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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7438578.stm
good article from the BBC.. at last!

Would someone at BT care to state who exactly provided this 'expert legal advice'?

We already know the 'due dilligance' was provided by Dun & Bradstreet

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

Let's try Frank's first suggestion using the digg option from the BBC article.

(Near the bottom)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7438578.stm

Not many diggs yet, use it as a trial.

EDIT : I don't know what effect digging the comments has on any potential sandboxing. It might be best to limit yourself to just a couple of comment diggs? Maybe a digg up of a positive comment and a digg down of a negative comment?

We need to find out how it works and how to reliably get an item 'up there'.

I know that last night I dug every comment and that was probably a mistake.

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

I see that now that this latest news has hit the BBC Technology News, it actually appears on the default BT Yahoo home page. So providing that users have not changed the default settings it will spread the word very rapidly to those that were until recently totally unaware.

Colin

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

Snap, I did the same.

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

See my latest article on NoDPI here:

http://nodpi.org/?p=11

Alexander Hanff

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

I have read it and hope for your sake that Phorm now back off, for what was obviously a genuine mistake from the facts given. I actually read it the same as you did, but it was not until others questioned it, that I read and re-read it over and over again and eventually came to the opposite conclusion.
I am sure that everybody will back you to the hilt on this.

Colin

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

just a quick question Alexander.

my brother uses sky for tv and broadband.
so sky use the BT system for its broadband service,is he safe from all this or is the whole BT system unsafe.

Thank You for all your hard work for us the users of the internet.

best of luck
Phil:D

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

I am with you mate.

Dave.

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

Setting the lawyers onto a 1 man blog, good image to generate a company who need to win over internet users. Kent really is his own worst enemy; at least his PR company (which I assume whos contract ended some weeks ago) didn't make quite a social faux pas.
A fine line between slander and free speech and I don't think you crossed into the wrong side of it personally, Alexander. However, good show of character of throwing up hands and admitting so regardless. A shame we are still yet to see any good will coming from the other camps (broken promises of complete transparency (Phorm & BT), promised and then later withheld video (Phorm), no comment on releasing PIA once completed (Phorm), disregard for customer's concerns and requests regarding their source of (what so for appears to be ficticious) confirmed legal compliance (Phorm, BT & VM).

Lol - I also now see the irnoy in this aggression towards a single blogger - isn't Webwise allegedly desined to help the internet hobbyist webmaster? Kent, you are threatening to sue the very people your sales pitch claims to be aimed at.

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

Well as everyone knows here, my original statement was opinion only and I made it clear that BT/Phorm needed to clarify the issue. I even updated the post to include and alternative interpretation yesterday evening and of course retracted the statement this morning before BT or Phorm had contacted me on the issue. So I fail to see how it can be classed as defamation given that at no point did I make a statement of fact, my statements were not malicious and I removed the statement under my own judgement and not as a result of any legal threats (which I had not received at that point), so I clearly made a genuine effort to prevent damage to Phorm and BT's reputations.

We will have to wait and see. I have no doubts that they will actually sue me and I will have to take that on the chin, although I fail to see what they plan to achieve given that I literally have no worth (no assets and no income).

I will make sure I keep you all updated.

Alexander Hanff

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

Which part of "the advertisements were used to replaced [sic] a 'default' charity advertisement" have I not understood.

Replacing 'worthless' charity ads with holiday ads, pet insurance, banks, and Weight Watchers ads is simply sick.

I don't care who paid, I don't care how the campaign was structured, I don't care which agency. :sick:

Bill Hicks hit it on the nail. (warning strong language)

Unbelievable.

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

Wow,

Seems like you made a mistake and were man enough to admit to it, no big deal, no damage done. I hope they do indeed back off, although that would involve having a modicum of sense and an ability to show an understanding of the public's attitude from a PR point of view (Something both BT and Phorm have so far failed to do). If they do pursue you I'm sure there are enough people who support you to make it an absolute PR nightmare for them.

I just don't understand the world sometime, it seems it's OK for a huge corporation like BT, with the assistance of evil empire Phorm, to break the law millions of times with what appears to be no repercussions and a distinct lack of interest from the home office, yet the one time you step out of line (in their opinion) and they instantly look into suing you. You better be careful Alex, I hear Kent will be pushing for the death penalty ;)

Anyway, hope it works out ok.

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

Well done Alex.Its takes a big man to stand up and admit when they got something wrong and its nice to see that those people still exist in the world.

In all fairness, that document was a bit wordy and in places seemed as though it didn't quite know what it was saying or how to say it, so a small misinterpretation can be forgiven.

It does go to show, however, that people are watching each and every move made by people involved in this campaign and as such, it may be prudent for everyone involved to stand back from time to time and ensure that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

I think a Winston Churchill quote fits this situation rather well: 'Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.'

I hope that this little setback does not put anyone off of continuing the fight.

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

Now that made me laugh Alexander the fact phorms only reputation is in the murky past rootkit so nothing there to lose shame BT had to get burnt though mind if you play with fire you wil get burnt.

What I found interesting is the 21cn stuff....

Now what are Kents plans on that front since most will be other ISPs I intend to repl;y to Emma tonight then flurt a few emails off to a few larger independant ISPs who use BT backbone.

Think Kent was concerned that Google might be taking him to task over adverts.

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

It takes a lot more than legal threats to make me back down, so don't worry about that.

Alexander Hanff