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

With all due respect what you are saying about a random attack is simply not possible. If you actually took the time and worked out the maths you would realised that even for a 5 character alpha-numeric string there are 60 million combinations. If the spammer sent 2 emails per second it will still take a year to complete the send.

Furthermore I run several domains and I've never seen the type of spam you indicate. I've seen dictionary and name combinations and even some name + numeric but never random.

The email I chose was longer than 5 characters and random. I never used it other than to do the test. There is every reason to *suggest* it leaked, but no *evidence*.

Re: Virgin Media Ad Deal - Would you be opting out?
 

I believe that this is officially classified as
Intra-ISP_spyware ;)

Re: Virgin Media Ad Deal - Would you be opting out?
 

Possibly this is more evil and even harder to do anything about if you let it get installed!!

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

Going back through the PR it does look as if they originally intended to go ahead with the trials with the opt-out cookie, and then maybe move to a non-cookie based system if the privacy lobbying became too hot. However, it looks like inter alia the ICO report spooked them re the legal position and is holding up the trials while they reconfigure. Probably also the cost of doing this and impact of opt-in is causing some internal tensions not to mention involving other parts of BT who may need convincing that this is a good thing to do. So if the trials don't go ahead it will obviously tell us something about phorm's long term future in the UK, but I believe so too will it if they decide to 'publish and be damned' and go ahead with a cookie based trial exposing BT to potentially substantial financial penalties.

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

For your attention:

Over on BadPhorm we have a thread about the Marketing/Sales conmen absolutely fearing the "Opt-in" nuclear option as directed by the ICO for their unwanted industry 'peddling junk' (also known as 'advertising').

Marketers: Opt-In Would Be 'Armageddon'
http://badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/f...topic.php?5348

If you follow the thread you will come to an exchange between myself and Cowherd regarding the take up of WebLies by Phorm****.

Cowherd gives his estimate to be ">50% opt-in" whereas I state the takeup will be very VERY small, a figure supported by CF forum
~ 96% say Ph**koff
~ 4% yes please, and can you take a dump on my dinner plate while your at it.

Anyhow another poll has been brought to my attention by felixcatuk (CF's very own deformation guy) that is currently running at 100%. Please feel free to register your vote here as well.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=901747&highlight=Phorm

as of checking now (23:30 7th May 2008) that figure is based on 22 voters.

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

Thanks for the 'sticky' Mick and to all who supported the idea :).

Y'know, VM have an unprecedented marketing coup staring them in the face. All they have to do is make a categoric announcement that they will NOT sign up to webwise and that they welcome new customers who want to avoid the whole disgrace and Bob's yer uncle fanny's yer aunt.

This is by far their best move. The Internet is the property of users not providers. Testing that is a risk akin to opening pandoras box. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back....

Oh, and if you've just joined this great forum, read here! Sorry guys, I couldn't resist it!

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

Q) Do you want to join Webwise for free and receive anti-phishing protection and more relevant advertising?

A) 90% say "yes please" as they bend over and drop their metaphorical pants.

:monkey::monkey::monkey:

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

And I've reworked the home page of http://www.inphormationdesk.org/ to include a summary and Kursk's excellent list. Any comments to the usual places - the site is for everyone to contribute to.

---------- Post added at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was yesterday at 23:52 ----------

The more people who point this out to them, the better. You can see the same suggestion at http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Samp...il_Berkett.pdf

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

I got a gmail account and had all NTLworld emails directed to that and let gmail sort the spam out made life much easier for me.
Most try to arrrange the last week mind I have read where some have been given MAC keys which BT have said are incorrect so you were lucky to escape in one month.
Best not start cold calling my number or I will get TPS onto them since I registered with them to stop the cold calling selling me stuff I didn't ask for, strange considering I was ex directory.

the more I read the happier I am that I have already moved to a phorm phree ISP.



Maybe they have since I have been told in confidance that it is more when it is applied more than if..
Plug away and be proud of your efforts it is the only way to win.

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

The trouble with Virgin Media is the same problem that seems to inflict Mr G Brown - Dithering. Both claim to listen, but both prove by their actions that reality and what goes inside their heads are worlds apart.

Take the bull by the horn VM and put a rudder on the rocking boat and sail to the land of common sense and leave the bad 'Phorm' behind. Their is absolutely no way that Virgin Media will come out more profitable if they hang around with Kentski boys.

VM are not just dealing with a rational and understandable dislike of Phorm. Phorm seem to be absolutely and unconditionally despised by most of their ever growing numbers of opponents. Whether it is because of reasons similar to myself that have had dealings with 121 Media (Phorm) and their invasive spyware on PC's and the general mistrust that goes with it, or whether the opposition have legal reasons why Phorm wire tapping stinks, the anti-Phorm campaign will never stop or go away. Until Phorm and their illegal Webwise product is defeated, any ISP associated with webwise will be seen as a social Pirahia by lots of its customers. If that is the ongoing publicity Virgin Media seek - you are very foolish. Nip this in the head now before your standing becomes a joke! Don't fall into the Microsoft trap. If you provide an operating system, don't provide addons that have nothing to do with that basic functionality. Vista is a clear example. (And all the EU fines :-)

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

I don't know if VM are feeling pressure over this or not. Perhaps they are just sitting smugly on the fence letting BT take the flak.

What I do know is that we are in the lull before the storm and everyone is waiting to hammer BT. When their trial is out the way (?), VM go under the spotlight.

Nobody is really taken in by last weeks announcement and we will all be a lot better informed by the time VM come to try this.

Yep, they could be mopping up BT customers by the bucket load, and we would all be helping to spread the message. That would be proper advertising, on the cheap as well.

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

MAN THATS A GOOD FIND!

Does anyone have a link to the actual opt-in/out/shake-it-all-about agreement?

I mean theres cause here under the new legislation to impose that it explains in laymans therms that "Webwise offers you an anti-phishing service whilst also reading through everything you do online! would you like us to search all your packets in order to keep you safe from hacked websites?"

I can see phorm shares rock bottoming after this new bombshell.
Yet another law to break in a greatly increasing list :)

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

Checking my e-mail, unfortunately Mark W of the BT forum can't join us for a cozy chat.

He kindly suggests that I contact an Adam L via the BT press office instead.

(Surnames shortened by me)

Do the BT bods here think that Adam, and perhaps, the BT press office would like to join us on CF for a bit of a natter? One can only try.

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

if you beleave kent, there is not opt-in/out agreement, its all down to the ISPs to chose their options, yeah right.......

on another right's related but OT subject to consider.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...s-due-councils
"
Lie detectors extend their reach to social security helplines

No they're not, yes they are, no they're not....

By Mark Ballard: Wednesday, 07 May 2008, 5:49 PM

THE GOVERNMENT has put £1.5million up for another round of lie detector test pilots for social security helplines run by local authorities in the UK.

"



here a link to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as mentioned on MF.

Made
2008
Coming into force
26th May 2008


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra...110811574_en_1
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

this section is most interesting on a very quick skim
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra..._en_2#pt2-l1g5
Misleading actions
"
(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if—
(a) it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or
(b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—
(i) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
(ii) the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,
and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.
"

and this is just to much fun to leave out here ;)

"
Aggressive commercial practices

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—
(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and
(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—
(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;
(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;
(c) the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;
(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and
(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—
(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and
(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.
"

---------- Post added at 03:31 ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 ----------

it just gets better and better ;)

part 3
OFFENCES
"Offences relating to unfair commercial practices

8.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he knowingly or recklessly engages in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence under regulation 3(3)(a);..."

"
Penalty for offences

13. A person guilty of an offence under regulation 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both...."

"
Offences committed by bodies of persons

15.—(1) Where an offence under these Regulations committed by a body corporate is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) In paragraph (1) a reference to an officer of a body corporate includes a reference to—
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer; and
(b) a person purporting to act as a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer.
(3) Where an offence under these Regulations committed by a Scottish partnership is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
the partner as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) In paragraph (3) a reference to a partner includes a person purporting to act as a partner."

hmm, this parts odd, guilty until proven innocent ?????, not sure i like that part.... an accused person has to prove innocence ?, perhaps im misreading it as i skim the text!

"
Due diligence defence

17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—"

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

From Motley Fool

"Well, from 26 May, we shall also have new and improved protection with The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If a business uses any unfair practice, it should be covered under these new rules."

Any significance of that date and the (new) proposed start of the BT trials?