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

Noticed that 50k share buy a little while ago... someone thinks they are worth a punt... unless there's a bit of shoring going on... phorm are ethical though - aren't they :D

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

Agreed.
But Simon Watkin and Andrew Knight are effectively pen-pushers offering advice to other, more directly active, departments with the Home Office.
All PG+F are trying to do is agree a common understanding of the framework of how RIPA operates.
I'd recommend leaving them to see how far they can quietly progress the discussion.
There's always the chance that Simon could revise his position and effectively 'force' the police to accept responsibility!

Good work, Portly_Giraffe and Florence. Thank you for your efforts.
:tu:

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

Totally agree with keeping the pressure on. This afternoon I intend to respond to the response I got from one of my MEPs thanking her for her correspondence and to ask her to thank her colleague Don Foster (Lib-Dem spokesperson for culture, media and sport) for his time and involvement in the issue. [ If you remember he is the MP who has written to the BT chairman asking him to account for the BT secret trials. ]

Vis-a-vis the having to catch up with the thread on Sunday you made me really laugh out loud hard. I remember last week when my arthritis in my spine and neck was really playing up and I had a major bout of headaches. I had a few days away from the thread and came back to find I had about 700 posts to read that I had missed. You have been warned :D

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

This site show it as a sell, so not sure which direction its going!

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp...re=phorm_reg_s

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

Agreed. I believe what Portly_Giraffe and Florence are doing are doing is valuable and I hope that with time and their considerable effort that they may be able to get Simon to revise his position as you say. Whatever happens it appears they are making constructive headway and that certainly is to be welcomed :)

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

If that information is accurate then it shows sales of Phorm shares today totalling about 1million GBP so far today so that is encouraging.

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

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...e_tap_charges/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6301243.stm

While they may not be an investigatory body, do they not have any powers to instruct a force (Met) to look into the allegations? (and if not then who does?) At this stage it wouldn't have to be a full investigation, it could simply be an assessment of whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a full investigation. It just seems to me and many others that nobody wants to start the process. Everyone playing pass the parcel (ticking bomb).

Just sticking to the 06/07 trials here ...

• Questioned about interception (RIPA) BT simply point to their compliance with the DPA? Mis-direction - RIPA (as far as I can see) says nothing about the purposes of the interception just that interception itself is an offense.
  
• BT seem to believe that as long as we can't identify individual targets, times and dates (information only BT have) no action can be taken. Isn't this why we call it "investigation"? I'm sure the Police do not generally rely on potential offenders walking through the door clutching a list of offenses that they want confess to.
  
• Only "a very small proportion" of customers were involved. How many does it take before it is a criminal act? One would be my guess. We may have 100,000+
  
• Our legal advice was .... Since when was it the role of hired legal council to decide your status. They can try the defense on your behalf once you are in a Court.

Hence the frustration. There certainly seems to be something worth investigation here so when will somebody make a move?

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

A reasonable article her from the Evening Standard. Read the first comment from a chap who is going to block all IPs belonging to BT,Virgin and TT !!!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-up/article.do

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

This below posted by badphormula on the badphorm site. It relates to the wiki nebuad entry. Certain terms are marked for deletion because google does not recognise them. The aim of the post is to help 'educate' google.
-----------------------------------------

Yes Phorm has a stablemate NebuAd. I noticed the description for NebuAd as intra-ISP spyware is proposed for deletion. That is intra-ISP spyware is proposed for deletion or "intra-ISP spyware" if you would like it in quotation marks. The reason for "intra-ISP spyware" deletion is that this search term is not picked up by Google, neither is the term i2spy. And therefore reference to "i2spy" is also proposed for deletion.

However for the more advanced Google searchers I think they will find the terms "i2spy" and "intra-ISP spyware" if they do a more specific search, such as below.

site:badphorm.co.uk "intra-ISP spyware"

If this result comes up blank don't worry, just try in a few days time after Google bots have had a chance to scan this thread. Therefore there will not be a need for the proposed deletion of "intra-ISP spyware" or "i2spy" because the good citizens of badphorm have kindly helped Google to find these appropriate search terms when refering to Phorm or its stablemate NebuAd.

Please feel free to mention these terms as many times as you like elsewhere on other forums and blogs so that Google comes to love these words.

"intra-ISP spyware"

"i2spy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2Spy (proposed for deletion)

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

Will be very interesting to see who is going to accept the liability on the T&C's on the very first Interception which is this jazzed up looking stop sign that kent keeps blabbing on about even though you have your hompage set to whatever.com.

Its like leaving for work in the morning and as you reach your front gate somebody is standing with a big question board (as in a street canvasser) you answer there questions then attempt to leave at that point your stripped, thrown around a bit sent down blind alleys then allowed to continue on your way (with a groundhog day effect continously in operation in the background) then on returning from wherever theres a tracking device implanted into your head, ready for the next attempt for you to leave your premises and rob you of everything you own even your own conscious.

If that conception dosent sound illegal to anyone you have to wonder :(.

Any isp thinking of such decisions could have real ramification on the future and claims against said isp, if phorm gives them the kit and it belongs to them isp's will be liable and phorm sneak off counting how much they made for ill adventure, if it did go ahead in uk laws whos to say that the eu couldnt assert authority over breach even though it has gone live.

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

I have just taken your advice and emailed Simon at the Home Office as well. Lets see what happens now

Colin

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

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2008/04/18.gif
I have just started to watch Kent's speech and I just burst out laughing. He quoted Dr Richard Clayton's statement as proof that they (Phorm) 'can't know who you are' saying it was in his (Richard's) words but Richard was saying what Phorm have said and is their arguement. Richard merely says they have some justification for arguing that point he doesn't say he agrees with it.

Before I watch any more I'm making sure I'm sitting well else I might hurt myself when I fall on the floor laughing.

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

Guys

Check this. its seems phorm are shitting it.


Posted here.

http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread....3044&from=1387


Phorm - 18 Apr'08 - 12:09 - 1362 of 1396


Hello, This is Lynne Millar, CFO of Phorm. For some time now, there has been
a great deal of misinformation about the system which we are rolling out
with the UK’s three largest ISPs and what it actually does. That's not
surprising, because it is a complicated system. In an effort to engage with
those who have privacy concerns in particular, we have taken a number of
steps to correct any misinformation and better explain how the system works.
However, we have not to date engaged with the investment community on
bulletin boards such as this one. We will now begin to do so in the interest
of presenting a fair and accurate picture of where we stand. We will not be
introducing new information, simply correcting misperceptions by calling
attention to easily verifiable facts already in the public domain.

Here are the three main areas of misunderstanding:

1) Our three ISP partners have strongly reassured us that they are in
no way reconsidering their decision to deploy or are in any way reducing
their level of commitment to the project

2) All advertisers, agencies and UK publishers that we have a dialogue
with retain a strong interest in our project and eagerly await launch

3) We have taken substantial legal advice and are confident that we
satisfy all legal requirements that could threaten any aspect of our
business model, whether relating to the way the technology works or the way
in which it is deployed.

I will periodically be addressing questions as time permits but
members of our team will be stepping in as necessary to correct glaring
errors of fact.

We are more excited than ever about our project. We are convinced that
over the coming weeks and months, its full significance to the online
advertising industry will be understood in the wider market and the press
and our need for outreach in forums such as this will diminish.


Regards,

Lynne Millar, CFO
http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_millar.php

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

I love the web...

Nov 2003: Data surveillance complaints have zero success rate

Simon Watkin of the Home Office told a Parliamentary meeting on Wednesday that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal -- which is made up of senior lawyers and judges -- had considered some 470 complaints from people who claimed they had been unfairly investigated under RIPA's powers, and had not upheld a single one...

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, told Wednesday's meeting that these statutory instruments could cause a "privacy apocalypse" in the UK. He believes they amount to a "snoopers' charter" that may violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Watkin, though, said that making more government agencies work within RIPA will actually tighten up privacy by establishing a proper code of conduct for public workers who want access to citizens' information."If the most junior of junior officials at the Trading Standards suspects me of a crime and wants to access my data, he can get it today. I'll be safer if he had to fill in a seven-page form and explain to a very senior manager why he wants that access," Watkin explained.

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

Perhaps they've seen the PIA and it undermines their business model?

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

So they ARE calling the Guardian liars :P

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

More reasons to love the web

Protecting privacy and protecting the public

[Simon Watkins]All data should be protected by their service providers. The law requires all disclosure and investigation of communications data to be strictly necessary and appropriate in the specific circumstances – never more than is necessary and never inappropriate, arbitrary or discriminatory.

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

Yuo should read the thread other Phorm IR team people are trying to reassure the shareholders.


if anyone else spots this on other investor sites please link from her.e

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

Not as much as they will be if if the FSA considers this type of action market abuse.:idea:

To be sure.... a politely worded email has already been sent to the FSA to make sure they are aware of this and asking them to investigate. :devsmoke:

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

Where there is PR and spin please reply directing people to view the videos at http://tobymeres.net

Don't forget these are unedited footage from a public meeting - there were no requests for confidentiality, no requests for not filming - cameras were invited.

Looks like Phorm realise that we're serious.

Back to my e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk.

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

Will do Capt'n

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

From a post in the Webwise discussion thread @ BT Support Forums
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread...rt=0&start=120

Might be an idea - maybe Phorm/Webwise or Webwise/Phorm to open up the range of available info for those googling "Webwise"?

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

Damn, the financial stuff happened just after I'd sent this e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk... And grateful thanks to the folk who keep this discussion thread going - you've helped word this and my earlier e-mails.

"Dear Lord Northesk,

Thank you for replying even though you are overseas. I and others appreciate your response. There are many others who share my confusion over why the Home Office has not acted to initiate investigative proceedings into the BT secret trials which could now have involved some 108,000 customers.

It has been suggested that the Home Office is not an investigatory body and that it is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception. This suggestion may well be true but the Home Office has an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them.

Given that the Metropolitan Police refused to issue a crime number when Alexander Hanff attempted to report the tests as a crime, the full details being at http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html, there is now at least one example of the Police being obstructive and failing to do their duty. That surely comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Chris Williams of The Register has also highlighted the Home Office's failure to act in a report at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/ some of which I quote for your reference:

"The government has refused to investigate BT's covert wiretapping of thousands of its customers in 2006 and 2007, despite its own expert's view that without consent Phorm's advertising targeting technology is a breach of criminal law.

Whitehall's willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people were spied on by big business in order to serve up targeted marketing has angered web users. "I'm absolutely sickened and appalled," Pete John, who has tried to interest authorities, told The Register this week.

BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission."

A number of CableForum users and The Register readers have used government online chat forums to put questions to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary but our questions have been ignored.

A public meeting was held in London on Tuesday as a forum to discuss many of the issues surrounding Phorm. Organised by 80/20 Thinking, attendees were publicly invited via CableForum to bring cameras. I was able to attend some of the meeting and filmed the presentations of Simon Davies (80/20 Thinking), Kent Ertegrul (Phorm CEO), Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University and FIPR) and Alexander Hanff who has worked extensively towards the campaign against Phorm. I saw nothing at that meeting to dissuade me from my beliefs that Phorm is illegal under RIPA, it offers nothing in the way of value to me as a customer and that if this business model is allowed to go live as it is now it threatens privacy and lacks any kind of audit trail and accountability.

In the interests of keeping the discussions open and honest these videos are now posted unedited at http://tobymeres.net for people to see, as the professionally filmed versions are not yet online. By posting these unedited versions there is a record of what was actually said in the presentations, the intention being to prevent Phorm's PR from attempting to spin them.

I and others yesterday received an e-mail response from the Information Commissioner's Office informing us that the complaints we had made dated the last week of February had finally been allocated case numbers. The ICO claims that they are "currently dealing with large volumes of work", hence the nearly seven week delay in responding.

I sincerely hope that your question to the Home Office gets a substantial and meaningful response. There are many people who are very interested in what the Home Office has to say about what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of action.

Thank you again for your reply. If I can be of further assistance please contact me and I will endeavour to be of service.

I remain sincerely yours,"

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

3 partners? I can only see 2 logos on the Webwise site! My ISP BT and TalkTalk. Richard B seems to have taken his ball home.
www.webwise.com - apologies to any offended by that url

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

Just by way of info - here is the current statement for interested / concerned customers from VM on this - to me it appears to be a definite step back from the initial info on the VM Webwise page (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php)

Latest Statement.

"We're still currently focused on understanding better the Webwise technology and the many complicated technical questions around how it could be integrated into our network architecture. We can therefore say at this stage that a) there are absolutely no foregone conclusions; and b) consumer concerns around privacy and data protection, not to mention any adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation, are (and will remain) an important element in our deliberations.

In the event Virgin Media does roll out this solution, all customers will be notified and will not be forced to use the system. However, to reiterate, no solution has yet been implemented and will not be until we are confident that it is compliant to do so."

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

Their blurb seems to change by a few words each day. Next week's version??

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

Well, I just got a response from VM's customer complaints department:

This allays one of my fears (that they'd find some way to pretend that this wasn't enough of a change in the service to allow me leaving penalty-free), and kind of suggests that they might be looking into not going ahead with the whole system. Nothing, however, on my question as to whether my opted-out data would still be passing through the Phorm systems if it did go ahead.

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

That's good stuff - each time I see a statement from VM they're being more and more cagey about it: I'm actually considerably cheered up by that. Time for a new letter, methinks, I'd like to have something like that statement in writing myself.

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

That was the statement read to me when VM phoned me. Seems a bit different to what Lynne Millar is claiming. How does The Guardian's rejection fit in with that statement? And does the financial community know about Phorm being exposed when it tried to edit the Wikipedia entry?

Phorm - Inphormation which prefers to delete already known facts. Straight out of the Mugabe school of thinking...

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

I may have missed this but have people listened to the interview with Richard Clayton on the Guardian Tech Weekly podcast:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...weekly.podcast

It starts at 14:30

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

I would be very interested in commencing a serious dialogue with the Earl of Northesque, could you politely ask his permission to pass his email address on to me so I can do this?

Thanks

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

By the way I know I have been quiet on the forums today, but please don't take this as a sign that I am not doing anything. I caught up on a little sleep today (after being up all night again last night) but I am still very much actively engaged in this campaign. My workload has basically tripled since the meeting on Tuesday and I am being hit with enquiries from all sides at the moment so I apologise if it takes me a little longer to address concerns on this forum.

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

The VM logo was there originally. It just disapeared 3-4 weeks ago with no explanation.

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

Thanks for this jelv.

Paraphrasing ...

BT were "wicked".
"Whether anyone goes to gaol or not is up to the courts"

Good stuff Richard

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

Alexander, I am sure many will echo my sentiments when I say that you owe us no explanation as to why you haven't posted as much today. Your contribution to the cause has been above and beyond the call of duty and I am very grateful for it as I am of all the contributions being made.

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

I just want to say, to all the people who have bought me books from the Amazon Wish List to help me with my Masters in Law, I am deeply touched by your generosity. I have been quiet on the subject simply because it is very difficult to find appropriate words to respond to such generosity and charity, the entire process has moved me at the deepest level.

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

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

Just noticed we passed the 4000 posts mark a bit ago too.

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

i have phorm blocked at my router and can still surf

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

Hello All
I'm a long time viewer of the forum and new poster. I've been busy involving myself in making known the iniquites of webwise/phorm among neighbours friends etc.

I have only a limited tech knowledge and less than a little knowledge of current legal issues

I do have a limited knowledge of Child Care legislation and have a question arising from this ... some official bodies ie social services dept and the police are invested with "powers to investigate" powers being discretionary . Those bodies invested with powers are also designated with "duties to investigate" in certain circumstance, Duties being an imperative
Have any "duties to investigate" breaches of RIPA etc been identified as duties placed on relevant authorities within any relevant legislation ?

tee cee

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

It might be advisable to look at the very serious issue of informed consent for minors. Although not directly related to this issue, you could read up on Gillick's Competence, it was enacted by the House of Lords so it is of the highest precedent in the land as far as I am aware.

In context, the issue of informed consent with regards to Phorm becomes extremely complex when you look at shared logins, schools and other public sector internet access (libraries etc.) when we start to look at the implications of informed consent for minors.

Alexander Hanff

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

Alexander with regard to the wider issue of informed consent regarding libraries with internet access, what do you think about drafting a letter to the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals?

http://www.cilip.org.uk/aboutcilip

Worth me trying you think?

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

Hello,
I'm another long time lurker first time poster, and would like to thank everybody for their efforts in trying to bring this issue to the public's attention, especially Alexander.

A copy of The Evolution of EU Law is on it's way to you sir. It looks like your postman will be needing a truss

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

Definitely, at the very least it will help make more people aware of the issue and it might actually initiate serious debate of policy within the public sector organisations offering online access.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

My sincere thanks Gixer and yes my postman is going to be looking for an early Christmas bonus I expect lol. many of the books are 600+ pages so they are going to be rather heavy. I am already considering a new bookcase suitably engineered to withstand the weight.

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

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

My poor keyboard... This time it wasn't a cheese and ham toastie sprayed all over it but some teriyaki peanuts. Thankfully there's a supply of spare keyboards here in the hangar :)

Welcome Gixer.

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

I've now had chance to watch all the vids from the PIA meeting, thanks to CaptJamieHunter for recording and uploading them.

Firstly Dr Richard Clayton and Alexander Hanff were excellent, really got their messages across and were most obviously on the side of truth and honesty.

Now further to my earlier post about Kent speech, I really thought he could not be that bad – but he was. Here's a few notes I wrote while listening to his speech.

• says UID is a truly random number - computers can't generate truly random numbers
• says the UID is “1 of a 16byte series of numbersâ€ÂÂ� - slip of the tongue or more info?
• points out a plus of their system is that it deletes in real time – spin that means it's a cheap system that has limited storage
• he mostly refers to the browser not the person – Freudian Slip?
• seems to think there is endless revenue from adds
• he invites anyone to check the system - I want to, where do I apply
• says being an ISP 'is hardly worth doing' - so why are there so many?
• completely dismissive of opting-in/out
• says the info of random numbers, categories & time stamps is of no use – believe me it is and it's available to websites!!!
• says can't delete searches but ask.com do just that with AskEraser
• misunderstands FIPR with regards to RIPA
• despite saying that google has privacy problems and is getting all the money he directs everyone to go use it - doh!
• says they spoke to lots of people but a) didn't say what their response was & b) at least in some circumstances Phorm didn't tell the whole truth to those people so how can they make an informed response only an inPhormed one

He came across as though he doesn't properly understand the system he's talking about and doesn't understand the way the Internet works or that there are intelligent people who do. I could go on but I don't have the time, suffice to say I could not trust Kent before I saw that speech and even less so now.

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

Sorry about that - a sticky, crunchy keyboard must be very unpleasant.
It's normally coffee I cover mine with...:)

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

I am currently working on something in the background to try and get the "people's" message across in the media arena. I can't go into more details because I am awaiting a response from a 3rd party before I can confirm, but if that response is positive, I can assure you it will be (I think) be a significant step.

Alexander Hanff

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

An interesting thread on Badphorm. Looks like they have started profiling already!:monkey:

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?4097

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

IBM keyboards are built to last :) (Good job too!) It gets cleaned tonight. I'm using a spare for now. My own fault for eating at the desk...

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

I have had en email with a series of questions about Phorm/Webwise answered (sort of) by a BT manager. My post with the questions (edited for brevity) and the answers is over on BT Beta forums and can be seen without registering.
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...ID=18175#18175
or http://tinyurl.com/4pyqhn

It took quite a bit of effort to get the answers with as much pressure as a mere customer is able to exert, but eventually the system did respond.

I'm not posting them here because it's not really appropriate to quote a BT manager answering questions about the BT Webwise system here on a VM forum, - but I'm sure people here will find the answers interesting. I'd be grateful for any comments you want to make either here or there.

I'll delay making my own comments until I have had some feedback.

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

Wow, there is so much to say from that. I will be writing a response here this evening, but I have to go an pick up my son first and then have my dinner. I just wanted to thank you for the link in advance of my reply.

Alexnder Hanff

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

feel free to PM if you want further contact.

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

No Alexander!
Come down off that tower immediately!
:D

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

OK everyone time to put our Digg hats on:

http://digg.com/tech_news/Unedited_V...rm_PIA_meeting

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

yeah I know I typod the title, can't fix it though so sorry.

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

Has anyone else had a response from BT today offering to exclude their website from profiling by the BT Webwise system? All I have to do apparently is provide the URL's.

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

"11) What will happen to the "browsing experience" of a BT customer who adds all the various oix/phorm/webwise domains to his/her HOSTS file, once Webwise/Phorm is in place? Will that "break" my browsing experience?

If a customer who is invited to participate in the trial adds www.webwise.net to their local HOSTS file with the resolved address of 127.0.0.1, they will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC for the period of the trial. This is because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status of the user during the trial. Instead, and as per the advice on the www.bt.com/webwise site, the recommended approach for excluding a PC from the Webwise service if the user regularly deletes cookies is to add www.webwise.net to the browser's blocked cookie list. As previously stated, in parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received."


Blocking dodgy domains is a reasonable action. The default position on this should be opt-out, so if the question can't be asked, that should be the assumption.

Unless you are prepared to visit a dodgy domain they will break your browser.

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

Dugg


The reply from the BT manager is interesting reading, and if I've read it right his answer to point 11 could open a whole new can of worms for BT

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

If this is what they are doing it's an opt-out and should be an opt-in.

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

Can I urge all members posting here to read this gentleman's post over on the BT forum, especially the answers to questions 8 and 11.

Given the answers given by the BT rep, I think it may be worth all you VM customers asking the same questions of your CS help desk.

OB

Edit: Apologies to those posting the same time as me who have already read Mr Jones' reply.

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

I wouldn't call it an "offer" - more a response to my demand! But - yes.
See my post above and the detail on BT Beta Forum
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...ID=18175#18175

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

Interesting comment on the vm webwise fact site

We found that this system met our high standards for simplicity and privacy – so your privacy is assured.

Given virgin media's silence on the whole issue im a bit worried about how they found this information as some sort of test would have to be carried out on the vm network they cant rely on bt data as its a seperate network :(.

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

Firstly I never stated the gender of the manager!!

But that aside, I think it needs careful reading - I THINK it means that if you opt-IN to the forthcoming 10,000 member BT trial of Webwise, and THEN block the dodgy domains, your browsing will break totally. I can see the logic of that - if you "agree" to be redirected and then block the redirection domains, of course your browsing will be broken.

But it COULD mean that even if you don't opt-in, your browser will still be broken. BT have not yet worked out a cookie free way of opting out/avoiding the system, so this trial is likely to depend on cookies. I'm not clear on that yet.

What I really want to know is what happens to an ordinary BT customer who blocks these domains while the trial is on, but who has not opted in (and has blocked the relevant cookies so doesn't have any) or who has actually opted out and kept the cookie, but blocked the redirection domains.

Remember BT are saying very little about how their trial will work, and virtually nothing about how the final system will work. I think they are running backwards fast - redesigning it as they go - as each legal pronouncement comes out from ICO or Home Office or whatever - precisely what Simon Davies of 80.20 warned about in his interim privacy report when he said it was very late in the day for a genuine PIA - in fact a PIA would not actually be possible -which is why he is calling the latest bit of work a (quote from interim privacy report) late stage implementation� PIA model that aims to satisfy most, if not all, of the criteria of a “full product cycle� PIA. (end of quote)

I don't think BT have fully realised that even the invitation to participate in the BTWebwise trial will require very careful handling to avoid it being an illegal interception of browsing traffic. If the invitation pops up while I am visting www.bt.com, and logged into that site, or perhaps visiting my BTYahoo! ISP customer service pages at http://home.bt.yahoo.com/, or the webmail at http://bt.yahoo.com/webmail, as a logged in customer, it could be regarded as a legal interaction with a customer. (but not if they ask an underage child using one of my sub accounts - especially as I have notified them that they must ask me as the contract holder, and not anyone else in my family)

But if the Webwise trial invitation just pops up when I am trying to visit anywhereontheweb.com, while connected via my BT Broadband connection, then I reckon that will be an illegal interception of my browsing with a third party by my ISP.

Reading the questions and answers it is clear to me that as yet, BT don't know some of the answers that they NEED to know before starting their trial. Bear in mind that it was due to start in March, and it hasn't happened yet. I think it hasn't happened because they are still trying to sort all these sort of things out, and they know they are on dodgy ground legally and commercially with several of the details they thought they had in place but which have now been publicly questioned and found wanting.

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

Dugg as per request.

As has been pointed out before the rough translation is: "We are going to hold our horses before implementing this and rest assured that if BT get away with it we will be rolling it out quicker than a VM director can join the board of Phorm"

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

Welcome R Jones, and well done on obtaining answers :)

To add my view, I was really taken by the phrase "if you are invited to participate" in the answer to that question. To me that suggests the webwise.net domain will be needed to browse the web wether you are opted in or out. It also mentioned the need for that domain in order to determine consent. that to me suggests that opt in or out is detected by a process using that domain - so if it isblocked, it cannot tell your status and doesnt let you proceed with any browsing.

However, if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick I am more than happy to have it turned around :)

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

Anyone care to comment on this

from here :http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=14453044

ferdinandling - 18 Apr'08 - 21:00 - 1441 of 1441


Don't know who the RIPA expert was. His name was Casper something. The chairman (previous chairman of FIPR) knew him by name and explained to the audience that eh was probably the world's leading light with regard to RIPA. He agreed that the system was legal under that law.

Whilst we are on that subject, Dr Clayton admitted that the ICO had made an error about another law PECR requring opt-in. I'm not a techie so don't quite understand but along the lines of...Regulation 7 of PECR is referring only to traffic data. The Phorm system does not use traffic data, therefore the ICO's recommendation about OPt-in is not valid.

FInally, the last law that Phorm has been accused of breaking is the Data Protection Act. Dr Clayton's own review of the Phorm system (in MArch) agreed that it did not fall foul of any data protection rules.

Summary - legal underall three relevant laws.
Question - do you really think that BT's legal department would have spent 6 months looking into this and made an error when they decided to give the green light. Same with the Home OFfice, the ICO, the QC's thta gave legal opinion etc etc.

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

That is not watt I got, wen I wen't to VM Webwise page. this is watt I got:

To me that is just spin and more spin. :shocked:

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

How can they even trial test this out when full independant test's of the system by any relevant government appointed person's or company's has not happened (all we have is hear say by the companies involved with all these test's carried out without any of the public's knowledge and paid for by the company's) is there no government protection involved when ANY test involve the general public?

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

Yes.

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

OK in response to the information offered by BT today:

Clearly not that confident or they would be willing to make comment justifying their actions and citing why they think they are not breaking any laws.

Of course they have no comment here, they realise they are seriously neck deep as a result of the illegal trials and any public comment could be used against them in upcoming legal action.

This is a very worrying comment. Notice how they say javascript injection will not happen in the upcoming trial; they don't make any attempt to extend that to the final deployment. This to me seems odd and would appear to suggest they have not ruled out injected javascript into the system over the long term.

Not good enough. This clearly shows that they still intend to use the model described by Dr Richard Clayton which requires the law to be broken in order for them to detect whether or not consent has been given. I would suggest they are also talking out of their unmentionables. BT have no jurisdiction to say how users may give their consent on how their data is processed. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't want to be included in the trial should write a formal Data Protection Act request and send it by registered post. If you then receive the tiral page when the trials go live, they will be in breach of the Data Protection Act. A Data Protection Act request to the data controller at the ISP is the process required by the Act, BT have no authority to ignore that process.

See previous point.

They can keep saying this until they are blue in the face and they will still be wrong. Under common law and the laws governing contracts in the UK as well as Copyright law, they are required to behave in accordance to the terms and conditions of the content publisher. They have no authority to offset the process of opting out of the system to the content owners, if a content owner has explicitly denied the use of their content in such ways the ISP must accept that. My suggestion therefore, as it has been from day one, is too explicitly deny consent in your terms and conditions and then if they breach those terms I would advise you to litigate.

This is a ridiculous answer. What Kent said at the PIA was this would only effect 1% of customers. Of course this is blatantly untrue. 100% of customers will suffer this triple redirect the first day the system goes live. Their assertion at 1% is an illustration that they believe only 1% of their entire customer base will block all Phorm cookies, which they have no evidence to support. Neither did Kent have any evidence to support this at the PIA meeting, he merely stated it was so. Not good enough. Also Computer Misuse Act, Interference with Goods and Fraud Act all apply to this redirect situation.

This reply basically states that anyone who uses one of the trial exchanges (as they will all be invited to joint the trial) who adds the webwise domain/IPs to their hosts file redirecting to localhost (127.0.0.1) will be unable to use the web. They believe that's ok, I suspect their customers won't and BT could be open to action for breach of contract with regards to the provision of an internet connection.

Completely evaded the question.

Totally confirms my comments during the PIA meeting Q&A where I explained to Kent that no-one in the room was naive enough to believe that BT wouldn't have tainted the poll question in order to receive the response they wanted. Clearly they have admitted they mentioned Advertising and Phishing in the poll. There was no mention of their legal rights under DPA, RIPA, PECR, CMA, HRA, IWG, FA neither was there any mention that the Anti-phishing services they offer are already offered by client side technologies such as web browsers, web browser plugins, operating systems, anti-virus, anti-adware, anti-spyware etc. which do not require the use of intrusive Layer 7 interception and data mining technologies at the network level.

Not good enough, the law requires explicit opt-in, the law prevents modifying terms and conditions in order to get implied consent. You cannot assume implied consent to breach a fundamental human right, it must be explicit.

Feel free to use any of my response in your reply to BT Management.

Alexander Hanff

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

Thanks Alexander. Keep up the good work and don't forget to sleep occasionally.

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

point 8 above looks like the clearest indication that they have absolutely no intention of providing their own agent string and will masquerade as one of the "major search engines (Google)"
That's not what I would call the activity of a "transparent and open" company.

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

On the subject of Phorm droids harvesting user profiles on both cableforum.co.uk and badphorm....

Could it be that they are compiling a blacklist of ISP customers that they'll then pass-on to BT/VM/TT to ensure that the most vocal amongst us are not "invited" to participate in the looming trials?

I realise that these user profiles alone are not enough to reveal our IP addresses (unless they're planning to hack cableform's servers) but perhaps once identified by forum moniker, the ISPs will use that shiny new DPI kit (illegally, of course) to find out which troublesome customers we are? Not too difficult, surely? Just add "lucevans", "Phorm" and "cableforum" to the categories list in the profiling software and, oh, there's my IP address.

...Or am I just being a bit :nutter:?

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

Sounds like Caspar Bowden, the chair of FIPR before Ian Brown.
He's been very active in the legal and privacy spheres for years and a google on his name returns 13,100 results.

Found this interesting BBC article from 2000 regarding the targeting of adverts to mobile phones (known as Location Based Services) that seems to contradict his current stance:

Consumers should have the option to decide what advertisements they want or how often they receive them, as well as the chance to turn off the facility, he says.

No such thing as a free lunch

Even if this information isn't used to market unwelcome promotions to you, somewhere there sits a mass of data that paints a picture of your life, argue campaigners.

With the new powers received under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, many government organisations can get their hands on this data without any judicial or Home Secretary authorisation.

"The privacy risk is that once the information is available on a non-warranted basis, anyone who really wants to find exactly where you went [can], it is just going to be a question of paying money to private investigators," the Foundation for Information Policy Research's Caspar Bowden said.

"What we are talking about is the invasion of privacy and restriction on civil liberties by this information being available as a tool of surveillance."

This "enables this tool to be put on half the population. It is like putting an electronic tag on half the population," he added.

Wonder if he's saying now that Webwise-style wire-tapping is legal but ought to be outlawed?

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

After emailing Simon Watkins at the Home Office as advised by 'Florence', I had a reply but he stated that BT had not admitted to a trial in 2007, when I was intercepted. So I reported back that he should look at The Register and I gave him the required link.
He also stated that my interception was lawful by virtue of section 3(3) of RIPA 2000 which states:

3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if�

(a) it is conduct by or on behalf of a person who provides … a telecommunications service; and

(b) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service …..

I then replied back stating about the info being passed to a 3rd party (PHORM) and then quoted "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."
I will let you kow if I get another reply.

Colin

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

:disturbd:
trying to remember what happened at the meeting.

I am fairly certain that this occurred during the question and answer session at the end.

The chairman, Richard Clayton and Casper the previous executive of FIPR where discussing the difference in meaning of the word traffic in PECR and RIPA. It was too arcane for me apart from the fact the two statutes have very different interpretations of the word.

I think their discussion centred around the possible legality of the new BT/Phorm/Webwise front page.

What I am certain of is that at no point did he disagree with Richard Clayton's assessment of the legality of the BT trial

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

If I understand Dr Richard Clayton's paper correctly:

The triple redirection cookie browser con will happen for every new web site domain that you visit.

The cookie has an expiry of 3 days. So even for sites that you have visited in the past - every 3 days it seems your browser will be forced into the triple redirection cookie browser con.

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

It doesn't really matter to be honest. the main point is that Kent saying only 1% of users will experience this is simply not a convincing argument. They haven't offered any data to support this claim, it seems like they just plucked it out of thin air.

Furthermore, even if it is 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% it is still too many, why should -any- users have to suffer degradation of service or loss of service in the case of the infinite loop (which is what Kent was referring to when he said 1%)?

Alexander Hanff

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

Sorry, the system won't let me multi-quote your posting - I think you wrote too much;)
The BT answer to question 11 - staggers belief. The BT customers selected to join the trial, will be forced through the Webwise/Phorm Layer 7 equipment even if they have not consented to being in the trial. Because there is no independant opt-in system yet.

I am not sure that I believe BT when they say they will be working on an opt-in system that will be independant of the Webwise/Phorm DPI layer 7 equipment.

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

Yeah I found the statement utterly arrogant. They have been told by respected privacy advocates and legal experts that the first trials broke the law because communications were intercepted without consent and yet still they plan to deploy the upcoming trials which will be doing exactly the same illegal interception to detect consent cookies.

Alexander Hanff

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

So at the time of the secret trial what service were you signed up to with BT that required the use of the Phorm/Webwise equipment to intercept your communication?

Just as an anology with regard to RIPA. Under the normal course of Royal Mail's communication distribution they can't just open a letter for their own personal gain (though this is what Phorm et al. are proposing) and would not be legal as it is not necessary for the service with which they are contracted.

Now lets say the Royal Mail are sorting a letter with an address window but they cannot see any address but it was fairly obvious the letter was folded wrong and by opening the letter they would be able to see the address and carry out their obligation to deliver the letter. This would be legal because the otherwise illegal act of opening the letter was necessary to carry out their normal business as contracted.

Why do they keep trying to tell us this interception is legal when quite clearly the Phorm equipment is not necessary for the ISP to carry out it's contracted duty to relay communications therefore under RIPA it must be unlawful interception. After all their "provision or operation of that service" has managed fine without Phorm's equipment.

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

Simon clearly doesn't understand S3 of RIPA. Subsections a and b are mutually inclusive and must BOTH be satisfied which is why there is a very prominent and at the end of subsection a.

The interceptions do not satisfy condition b because they were absolutely nothing to do with the provision of the service. The service can be provided (and has/still is) without these interceptions (service being connection to the Internet) and the interceptions only take place for the purpose of selling data to a 3rd party for behavioural advertising.

Let me make this very clear, there was not even any testing of the anti-phishing service during these covert trials so they can't even use that as an excuse under subsection b.

Alexander Hanff

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

To me it shows that Kent has spun yet another lie. Say to Joe Public a very small number and they'll think it's no big deal:( If it is easy to demonstrate that the number is much larger, and the Webwise/Phorm security browser breach happens on every new site visited and then every 3 days after that - it doesn't sound so good.

But I am sorry to admit I don't understand most of the legal discussion going on in this thread - so my point is probably not relevant:dunce:

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

No I agree completely, it was just spin. Completely unsupported with any evidence and evidence does exist which is contrary to his claims (Dr Richard Clayton's report which was validated by Phorm themselves before publishing!).

Alexander Hanff

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

BTW Paypal are not happy about people using insecure browsers, I wonder what they'd think about Phorm? Does anyone have a Paypal account and want to inPhorm them?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7354539.stm

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

I guess the criminals in BT will continue committing their illegal interceptions until the Police investigate, arrest and then charge those responsible. I am assuming that illegal interception under RIPA is a criminal act, and thus carries a prison sentence?

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

It is a criminal act yes. In the lower courts it carries a sentence of up to 2 years and up to £5000 fine, in the higher courts (which would be needed in this case given it's size) it carries a sentence of up to 5 years and unlimited fines.

Alexander Hanff

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

BT management might want to reflect that it would be them going to prison, not their lawyers who gave them the wrong legal advice. I can dream:)

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

It is unlikely anyone would go to prison, too many school colours shared by the powers that be and corporate regime. It is more likely they will be given a fine which is insubstantial in the grand scheme of things and will most likely be covered by an existing contingency fund (like the BA scandal).

But it will do significant damage to their brand and the public trust.

Alexander Hanff

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

To paraphrase a wag in a comment on The Register a week or so ago :-

"Kent may not understand the meaning of 'invasion of privacy' until he has to visit the showers in Wormwood Scrubs."

We can all dream.;)

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

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: What a great line.

Oh hell, that's two keyboards splattered. Reminds me of a line from Gene Hunt in Life On Mars which I won't repeat here because it isn't remotely suitable for a family forum such as this.

I'm going to bed with a huge smile on my face though...

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

I don't believe the system will ever be Opt-in it was only ever designed to be opt-out, deployed and run as covertly as possible. An Opt-in version would run at a loss from day 1.

I'm not certain but to work around many of the illegal aspects the system could be deployed in its "trial" format warts and all if it was offered as a feature of BT Broadband and written into a contract for new users signing up for a BT Retail service. This contract will not be available to existing customers because there is no Opt-in and there never will be.

Then over a matter of a few years all those on "old" contracts could be persuaded to leave the service - Tiscali do just that to holders of old Pipex contracts which allow undesirable perks such as freedom from capping etc (I was one of them)!

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

Oh well, that dream didn't last long, lol.

As far I am concerned, BT have already damaged their brand by continuing with the trials.

As for VirginMedia, IMHO they are damaging their brand, first by even comtemplating the system in the first place, and then by not clearly denouncing this or any other similar interception system.

Mark777, no I don't want that in my dreams:), I think I'll dream of hangmans nooses.

(Time for me turn in)

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

ok its friday a lot of things have happend this week, and now i'm drunk.

So sue me.. :) going forwards a judicial review maybe the thing required so PM me and lets get this ball rolling. Alexander your help is always welcome on this matter.With me being some dumb welsh geek :erm:


what about getting a injunction stopping these trials until such time its be legslly challenged as being legit.


i know nothing of this type of thing but i am willing to help if pointed inthe right direction.

Alexander are there any book left on your list , im drunk and have good credit :-O

I'm also dyslexic...so excuse the poor spelling/grammar which i can't beothered to correct.

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

its to be expected Alexander, the work load will seem high but the effective management of your time is key, but you know that being IT.

round robin multitasking is fine, but not so effective once you reach saturation point on the core tasks/kernel, effective user space application multitasking is the key.

LOl, it sounds very much like the amiga multitasking way is still best, even when you apply it to real world lives and tasks.

btw incase people didnt see this Lord Erroll on Govt IT (perhaps another email cc is required there! or perhaps your reading this ? wave and contribute if you are ;) )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...nt.hitechcrime
"
One lord leaping on the government's IT flaws

Lord Erroll, Secretary to the All Party Internet Group in the Lords, is a leading light in the movement to protect our security online

Richard Sarson The Guardian, Thursday April 10 2008
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...008/04/104.jpg

A programmer and system designer by trade, Lord Erroll is giving the government grief about cybercrime. Merlin, the Earl of Erroll, is the spokesman for the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on personal internet security...."
....
"
Fit for purpose?
To his amusement, the government's "fit for purpose" claim now looks decidedly dodgy. He believes that it has finally sunk in that the danger is not just the loss of personal data but the potential for fraud.

Not surprisingly, Erroll and his colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee are having another go at civil servants and ministers, with a follow-up inquiry and report early in the summer. As Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, another (ex-MP, Labour) member of the committee, says: "We have your phone number. We'll be in touch".

It looks, sometimes, as though the Lords are more relentless than the Commons at taking a hard look at government IT policy. The Lords debate the technical merits of IT projects, where the Commons make them party-political.

This may be because peers can have more recent hands-on experience than MPs, who tend to lose their IT expertise bit by bit once they enter the House....
"
....
"Erroll gets support in IT matters from his fellow peers, notably Lord Lucas, the Earl of Northesk, and Lord St John of Bletso.

All have involvement of some sort with internet firms. Counterintuitively, they are all hereditary peers and, like Erroll, independents with no firm political allegiance.

Life peers such as Lord Harris and Lord Kirkwood, who came to an interest in IT later in life, are also supportive. But life peers with hard IT experience are thin on the ground.
,,
"

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

RE : redesigning it as they go

Sounds to me as though nothing much has changed from the Reg article way back when. Those lucky enough to be invited are wire-tapped in or out. How does this differ from the original proposal? Genuine opt-out is not an option here "because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status". We must tap your connection in order to determine your status. Any real attempt to circumvent the set-up and the user "will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC"

RE : "BT don't know some of the answers that they NEED to know before starting their trial."

Being naturally cynical, I think BT know exactly what they are doing. They have had at least two years to go through all of this. Having gotten away with the earlier trials and all that they entailed this one is a walk in the park. It is clear that, whatever the real legal status of this or past trials, in order to be tested in a Court there has to be an investigation and that is never going to happen.

On a less cynical note "the market will decide". Kent say's "The Internet today is two to three professionals - Microsoft, Yahoo and Google - and 9,999,999 hobbyists.

Once this is in place Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are not going to give this parasitic scumware a free ride. As things stand none of them want to be seen to be getting involved - Phorm would turn that situation into a David and Goliath PR free for all. Once it is all up and running that will change. Google have spent years building their search engine and all that goes with it. They will not just hand all that work over to a "man in the middle" parasite like Phorm.

9,999,999 hobbyists? Well then it will be a very quick re-write to provide "Sorry - refused - Phormed" to all those lucky enough to get a "safer more relevant Internet experience". In the short term visitor numbers will drop but not anywhere near as fast as BT's support system and customer base.

Content providers - your hard work is about to be utilised by a parasitic set-up that is strategically placed where you and your readers cannot remove or by-pass it. The only way to kill a parasite is to deny it what it needs to survive. No content provider is legally obliged to provide content to anyone. A polite refusal will suffice.

(Sorry AH, I have less confidence in the rule of law than you. While I do believe you are right about the law I simply don't believe it will be applied. While Phorm do have a right to "test the waters" I also have a right not to participate (as a content provider) and return a blank screen. Perhaps people will take notice when a majority of their bookmarks start to return "901 - Phormed" (just made that up - might RFC it though) )


From the HO reply (#4073) "it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service ….."

"anti-phishing" is an after thought. BT hope that "wire-tap for scumware company" can be viewed legally as a "new service provision" In the unlikely event that they have to answer to a Court this will be a key defence. In reality the "anti phishing" feature is no more relevant to their system than their proposed blacklist of http e-mail providers. It's a side effect not a design feature.


(#4090) "I don't believe the system will ever be Opt-in it was only ever designed to be opt-out"

Exactly. Phorm have sold this system to their customers as being all in. If they moved to a true opt out then within months even the least technical of customers would be translating "more relevant experience" into "wire-tap". The whole thing will just collapse. Openreach will become Opengrasp and Phorm shares will be (even more) worthless.

#4092 "judicial review"

Yep saw the outline in the Reg comments this week. Had no idea such a system was in place (typical Brit - huh). Did I read correctly that for a fee we can, subject to a favorable decision of course, force an investigation?

who knew? (You have to laugh at even the most "stay at home" of us suddenly reading RIPA instead of going to the Pub! Well done BT!)


#4093 "Secretary to the All Party Internet Group in the Lords, is a leading light in the movement to protect our security online"

Our current "incumbents" want to abolish the House of Lords and we can perhaps see why. True belief and principle v. corrupt baby kissers. No contest.

One of my memorable TV moments was Tony Benn embarrassing Ali G into silence - not something any of his "guests" have ever managed before or since.


Remember kids : "BT Webwise is completely free � and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work."

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

LOL, Alexander, your a writer now not an IT specialist or trainer.... "The media moguls likely won't get any lucrative pay out of Hanff. All he has are those guitars, a printer and three cats. As it turns out though, that's the type of arsenal our most feared criminals pack these days."

even funner in a sick kind of way is Ian Grant's ( the writer of the story below) bio
"
Ian has been writing about information technology and communications since (just) before IBM launched its first PC. He still thinks there are four basic stories in this industry: the R&D, the engineering, the sales and the effects of the technology.

These days he’s more interested in the human side of IT all – how IT changes relationships between people, so it’s just as well his main beats are security, retail and small and medium enterprises."

given theres no feedback Options there, perhaps it's time YOU the CF readers took advantage of the direct News pages of this very board, and take the time to write some real News stories based on the facts as collected in this thread.

Mick and the crew are always willing to accept one off news stories for the front page.

that News page is scaned by the international news wires, and any cable forum news stories posted, usually show up on the wires with minutes of being made available.

GO ON, you know you can do it, write and submit a Phorm news story (to Mick) based on the facts collected here and dispel the erroneous PR spin and lack of real research of the facts from the likes of Ian at computer weekly.

Ian's clearly a fan of Phorm and Kent "Phorm CEO Kent Ertegrul gave a spirited defence. He showed how Phorm destroys any link between a user's IP address and subsequent surfing history"

and looking to discredit the userbase and its motives as irrelevant.

"Clayton, who has had an in-depth look at Phorm's processes, praised the firm for the way it dealt with data protection issues. However, he objected to Phorm's ability to deliver advertisements to his browser. "

and he cant even report that first paragraph right, its not "an unprecedented "town hall meeting" "

as much as its the first Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) meeting based on the official ICO's PIA documentation as first published in December 2007, for the benefit of the individual stakeholders not the "Critics" as you put it, as you would have known Ian if you had bothered to read the thread in your research http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ad-page-2.html


Ian's laughable PIA coverage story is here:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ll-meeting.htm
"Phorm answers critics at 'town-hall' meeting
Author: Ian Grant
Posted: 16:41 18 Apr 2008
Topics:Internet Portals & Search

Advertisement serving company Phorm has defended its controversial technology at an unprecedented "town hall meeting" in London on Tuesday.

Phorm's technology is controversial because it tracks web browsing behaviour to determine which advertisements to send to the owner's browser. Critics say this is an invasion of their privacy, and that use of the technology may break several laws.

Critics, led by Cambridge University's Richard Clayton and writer Alexander Hanff, charged Phorm with breaking several laws, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the Fraud Act and others, including European law on data privacy and protection.....
....
"

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

Well I just took a bold step and requested a private audience with the Earl of Northesk in order to express the views and concerns of the informed public on this issue.

Obviously he is very busy so I am not expecting the request to be fulfilled, but as the saying goes, you never know until you try.

I will keep you all posted.

Alexander Hanff

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

cool Alexander, you would be amazed at what and who you get if you ask ;) trust me....as busy as they are, if they have an interest they will make the time.

perhaps Lord Erroll (and/or the other lords)might also like to attend that meeting if it happens, again they may (or not!)see it as an opportunity and invite you and Richard Clayton to a full blown gathering perhaps even Simon with his dual hats on, but dont let that put you off if it did happen.

see my post #4093 one page back in case you missed it.

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

I wish you good luck with that. From everything I've read, he's firmly in our camp anyway, but it'd be good to make sure he knows our concerns face-to-face rather than via email or letters.

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

http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnolo...=1208342622301
"Watch Your Back for ISP-Targeted Ads
By Kelly D. Talcott
New York Law Journal
April 17, 2008

.....
Two such services are Phorm and NebuAd. Phorm is perhaps the more recently notorious of the two, due to a series of discussions and tests conducted with ISPs in the United Kingdom that have caused British privacy advocates some concern.

Both Phorm and NebuAd work from within the ISP and attempt to monitor, with some exclusions, all Web pages that each of the ISP's customers visit as well as the search terms those customers use.

They use various proprietary means to correlate the information they gather about a customer's surfing habits with ads that are likely to interest them.

Phorm generates its own identifying script, or cookie, that it attaches to requests coming from customers' computers.

It works at the individual computer level, using this cookie to build a profile of information about Web sites accessed by that computer as well as the information delivered by the accessed sites.

This information in turn is used to provide ads to that computer that, in theory, are consistent with the interests of the user.
.....
"

---------- Post added at 05:42 ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 ----------

hmmm, they just love making copy off the sound bites, learn by this....perhaps
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...LEwmgD903PJ5G1
"
UK advertising-tech fight shows complexity of privacy battle

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN – 1 day ago
As Phorm Inc. built a system that watches consumers' Web surfing in order to deliver targeted advertising, CEO Kent Ertugrul believed the British company was doing everything possible to respect, and actually enhance, Internet privacy.

Phorm even won approval from a noted privacy activist. And in the meantime, NebuAd Inc., a company with a similar technology, started working in the U.S. without much furor.

Yet guess what greeted Phorm's emergence this year: A privacy outcry.
Blogs with names like BadPhorm and Dephormation sprung up to advocate boycotts of companies working with Phorm.

Internet policy analysts argue that it violates British wiretap laws.

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

But the underlying story is a cautionary tale.

As marketers try to pinpoint Internet advertising more effectively, Phorm's experience indicates how deeply privacy perceptions matter.....
....
"

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

Spin, Spin & More Spin. :shocked:

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

well i will post here as its not going to go missing and its easyer to reference later for searching then, although im not sure why Rjones didnt do it himself,but no matter.

R you do know this cable forum IS NOT an official Virgin Media Broadband site, as in NOT supported by VM,run for VM or run by VM dont you?.

its official status today is as a general purpose broadband help site and we have many non VM members helping and getting help in many subjects not mearly BB.

R Jones http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/im.../01-bronze.gif

Posts: 175
Registered: 1/27/04 Re: BT Webwise Discussion Thread
Posted: Apr 18, 2008 6:16 PM [img]Download Failed (1)[/img] in response to: Mark W [img]Download Failed (1)[/img] Reply
Here are answers I received from a member of BT management today in response to the questions. The manager has edited the questions for brevity but I think the purport of each question is clear.

1) Reply from EU Information, Society & Media Commissioner Viviane Reding. Any comments?

I have no further comment to what BT, Phorm and others have already stated publicly regarding privacy ie no personally identifiable information is stored. We have also commented previously that we are comfortable that Webwise complies with relevant laws.

2) Presumably you know that the ICO are now opening cases relating to Webwise trial complaints.

As indicated previously we have been and continue to be in regular dialogue with the ICO.

3) Various other questions regarding the two previous small scale tests BT conducted...

I have nothing to add to our previous statements regarding the two previous small scall tests, which were completely anonymous.

4) Re the issue of javascript injection ?

Javascript tags will not be inserted as part of the forthcoming Webwise trial.

5) Is browser hijacking occurring NOW? - we note strange delays and issues with webpages!

No.

6) Please note, as the account holder for my ADSL account, I do NOT give consent for Webwise trials to be conducted on either my primary account OR any logins using my BTY broadband email sub accounts.

Your choice to accept or decline the invitation to participate in the forthcoming Webwise trial will be managed via the Webwise system itself. When the trial commences, if your broadband connection is among the group invited to participate in the trial, then you will be presented with a webpage which will give you the choice to participate in the trial or not. After this time, and at any point during the trial, you can go to www.bt.com/webwise and click 'BT Webwise off' or BT Webwise on' to change your preference. Alternatively, as I believe you may done already, you can add www.webwise.net to your browser's blocked cookies list at any point to ensure your computer is not part of the trial.

7) Consent to present you or BT broadband customers trying to visit your websites with the Webwise trial invitation page.

Adding www.webwise.net to your browser's blocked cookies list means that you (and any other BT customers that do the same) will not be presented with the Webwise trial invitation page.

8) The issue of informed consent from Webmasters and your confirmation that you do not provide such consent for your own websites. How can web sites opt-out?

The system doesn't handle any HTTPS connections as such traffic is, by its nature, private. For HTTP traffic, we assume that if a website wishes to be found by the public through being profiled by major search engines (Google), then the site is in the public domain and therefore as long as we have consent from the requester of the page, we are permitted to profile the site. However we note that you have specifically requested that wimborne-baptist.org.uk and leighparkinitiative.org.uk be excluded and we will honour your request to exclude your websites from profiling within the BT Webwise system. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received.

9) Could you explain this cookie forging system please? I do NOT permit BT or Phorm or Webwise to forge or to place forged cookies that appear to come from my websites. I also deny you permission to copy the name of my website domains into any cookie that purports to come from my site. I formally and specifically withold consent for you (BT, Phorm, Virgin Media, Carphone Warehouse, TalkTalk, 121Media, BT Webwise or any associates involved in the Webwise operation) to use my domain names (wimborne-baptist.org.uk and leighparkinitiative.org.uk) in part or in full, within any cookie set by Webwise.

I will need to respond to this question on Monday when I can talk to the relevant person in BT (who is unavailable today).

10) Redirection of browsing traffic up to 3 times before we get to the sites we originally asked for in the first place, is not explained by Phorm. Could you explain that clearly and transparently?

I believe you mentioned you had read Richard Clayton's report - he covers this in some detail, I also understand that Phorm covered this at the event on Tuesday and confirmed that it should occur in fewer than 1% of web requests from the user, so to all intents and purposes, it will be unnoticeable from the user's point of view. We don't believe that this presents any risk and will obviously monitor this as part of the trial.

11) What will happen to the "browsing experience" of a BT customer who adds all the various oix/phorm/webwise domains to his/her HOSTS file, once Webwise/Phorm is in place? Will that "break" my browsing experience?

If a customer who is invited to participate in the trial adds www.webwise.net to their local HOSTS file with the resolved address of 127.0.0.1, they will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC for the period of the trial. This is because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status of the user during the trial. Instead, and as per the advice on the www.bt.com/webwise site, the recommended approach for excluding a PC from the Webwise service if the user regularly deletes cookies is to add www.webwise.net to the browser's blocked cookie list. As previously stated, in parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received.

12) What are the security implications of the cookie forging, and browser multiple redirections? How easily can a malicious website identify, copy and then sell on the Phorm user ID number from a visitor's computer?

The Webwise UID cookie contains no personal data and, as such, offers no commercial gain for malicous websites and cannot be associated to an individual. The Webwise UID is not presented to the website in the HTTP communication. We are aware of the communities concerns with regards to this subject and have taken appropriate actions to mitigate this.

13) What will happen to browsing (and the Phorm business model) when browsers like Firefox (and security software vendors) start to look at layer 7 redirection and treat it as suspicious activity?

It is not clear to me that they will do that. Phorm are talking to security software vendors etc about Webwise.

14) When will BT openly reveal the consumer research (including the questions used) that gave them the idea we as customers, WANTED this stuff?

It is not common practise for us to release our market research. At this stage we have no plans to release the research conducted by BT but that is not to say we will not provide details in the future. I can confirm that it was conducted by a third party market research agency on behalf of BT and others. It explored both aspects of the Webwise service separately - less irrelevant advertising and the additional protection against online fraud. Furthermore we will of course also review how our up coming trial of the service goes. Ultimately what is important though is that our customers will have a clear choice.

15) In response to the ICO's latest statement - can we have an UNEQUIVOCAL statement that the final implementation of Webwise/Phorm will be opt-IN?

We have not finalised our plans beyond the up coming trial and it would be premature to do so. We have committed though that Webwise will be optional and that our customers will have a clear choice.

16) How do BT customers, wishing to access BT pages, hosted on bt.com, find the Webwise FAQ please?

We will be add our Webwise FAQ's to the help and support pages on bt.com.

**********

I have a number of comments but I think I will just leave the answers here for others to comment on.
[Phorm Share Price|http://tinyurl.com/3p7j82]"

---------- Post added at 07:27 ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 ----------


indeed, but i put the links in so that you can read them and see exactly were its leading, the trick is to read between the lines and it becomes clear were they want to lead the readers.

once you know that , the CF members can counter any such spin and sound bite with a far easyer fact based news story or four and a few fact based soundbites of our own to back it up.

did you have ago at writing one BTW!

---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 ----------

as a prelude to Alexanders spot on tuesday, the short version of "click!" on bbc1 (long version later this morning on news24 if you want to see it VM 601 11.30) just did a 10 second spot news, that put Phorm and NebuAd logo's on screen. nothing werth watching if your a reader here, but its in the news and building.

im trying to work out the interview spot times, and it seems as i said 30 seconds or so, perhaps a full minute, however this short version was all about wireless data connectivity in the hospitials and so covered several aspects of the same subject for the full program.

i expect the tuesday version will be around the IT show "The show will be recorded at Olympiad Exhibition Centre during ITSec next Tuesday" #3834

they have given us a clue that NebuAd will most likely also be covered, so it might be werth getting upto speed with that too if it gets another 30 seconds.

NebuAd is virtually the same as Phorm but goes directly for the personal ISP given IP address and has an undisclosed way to track it over time, rather than the Phorm prefered put it on the ISP to annonymise that IP and cookie the data tracking AFAIK right now.

and they are sitting in the new UK office just waiting for the outcome of Phorm and our fight.....

it doesnt seem right to not include them as they might feel as though we dont care or forgotten about them ;)

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

hmm i didnt see a book of UK Torts on your list BTW Alexander, did you forget tort isnt covered on the web very well, and it might be useful...