

midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com

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

apparently not.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

that doesnt make sense...:shrug: i cant think of any reason why blocking web routed IPs would effect local LAN IP routing :scratch:

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

Err... I think you've blocked a little more than just phorm.com the range you indicated (88.208.248.102 - 88.208.250.85) is virtually all of the fasthosts network.

At the moment these are how phorm/webwise/oix resolve:

phorm.com 88.208.250.66
webwise.com 88.208.250.66
oix.net 207.44.186.90

Try just blocking those (2) IPs...

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

I just have phorm.com blocked at the minute and am seeing the same behaviour.

I should add that I've had those blocks up for over a week with no problem until about 10 pm last night when I noticed some sites were unreachable. I shutdown the computer after poking around for a few minutes and when I booted up about an hour and a half later there was no connectivity. That's when I decided to unblock those addresses just to see -- to my surprise, all connectivity returned.

Same for today.

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

I have phorm.com as: 88.208.250.85

http://www.hcidata.info/host2ip.cgi

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

try blocking a different site on its own eg. google or bbc instead of phorm and see if you get the same result

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

hmm regarding the 3rd hop tracert, if your were on the BT network , you might think they were using and testing their new opted-out unlawful cookie storage/ip blocking scam to intercept and then re-route you...

BUT YOUR ON THE VM NETWORK, Hmmmmm.

kt88, i got the impression he was only blocking those two and not a full range, perhaps he will clarify that.

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

With only bbc.co.uk blocked connectivity is fine.

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

I had the full range blocked. The lower end of that range I had seen posted in this thread (I think) as a phorm address as well as the upper. I decided to block the whole range in case they had a block.

But, I just have phorm.com blocked now and am seeing the problem as well.

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

http://www.all-nettools.com/toolbox
phorm.com (88.208.250.66)

http://tools.virginmedia.com/cgi-bin...p.pl?phorm.com
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: phorm.com
Addresses: 88.208.250.66, 88.208.250.85, 207.44.186.90

Doesn't matter which of those I block... able to browse without any problem... and tracerts to beeb are all similar to this one...

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gatekeeper [192.168.0.1]
2 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms 10.7.44.1
3 7 ms 8 ms 7 ms nrwh-t2cam1-a-ge98.inet.ntl.com [81.100.32.37]
4 12 ms 8 ms 7 ms pete-t2core-a-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [80.3.129.9]
5 11 ms 9 ms 13 ms nth-bb-a-so-710-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.225]
6 34 ms 14 ms 13 ms gfd-bb-b-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
7 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.78]
8 16 ms 19 ms 16 ms 212.58.238.189
9 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 212.58.238.133
10 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]

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

Could someone please send me the link also I have someone who has been finding faults with Phorm who would like to add this information to his list of exploits. This could help us win them..

I am away for the weekend no internet connection sinc emy daughter has my laptop for a few weeks.. will catch up when i get back on Sunday might take all night at the rate this thread grows.

Keep up the good work all..

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

I'm just blocking the domain name now (phorm.com), so I would assume the firewall blocks all of those.

Your trace doesn't pass through the suspect culprit of midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com, so I wonder what's up with it.

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

I've got phorm.com blocked via my firewall (Firestarter) and other sites are working fine.

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

Noted the reports above.

Can someone try the following URLs, see if anything is spotted?

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/serve...mal/index.html

(Click go button to start test)

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/serve...test/index.php

(Expect to see yellow image on Virgin/BT/TalkTalk, red image is very bad)

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

Over the past few days, Florence and I have been in a detailed and I think very productive email exchange with Simon Watkin and Andrew Knight at the Home Office, specifically covering their view of RIPA in relation to the Phorm trials and the proposed Phorm implementation. They were keen to ensure that the points could be established without a free for all, otherwise a conclusion may never be reached.

I recognise there is a danger arising from just a couple of posters being involved in this process. However I think it is justified by the substantial progress we have made, and that quite soon the points formulated will be open for public debate.

The aim is to bring them to a position where they can issue some further public opinions on Phorm and the RIPA, whether via a press release or on here (that's effectively up to them). I hope that we'll have achieved this by early next week.

We're covering about ten points, but as I think we are agreed on the first three I thought I'd share these with you. Please bear in mind that this information is my interpretation of the email exchange, and although I have every reason to believe it is accurate, the Home Office has not approved the wording and so the final version may differ.

1. RIPA provides a statutory framework for regulating the conduct of public authorities which may interfere with individuals’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

2. RIPA provides for lawful authority for intercepting communications but also provides for an offence of unlawful interception which any person, absolutely anyone, is able to commit.

3. The Home Office (outside of its immigration functions) is not an investigatory body. It is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception.

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

Portly-Giraffe and Florence - Great work keep us updated.

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

What am I supposed to see? I got a JS popup saying the page was intercepted, then another text message saying I probably wasn't intercepted.

Using the "with redirection" I get:

THIS TEXT APPEARS BECAUSE INTERCEPTION AND REDIRECTION HAS OCCURRED

In production, after detecting the interception you would suppress this content, and potentially block the user or even the ISP from further interactions with your site.

I get a yellow image for the other test.

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

You are probably not being intercepted.

This text would not be visible in a production implementation.

cpc2-norw6-0-0-cust***.pete.cable.ntl.com

Friday 18th of April 2008 10:57:22 AM

Yellow image...

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

No interception on first test

and a yellow image for the second test


Can I also express my thanks To Portly and Florence for their work, I have to agree that having too many people involved could have confused and delayed the process.

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

I just clicked the first URL, tested without redirection, all was fine, tested WITH redirection& I got this:

What does this mean?

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

On the dephormation page, don't use the without redirection and with redirection links, a bit further down the page is a button marked Go, this is the one to perform a test on your current connection, the two other links are to show you what is displayed in each instance.

Hope this helps

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

Wooah take screenshots of all this Heed i would say you have a case that you are being intercepted if this is the case, start gathering all your information as fast as you can seem virgin have installed the kit at various headends if what you say is correct and refers to the statment that kent himself posted on you tube about it being installed early march of in a few weeks (or are you a bt customer?).

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

Those test results are fine.

Don't run the test with redirection... (you'll get redirected by design ;o) an an alert will be displayed.. its only for demo).

Just run the normal test.

On the normal speed trap test I'd expect to see a message that says 'you are probably not being intercepted', and on the cookie test, a yellow image.

*However* if Phorm put that site on a black list, you might also expect the same result.

So if it detects Phorm it is very bad, but it may simply fail to detect Phorm too... if you see what I mean.

(You're welcome to copy the code and adapt for other sites btw)

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

Hang on... don't be too quick to jump to conclusions...

May help if anyone else who goes through: midd-t3core-1b-ge-010-0.inet.ntl.com could try

@heed

as ravenheart said... just press go... what do you get then?

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

Okay, the normal test (just pressed go) shows a JS popup saying the page was intercepted with a follow up text message saying I probably was not intercepted.

Bonglet, I'm a VM customer.

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

Heed can you run with FF2? (I think versions of IE may struggle with the AJAX code).

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

I just have Opera installed. I'll try IE and grab a FF download.

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

I don't see the first popup, just the text I posted earlier... over to Pete... ( edit: who beat me to it... :) )

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

we trust that you and Florence will be fine go-betweens, the only thought right now, as im busy and overworked lol, so i may miss some points, is what are these 10 points as an overview?.

not to concerned with the exact text right now,just the outline, but given Alexanders outlines and the relationships with the EU regulations the RIPA is based on there might be more points to raise for clarity.

remember, in court one side always losses....so we want to be clear s we can be given the collective here contributing, and on the same page, we should be fine generally.

it would be good to know if all the points needing to be raised were clear and covered in the general terms, before they issue any quick text in the hope of keeping the readership quiet.

if you can outline the other missing 7 points we can consider if there are infact more that need raising before the next set of emails get sent by you both, i think its better to take a day and be clear, rather than having you keep sending emails round-robin.

point 1 , sure we all conceed public authorities have powers with legal review and the right paperwork inplace, so that is null and void for most things, and not aparty to the totally seperate and required clarification of the ISP or Phorm parnership as a profit making party agreement.


2a the same.

2b sure it seems the rules clearly cover this and to the FULL LETTER OF THE LAW....

this is the part we need them to state as fact in their opinion, and their responsibility to pass on any and all facts to the right people in scotland yard for instance, and an undertaking that they will without any more delay.... do so.

just as a few first thoughts you understand, theres probably more, Alexander?, others?.....

3: im not so sure about that but i cant think of exactly why right now, minds a little foggy ATM, all those PDFs over a long timeframe are bad for the logic and total recall ;(

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

No JS popup with IE and a success message.

Yellow image on second test.

EDIT:

No JS popup with FF2 and a success message.

Yellow image on second test.


The popup might be the way Opera is handling the page code?

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

Just ran the test here with FF2 and IE7. Both are fine, no alerts displayed by the AJAX code etc. Same result "You are probably not being intercepted".

So if you're using the same browsers as I am, I would not expect you to see alerts at all on the normal speed trap test (ie, no redirection).

If you are running the normal test (without redirection) and you get an alert in FF2/IE7, you do need to investigate that further.

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

Same as what i had under IE which browser were you using before that?

nvm opera i saw ;s

strange how you get the timeout on the 3rd hop with a know phorm ip blocked though ;s

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

Ahh Opera. Yes you might see strange stuff with Opera. Each one of the browsers does AJAX sliiiiiiightly differently. Its a real pain - classic client side coding problems... all browsers except the one the user has.

Sorry, I'll update the text to state that Opera may not work.

Never the less, still sounds like there is something odd going on with blocking Phorm.com n'est pas?

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

Could I politely ask that members take discussions about strange browser behaviour to another thread?

I'm finding it difficult to follow this thread now two subjects are being discussed.
Thanks.

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

Indeed. It almost seems that phorm.com is acting like a DNS. I just get "page unreachable"/"could not resolve host name" messages when phorm.com is blocked. Doesn't matter the app or the protocol.

Also, I mentioned this in my first post, but if I visit a site (like this one) and then block phorm.com after visiting, the site will generally then function fine.

EDIT: dav, this "strange browsing behaviour" is directly related to me blocking phorm.com. That's not relevant here?

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

What are your DNS servers set to?

ipconfig /all ?

Is the DNS server the same as Phorm.com?

Mine (on VM); DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 62.31.176.39, 194.117.134.19, 195.188.53.175

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

I may be wrong but i seem to vaguely recall someone else on here having similar problems with the middlesboro(?) servers a couple of weeks ago.

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

Seconded

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

The standard VM DNS servers are shown:

194.168.4.100
194.168.8.100

Roadrunner69:

Except for the fact that as soon as I unblock phorm.com all functions normally. I doubt the server is going up and down at the exact moments I block/unblock phorm.com.

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

open one and point them to it to make life easyer, and they can jump beteen as required, but we will need to know this stuff at some point so dont stop posting this important knowhow.

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

Heed - I'd take this to a new thread as requested.

If you can't even get to your local router status page then its unlikely to be a Phorm/DNS issue... Its more likely a misconfiguration of the firewall, isn't it? (correct me if I'm wrong).

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

I don't know. As I've said, I had those blocks up for a week or more. Just last night I started to see this behaviour.

New thread here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...phorm-com.html

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

I will send you a private message covering this. if any other poster wants the list, please send me a message.

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

Just one important point to clarify Portly_Giraffe regarding point 3:

3. The Home Office (outside of its immigration functions) is not an investigatory body. It is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception.

While that may be true the Home Office does have an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them. The fact that the police have been obstructive when attempts have been made to report to them, that very clearly, imho, comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. They need to stop passing the buck and playing pass the parcel and get on with dealing with it.

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

I have to agree with you on this one, I am sure if we keep pressing the button they will get the message. Doubt any ISP will start Phorm while there is still so much publicuty on so we have to keep the pressure up can't sit back yet and relax.

---------- Post added at 12:17 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

I am in Wales till Sunday so please try to keep this thread on track and god help me trying to catch up on Sunday..

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

I forgot to also says thank you to you (Portly_Giraffe and Florence) for the work you have done and time spent discussing these issues with Simon Watkins. Keep on fighting :)

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

There's been some buys on Phorm! :O

HERE