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

We should Digg this one too:

http://digg.com/tech_news/BBC_Click_Phorm_discussion

It is a link to the extended web edition of the Click! debate

Alexander Hanff

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

Eh? I can't believe you posted that, YET IGNORED OUR COMPLAINTS AND REQUESTS FOR AN APOLOGY.

Simon, just in case you missed our posts, here they are again:

Simon, you there? Yes of course you are.

You can see our original posts on page 364 of this thread.

We STILL await your reply. And apology.

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

Done

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

One thing that I'm not clear on here - is there any obligation on Phorm to actually publish the final PIA in full? Presumably, as they have commissioned it, they will own the copyright?

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

The problem is whichever way you look at it, this PIA is open to spin manipulation. If it's critical of webwise, it will be disregarded by Phorm under the premise that Phorm's critics denounced it beforehand; if it supports webwise, we will reject it as 'bought'. I think that makes the PIA just some words written by some bloke who none of us know. Is it really of any more value that a column written by a hack in a National rag? I can't see how.

I think Simon should be left to reflect on this sorry tale. I think the encouragement has to focus on our friendly-neighbourhood ISP's who need their customers as much as we enjoy the services they provide. I don't want the contract I have with my ISP tinkered with and, for me, therein lies the real issue. Not Phorm. Not Kent. Not Simon. Virgin Media, whom I have found to be a fair and honest Company and who still have NOT committed to an agreement that is very unpopular with its customers, is who I'm am relying on.

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

Can people post the Digg link to other sites they are active on which are covering this issue as well. The extended web edition is much better than the broadcast edition so we need to try and make sure people are aware of it and see it. Encourage your friends to sign up for Digg and digg the story.

Alexander Hanff

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

The ICO don't go so far as to say MUST be published, but strongly hint that it should be.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...26-report.html

A PIA Report should be written with the expectation that it will be published, or at least be widely distributed. If so, the report can fulfil the functions listed above: accountability, post-implementation review, audit, input into future iterations of the PIA, and background information for people conducting PIAs in the future.

Some of the information gathered during a PIA process may be subject to security or commercial sensitivities. In such cases, it may be appropriate for the detailed information to be in confidential, or closed, appendices. Such information suppression, however, needs to be limited to only that which is justified. Sufficient information needs to be included within the PIA Report to ensure that the arguments and assessments are complete, informative and comprehensible

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

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

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

Now I am insulted. And I mean really insulted.
At first I was going to correct your misunderstanding of my posts but now I am wild and unreasonable?

At no point recently have I derided Simon Davies or 80/20 thinking. Nowhere have I suggested that their reputation is anything less than it is.

At no point have I speculated on the contents of the upcoming PIA and then discussed content I could not possibly know anything about.

I have simply stated my view that given there is a specific framework in place for the management of such tasks I fail to see how certain areas of the process could have been followed and that If upon publication of that PIA it proves to be the case that certain criteria have not been met ( and given the subsequent information posted it would appear this will be the case ) then questions should be asked about the whole of the document regarding the screening process, the criteria followed and the people who have authored the document and their qualifications for doing such a task.

I was pointing out areas that may need to be questioned so that anyone concerned about it might know where to look to start that questioning.

And yes. I did use the term "not worth the paper it is printed upon" but if you bother to understand the context I said that I would suggest that in response to R Jones pointing out that 80/20 had already stated that the PIA was started too late and they were disappointed with that. If you can't do it properly then what value does it hold? I think that is a valid question.

Seriously I just raised questions about something that I feel I have every right to question and to be accused of making wild accusations against people and their reputation just won't do.

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

80/20 website front page says:
"A final version of the PIA will be published by the end of April 2008"

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

I'm sure both statements were made in good faith by 80/20, but the website also says:

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

I think he may have been referring to one or all of:

Search engines, who store all SEARCHES

ISPs and the data retention obligations. Logs, especially call records, must be kept for a year, and this is often taken to include DNS lookups (where available), as well as email sender, recipient etc. So your ISP may well have a copy of your entire clickstream of sorts.

What it shouldn't have however is a copy of the actual PAGES visited on any website, because this wouldn't be included in the DNS lookup. However I don't know how e.g. Hitwise works to get traffic stats.

Basically, the debate is a complex legal one between what constitutes "traffic data" and what constitutes content.

Any attempt to reconstitute the HTTP request to read the content of the GET request should in my opinion be covered by RIPA, however some people wrongly believe because this is in a HTTP header that this is header information and therefore traffic information and therefore up for grabs.

Strictly speaking under RIPA, traffic information is the information necessary in routing the data communication, so IP address, DNS lookup, email recipient etc.

PECR (Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations, EC Directive, 2003) regulates how ISPs can process traffic information, including consent issues. RIPA deals with disclosure.

You may be surprised to hear that any one of hundreds of government bodies, including local councils, can request under RIPA without order from a Judge your traffic information!

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

No he means presumably that most web sites keep logs of their traffic which include IP address and also things like tracking cookies and search engines retaining your search terms.

The point he doesn't seem to get is whereas this is true this is extremely distributed. This data is held by millions of individual web sites and not linked together, nor is it under the control of a single entity, nor can it be seen usually by anyone but the web site owner.

So whereas we do have a digital footprint, it is broken into millions of pieces and scattered everywhere, Phorm on the other hand glues all those pieces back together to "Phorm" the full picture and give them a very clear facsimile of your entire browsing behaviour. This much data is a gift to marketing and advertising companies. The individual shards scattered across the web are -almost- useless on their own (I say almost because they do provide useful statistics for the web site owner), but Phorm conveniently ignore the point that they see everything, individual web sites only see what you do on their site and if referrer checking is used the site you came from. Tracking cookies don't fall under the same argument because they are bad and many are blocked by anti spyware/adware/virus or browser/OS based tools.

Alexander Hanff

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

It is just Kent loosely referring to his view that everywhere we go on the web is followed closely by google and that they store all that information against our IP for eons. His view is also that because google do 'this' then Phorm should be allowed to do 'that' even though 'this' and 'that' are chalk and cheese.

That really is what Kent's attitude boils down to. He's annoyed that we accept google and won't accept Phorm. He thinks because Google merely exist that everything his company does is valid and he has a little bit of a hard time coping with the fact that nobody outside of Phorm sees things that way.

Trotting out Google and its practices with the advertising tech it deploys is his favourite thing. Given that there is no correlation between what Google do and what Phorm proposes beyond the word 'advert' I must admit I admire his gall. He must have a huge set of nads to keep repeating stuff even he must know is pig swill.

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

You have every right to state your opinion and I agree with it. Unfortunately, I said much the same a little while back and got shot down in flames. It's a hard knock life. It's good though ;) .

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

Can we please stop this ridiculous infighting it is driving me berserk. I logged off early last night because of it and now today it is continuing, lets get a grip this is just silly.

Alexander Hanff

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

It might have been prudent of Simon Davies, who made such a statement here, and who's reputation is so wonderful and glowing to his fanboys to mention then that the video content was in fact not being filmed by anyone connected to 80/20 thinking and given that fact any claims made regarding such a video could not be relied on as fact.
I believe that the information that Phorm were handling the video must have been made available to Simon and as such he may possibly ( sorry fanboys ) have been aware that what he was saying may possibly have been misleading and untrue. Possibly. Maybe.

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:12 ----------


I don't feel that defending myself angainst insults is in-fighting. Just like to have things correct and above board and I'll continue to maintain MY reputation when spurious comments are made against me but thanks for your concern. Sorry you don't like it.

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

Geez Alexander be cool, don't have a baby. People like to express opinion on forums. It's not hurting anyone is it?

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

yes, but you get angrier at least 32.7% faster than me and that does not help your debate ;)

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

I wasn't criticising Simon, merely pointing out that statements made IN GOOD FAITH by 80/20 may well be dependent on the (sadly lacking) good faith of Phorm. This includes the publishing of both the film and (potentially) the PIA itself.

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

I've just watched both 'versions' of the Click! program .. good work Alexander!
Obviously the extended web version is much better than the TV version .. I wonder why they cut it like that? ... It ruins it in my opinion!
I'm just wondering, Alexander if it were possible for you (as a subject of the interview) to ask for a copy of an un-edited cut? .. I don't even know if the BBC provide this sort of service, but it might be worth asking!

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

OK I am disengaging. I will not sit around on my Saturday afternoon watching bruised egos go at each other like cats and dogs. It is not even remotely constructive.

Alexander Hanff

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

If you want someone like Simon to bother wading through all this guff and respond to the important points then I guess it does. I've got no problems with expression of opinion, expression of counter opinion, countering the counter-opinion with counter arguments of sort.

But IMHO when the debate degenerates into this to-me to-you nonsense you'd be better off in a chat room.

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

I can't remember that from the interview (BTW thanks to the person who put up the link for the benefit of those of us that don't use Micro$oft or Flash) but I guess he means the logging preformed by our ISPs. I'm not aware of any ISP being open about how much of our internet traffic is being logged.

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

well If Kent only meant Google and other search engines then his statement that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address is just plain wrong and should have been challenged ??

All your searches being stored is very different to all your online activity.

Searches would be 1% of my online activity if even that....

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

Alex, i have watched this clip over & over again, and have noticed the look in k*nts eyes & that smarmy smile around the 1:31 mark.
This is the reason that hatred for this slimebag has tripled, anyone who is ANYONE should be ableto tell that this creature cannot be trusted, and as such i would not trust him as far as i could throw one of his rootkitted, spyware servers!

It should be noted that he cannot be trusted, and ANYONE that opts in to this is just asking for trouble and they deserve every single repercussion of that choice!

I would also like to correct Mr. Phorm on 1 matter; the anti-phishing on IE7, after installing this update for no end of paying customers, EVERY single time I open IE7, it informs me that IE 7 has anti-phishing technology, and it gives me OPTIONS as to if I want it on, off or disabled, so good try kent, we can ALL see right through your pointless comments & spin!!!!!!!!!

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

Simon? Simon who? Why should I be interested in what Simon Says? This is a forum. People can express their opinion can't they? imho

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

Oh dear. To be fair this has nothing to do with you beyond that it is public.

I've made my statements concerning things stated about me where I believed those things to be harsh and misplaced. I have defended myself and I'd feel that was enough unless what I say is later countered.
I don't have a bruised ego. I just don't shy from confrontation when I am in the right.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------

I know and there was a little tongue in cheek in my reply so you can't take it as fact. But the gist of what I am saying is correct. Kent believes that because we are already tracked on our way around the web ( Google is usually the name he trots out first ) then we have no right to object to Phorm.

The way I see it is so what? I don't actually care what google does. I've never seen a Google add anyway and anything relating to them is adblocked. I do care that Phorm want to intercept my communication data, much of which is sensitive, and hawk it out like I'm a cheap whore.

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

Quite right, and much as I admire Alexander, a hissy fit is out of order. Have a rest Alex, you'll feel better later :)

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

If Simon wants to respond about anything he will do. He'll trawl through all of the messages just as we all have and he has before. If he had anything to say on last nights postings then given that he was here until nearly 4am and that he did make a couple of posts then he chose not to.

Given that he is just another voice in a debate than surely it does not matter if he speaks or not.

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

I for one am. He's got Phorm's ear, and that is significant. If Phorm is going to be implmented I'm glad Simon is engaged. Of course you could argue that without Simon's help Phorm would never get past the ICO and the ISP but I don't buy that. I'm all for shipping arms to Iran because if we don't, someone else will, and there's a hell of a lot can be said for knowing what's in your enemy's inventory, and in fact somehwhat subtly limiting the effectiveness of their arsenal. (opt-in).

That's not to say I'm not unhappy about the video. I feel mislead that Phorm have the footage of every opinion voiced by everyone in the audience and we don't.

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

tend to agree

on another note "Micro Mart" have a good cover story on phorm by Mark Pickavance in issue 1002 ( 1- 7 May )

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

Ok, that's fair. But answer me this, what do you know, really and reliably know about Simon? Why is everyone so prepared to believe in the self-proclaimed these days?

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

You'd have a different view of the arms trade if you were the guy who had to go and take them back when it all goes tits up.

I agree with you that it is good to have Simon engaged given his place in the wheel. Simon is a reasonable man, eloquent and courteous even when others have been less than so in the past. I've stated too many times my respect for what he has achieved in the past but I've also stated that given his relationship with 80/20 and Phorm then he can only be judged with his 80/20 hat on and that his PI hat is in the closet.
It is not unfair to remind people that Simon is an employee of 80/20 Thinking ( regardless of his salaried status ) and as such he has obligations to his client when he deals with the public and if he did not defend his client's reputation to the hilt then it is at that point that I would lose respect for him. I don't have the slightest bit of issue with Simon earning a living and seeing him stay true to his client because I'd like to think if I employed people in the same manner then they would do the same for me even if my business was processing babies for dog food.

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

Yup, that's an important point that: we are not 80/20T's client, Phorm are. Btw, I think I just noticed why Alexander got upset: 80/20 are here. Hello Simon! :)

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

I don't know him personally but the organisations he represents goes a long way to vouching for his credentials. PI is not just some ramshackle protest group who employ anyone they can get. They have briefed parliament and they have done this because their view is respected; because they have taken time to study and prepare opinion as learned individuals.

That's not to say I agree with all his views, just that I respect his background and prominence. Simon believes Phorm can provide a secure and safe way of delivering targeted advertising, I say the issues are wider than Phorm.

I don't represent any group so when I spoke out about Phorm back in mid February, the BBC, El Reg, etc ignored my view. That's not to say my, or your, or Alex's opinion is any less valid than Simon's, just that Simon is in a position of trust representing the organisations he does.

I believe from your posts that you agree with Fipr's view that Phorm is illegal and should be banned. If so, why is it you trust Nicholas Bohm's or Richard Clayton's view? Self-appointed defenders of electronic privacy? The O.R.G.?

That was intended to be a rhetorical question, but obviously you're in your rights to answer. At the risk of putting even more people off I'll leave this here.

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

Thanks everyone for your valuable comments.

As before, I can't respond to each and every point made (that's shorthand for saying that I'm overwhelmed with work and don't have enough minutes in the day to do everything I'd like to).

I will however respond to one specific point about the video of the public meeting. We did arrange to have the meeting filmed. That was entirely within our brief. We did not accept liability or responsibility for its broadcast, which would have been a role outside our brief. I apologise if I raised expectations that the footage would be imminently published, but I did genuinely believe it was to be immediately published.

The fact that almost every member of the press had recorded the event in full and that other participants were filming it made me a little more comfortable about the issue of transparency.

Simon

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

Why has it not been released?

What is the delay?

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

Simon may well yet turn out to be my hero. I hope so. I really do. You're right, let's leave it there or someone will run out of headache pills :)
p.s. I trust my own views based on my own assessments.

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

Simon "2 Hats" - the guy who doesn't sit on the fence - he has a foot in both camps which he manages to do without rupturing himself...

I'm sorry - I still can't work him out -

Being involved with various trade unions in my career there are only 2 sides yours and the opposition.

You negotiate with the opposition using trade union legislation you don't try and bend that legislation in order to match their agenda.

You'd be first up against the wall come the revolution


brother

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

Thanks Simon.

As I've pointed out recently it has been unfortunate that you were not a little clearer on the matter beforehand but it is done and you have responded to the questions in that area. I doubt it does any of us any good to further question this area.

Given that it has been me that has brought up questions regarding how the PIA has been worked and how close to the ICO framework it has been ( trust me, I'm aware it is not a legal document or undertaking and in fact the ICO only offer guidelines for the creation of such documents, I'm not confused there ) do you think it would be possible to engage in a q&a regarding the screening. full scale assessment and compliance issues. either in private or open in a place such as here.
I have no wish o trip you up or rip apart anything regarding the PIA. I am genuinely interested in the process. I will of course, use any answers to assess the validity of the PIA in my opinion should Phorm try and spin it's content in the future. Given I've said that do you think it may be possible for discussion ( because if not I shall waste no more of our time on it )

Regards

Craig

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

A reminder, in case anyone has not yet signed:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

This will be at No. 3 by the end of next week, in spite of only being started two months ago.

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

It's a shame that Webwise will likely be up and running before the government even has an obligation to look at that.

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

....but it helps counter Phorm's argument that only a small clique are anti.

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

Thank you for your reply Simon, and your apology. It is obvious that Phorm lied to you about publishing the film, as they have lied to us and everyone else.

Even though there's many full copies of the meeting lying around, it is very saddening that we have yet to be able to see it. Up till now I have put off watching the excerpts posted as I have been waiting to see the whole unedited version. I'll go watch the excerpts . . .

Ali :(

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

Sadly there is a common denominator in this and that is Kent and Phorm and the words publish or/and be damned might have been the latter is which case he didn't say who would be damned him or us..

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

:redcard:

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

If it was 8020 that arranged for the event to be filmed, then why didn't the people that filmed it give you a copy? Are you under some legal limitation that prevents you from distributing that copy?

Also to Alex, could you request the unedited footage from the Click recording under a DPA request? I know that you can request CCTV footage under a DPA request but don't know if being filmed for TV is covered.

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

So we substantiate his credentials through a source that can be self-edited or ask him if he's a nice person? Is there any other way please?

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

Have to agree with Alexander here infacr if the infighting carries on the winner is phorm devide and conquer..


This was answered earlier by Simon he is waiting on something from the ISPs perhaps they are scared of releasing daming information...

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

Did Simon mention the ISPs or are you in posession of more information than us?

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

If, as is being rumoured, BT/Phorm remove the cookie based system then this will require a change to the report.

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

Again with the infighting? Have I not the right to defend my comments when I am misquoted and then insulted?

Seriously it seems I'm only accepted as long as I don't rock the boat.
I'll leave you to it and post elsewhere.

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

The context of Frank Rizzo's post suggests his question was about delay in releasing the video.
Subsequent posts, however, seem to be about delay in finishing/publishing the PIA.
We could get confused! (and end up squabbling again!!)

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

@James - Waiting for ISP's. 13 pages back now!

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

All the direct quotes from BT are that they're just removing cookies from the opt-out.

A poster on iii, Professional Party, claiming to have inside knowledge on BTs technical side, said (Sat 21:51) "BT have proposed a design whereby anyone who has opted-out (nitpicky point here BT - RIPA needs them to opt-in, not opt-out!) will not have their data-stream intercepted and sent to the profilers at all - which would satisfy a lot of consumers and would go a long way towards addressing some of the legal issues raised (there are still a lot of issues to overcome in this regard but that isn't the point I want to make)."

This fits also with my own letters to BT legal and the ICO pointing out the catch-22 in that the traffic had to be intercepted and classified as traffic that must be ignored in order to ignore it, but I think the real driver may be DPA "Section 11" opt-out, which could require ISPs to opt anyone out who puts a request in writing, irrespective of cookies and blocking domains etc.

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

I guess at a push you could check Wikipedia's references for yourself?
Or Google his name? I can't think of any better way than researching what he's been up to for the last couple of decades.

Perhaps there's somebody active in internet or privacy fields that you would accept as a respected authority?
If so, I expect they'd be happy to give him a reference.
Why not start with the advisory boards of Privacy International and 80/20?

And if third-party testament doesn't convince you then, yes, I suggest you have a chat with him.

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

I am aware that BT have stated publicly (and to me in emails) that they are working on a way of allocating people to the trials using a non-cookie opt-IN, with people declining the trial not requiring an opt-out cookie to remain on their machine. They have not guaranteed that it will be ready for the trials.

I haven't read anything so far that suggests anyone is working on a cookie-free Webwise/Phorm profiling system. So if there is something reputable out there, stating otherwise, does anyone have a reference to it?

Remember that Kent's current policy is to accuse us of scare-mongering. Alex did really well on the Click interview rebutting that accusation with FACTS. IMHO we have to follow his example and be careful about unsubstantiated rumours or we fall into Kent's trap. I'd rather Kent Ertugrul fell into his own traps (which he does, quite regularly nowadays.)

I've been pestering BT fairly frequently recently, and they have so far been responding promptly - not always clearly, not always comprehensively, but they certainly haven't dropped even a hint that they are looking at a cookie-free Webwise/Phorm profiling system.

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

I'm very careful to quote posts and if I have made a mistake then I unreservedly apologise.

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

Thanks for that. I had seen it but took it to mean waiting on information from the ISPs to complete the PIA. I can't see why the ISPs would block the video, but I'm prepared to be surprised by the facts if/when they emerge!

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

re: simon waiting for ISPs. If I read that correctly it has nothing to do with the delay with the video. Simon states that the securing information from the ISPs is required to complete the PIA and not to do with the video.

I do not know why there is no answer for the reason for the delay of the video. Why is no one asking questions about it? Why is it seen as low priority.

If 80/20 did not record it then why don't they ask who did why there is a delay.

If Phorm want to delay the video maybe 80/20 could delay the PIA in response.

One reason why I did not attend that meeting was that I could watch it all later. I am sure many others had the same reason.

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

I read it the same way you do, waiting for the ISP's in order to complete the PIA.

I don't think we will ever see the video, which is a shame, especially as I think more people would have taken their own 'cams if it had not been mentioned.

---

Or, as Frank points out, attended in person.

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

Did anyone bother to check the camera was actually switched on? :)

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

I'm sure they were on. Edited highlights of people wearing masks would have been released within hours.;)

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

With Phorm holding the Video don't expect to see it ever you could put it down to experience and the fact Kent has proved again he will hide what he doesn't like.

The Video was one chance he had to save some face he blew it..

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

Ceedee I am not having a go; you and I share a common cause. I am a little facinated by gullibility but there you go. I suppose Privacy Advocate is a bit like Estate Agent - anyone can set up as one and people have confidence in them because of what they appear to be. Incidentally, I mean no sleight to Simon in this, it is the principle of naivete that is interesting. Depending where you look Kursk is a submarine; it is also a battle. It is also both and in my case neither. What to believe eh? Perhaps I need a little more wide-eyed innocence and to be more trusting. Phorm is good for me (I saw that written somewhere too).

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

My daughter has just watched the video from click and pointed out that the computers at uni do not have phishing switched on as when they login in it asks if they want it on. When they go to some links IE still warns them it might be a phishing site...


So the need for anti phishing as Kent put it switched on isn't relevent.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------

Faster service remember the old proxies they slowed the internet experience down so how can redirecting you 3 or more times make it faster?

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

Ok this infighting will stop right now, Alexander might urge for it to stop and some of you feel the urge to ignore him, but I will not be ignored.

There is too much emphasis on this video, why? Because when it boils down to it, you are all not missing anything. You know what Phorm's PR machines will have been spewing out, the same old, the same old. You do not need to see yet more evidence of it so why the need to see it?

The bottom line is - Alexander has spent endless hours, half the time sleep deprived working on this to fight for us. There should be a little bit more respect shown.

I don't like Phorm and I don't want Phorm any more than the next guy, you only have to read my news stories on this when this first came out in Feb. But I don't give a stuff about any video because I don't need nor want to see Phorm's PR machine spewing its vile any longer, my decision was made the second this news came out two and half months ago.

If the video is released, its released but there is no need for a song and dance because its not been released yet.

So less of the falling out and back to a constuctive debate please, I will not have this spoiling, what has been best debated subject of all time - on this forum. Thank you.

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

Personally I'd normally judge somebody by their endeavours and achievements, backed up by professional recommendations and, if the opportunity arises, some personal contact.

Recommend you do some research yourself if you still don't know what to believe.

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

Indeed. The problem in many cases was scaleability. The ISPs used a cacheing proxy to cut down on their backbone traffic but the proxy solution wasn't really scalable and in the end the proxy degraded customer experience instead of improving.

So one of my concerns is how the Phorm proxy will scale. Last summer I'm 100% sure I was caught in the trial, my connection was AWFUL but I was busy with a project and the only analysis I did was an ethernet trace and I only looked at L4 which was problematic because of duplicate TCP ACKs and out-of-sequence traffic. I worked around the problem by re-routing all domestic traffic via my office gateway.

Oh - and to complete a tale about proxies in general, in the last few years backbone capacity has increased whilst backhaul has become more contentious so it never really made sense to develop better, more scalable proxies. Also a lot of dynamic web content sets no-cache and cache expired so caching these days helps a bit on images but that's about all.

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

The emphasis is that there is content within the video that is damaging to Phorm.
The emphasis is that Simon Davies misled members of the public regarding this video.
The emphasis is that Simon Davies was annoyed that people didn't turn up when in fact they were told they didn't need to as there would be a full unedited video released for all.

Maybe the PI/8020 - Good/Evil discussion needs to be taken to a different thread, but the discussion of the video should remain here until we get a full response as to why it is not being released.

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

Ok thanks. I've already decided what I believe.

Apologies Mick, I must have missed the deification.

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

Most likely why it wasn't released but we are lucky there is part of the meting gives enough of the meeting out to get a general feel.
Simon has apologised and had you thought he was also mislead no longer important.
Those that couild make it went if you were able to go and didn't on the promise of a unedited video, knowing phorm and Kent :erm:

Think after watching Kent on numerous times can you see him releasing the video or the reason why it wasn't released. Perhaps this should be taken as a warning by the three named ISPs that this is the type of person you are signing upto releasing all your customers details to.. Can you still trust him....

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

I have to admit I am a little disappointed in Simon Davis but I repeat, I am hoping to be proved my concerns are unfounded. His previous work is beyond reproach.

I liken his current position to that of a employed RSPCA inspector who started up a company on the side and his first job was to write a report for the badger baiting society on behalf of the badger baiting society. I see a conflict of interests and whether it was naivety on 80/20's part I don't know.

If I was to give any advice to Simon it would be: If he sees misquotes and misunderstandings in the press regarding PI and 80/20 and the correct 'hat' is not acknowledged, he should be seen to be quick to correct the statement when necessary. Allowing the BBC to run an article that misquotes 80/20 as PI for many days is unforgivable and if he values his continued respect he has to be seen to be doing the correct things promptly.

Allowing things to go unchallenged for any length of time only adds to peoples suspicions. The bottom line in my humble opinion is that in certain cases where 'beliefs' are involved, you cannot wear two hats. That's all I will say on the matter.

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

Bit obvious really (with 80/20 hindsight) "Don't bother filming, we are making a video". Never used that one myself, though I have used "Don't bother making notes, I'll copy you the slides". Keeps you in control. Oh, and I always do send the slides! But fool me once etc etc perhaps nice guys are always too reasonable. We are after all dealing with someone who has made a fortune pushing scumware that caused frustration, financial loss and hours of wasted time for literally thousands of people. And he obviously sees Google "Don't be evil" as a soft touch and clearly that is who phorm is really aimed at.

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

I'd appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about the broader perspective here, while also conducting a little expectation management regarding the PIA.

I mentioned at the start of the public meeting that tectonic shifts are occurring in the online environment. Many of you will know these shifts well. Microsoft makes a play for Yahoo, while Google acquires Doubleick, capturing more than half the ad potential of the Web. Yahoo responds by cutting a deal with Google. Meanwhile, Time Warner through advertising.com via AOL launches a rival global ad platform.

Meanwhile, back in the EU, the national privacy commissioners, tired of missing the boat on online issues, raise the privacy bar via the Article 29 Group to drive a wedge through the ad space market and lay down an unprecedented set of demands that could, who knows, spark a mini trade war between the EU and the US.

There's about $20 billion up for grabs in ad space margins, which accounts for much of this activity. That accounts for the existence of Phorm, as it accounts for its rival platforms along with the consolidation spree you read about every day.

At the moment I'm trying to come to terms not just with these tectonic shifts within industry, but also the extraordinary chasm that is opening up between the ad market and the new regulatory regime. Phorm accounts for a very small part of that vast picture. Every week I speak with people from each of the key online corporations and the regulators in an attempt to understand where this is taking us as consumers.

Enter the PIA into this equation. Please do not make the mistake of believing that the PIA is likely to be either judge or white knight. It is merely a process that will lead, we hope, both to greater clarification and to a better outcome for consumers. Neither it nor 80/20 carry any legal standing whatever. Our role is not to sit in judgment, but to set out facts. We cannot "set matters right", but we can make recommendations for reform. The market or the courts may decide the ultimate outcome in whatever field we explore.

I can't be the "hero" some of you would like me to be - at least, not as a result of doing a PIA. You may feel confident about some of the points I will make, but you may also be disappointed that some of my observations will be set against those tectonic shifts I mentioned earlier.

Simon

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

Now that is what I call a good post. Thank you Simon.

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

http://digg.com/tech_news/BBC_Click_Phorm_discussion

Digged/dugged* as requested Alexander.

*delete as appropriate

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

I don't need to see any content which shows how damaging Phorm is - I already made my mind up when I realised their business which is basically 'Spyware'. Phorm is damaged goods with or without the video.

I will decide that and if I feel the continuation of the discussion surrounding the video is causing rifts and upsets within the contexts of this debate than I will suggest that the discussion element surrounding the video ceases until at least there is conclusive information to its imminent release, quite frankly I could discuss the fact that I want some hot weather, doesn't mean I will get it. Perhaps there is too many negative assumptions about the video - assumptions are the mother of all problems and falling out with each other solves nothing.

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

cheers. What you are saying is I have no right to defend myself when being insulted?

Ban me by all means, no matter I'll leave you armchair warriors to your own devices. It's pathetic to be accused of infighting when only trying to uphold one's comments.

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

I don't think Mick will ban you (or me for that matter :D). It would be a travesty if he did. Mick started this thread and it is vibrant through its many differing views. I've probably been a little bit woah! today and I apologise for that.

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

Come on Pasanonic, lets get back on track ... ;-)

Let bygones be bygones and let us all unite to fight Kent from the Dark Side together.
May the force be with us!

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

I agree with the idea, that a profile is a brilliant way of making adverts relevant. The sticking point for me is and always will be the intra-ISP data gathering aspect.

If you believe that an IP stream is a rich source of information that ecapculates some of the most sensitive personal information about individuals, and you believe in the right to privacy in communications, which no doubt you do, then please ask yourself about the moral issue of allowing a company to harvest information from that stream.

Morally, if I’m against any person listening to my phone conversations, is it any different to consider that a machine should be classifying my web browsing stream?

The answer I came upon was: it depends. And what does it depend on? It depends on what the machine does and who has access to the output. But this question then always leads back to questions of regulatory controls and software validation – proving conclusively what the machine actually does.

If Phorm is allowed to install intra-ISP profiling equipment, others will follow suit. Which body in the UK has the capacity and expertise to oversee effectively this emerging market?

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

Is this the gentle let down?

Do you understand the frustrations some of us have over 80/20's task here?

The way I see it is that there is a dodgy dossier. You have been given the task of sexing it up.

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

@Simon

I don't think the 'tectonic shift' needs to be driven by a tap on my internet connection. We should never accept that and it is not inevitable.

They have to find a different way to run the innit-net, and leave the internet alone. Internet users will pay more. That should be the choice.

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

Again, thank you Simon for your explanation and apology.

Well, I've watched the videos at http://tobymeres.net/. I have to admit, I'm very impressed with Kent. No matter what I might think of him, his technique and his product, he has total 100% belief and commitment. And that I just gotta admire.

Ali.

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

No. Not at all.

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

I would have 100% belief and commitment if I had all that money invested in a product. Even if it turned out to be dodgy!

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

Exactly!

I'm sorry, Simon, but all I see you talk about above is the advertising industry. Most of the people here are technically savvy enough to know how to turn the ads off in their browsers so it's not the ads that worries us; what is worrying us is how your client (or is it partner?) Phorm intends to serve them. That's the issue here, not how much money everyone can make!

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

Here's a bit of perspective for you Simon.

Ask yourself, fundamentally, what makes the internet so valuable?

The answer is easy. Its content. Its content freely given and freely received. Its content bought and paid for in some cases.

Its valuable content created, edited, categorised, ordered, arranged by people like me. Its social networking sites. Its ecommerce. Its online games.

Phorm steal *all* that content, and use it to profile, family, friends and customers. They steal *all* that content and use it to draw web browsers away from my sites.

Does anyone, apart from Kent Ertugrul and his OIX network advertisers, benefit from this unethical 'behavioural targeting' model?

Have you considered me as a stakeholder in this Simon? Both as a content creator and a content consumer?

So far - I don't think you have. And I do think you should.

It is certainly difficult to get 108 million instances of consent from web site creators. Does that make it unnecessary? Sadly not.

If you don't get that consent you will absolutely destroy the thing that made the internet valuable in the first place.

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

Though if someone told you that tomorrow the weather would be fine and in fact there were terrible storms, would you be happy? We have to wait, no point in speculating now, if the video comes out it's a bonus, if not, just another example of why Phorm can't be trusted with anything. A side effect of this is that 8020's reputation has also been tarnished.

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

Following a stock text reply from BT with some bits about how they have no way of identifying the people involved in the trials, I had this thought -

If the privacy laws apply to the PEOPLE at the ends of the communication, what happens when I use a friends PC and they are opted-in? Or for that matter, as discussed previously, several members of the same household, with differing views on profiling?

If BT did move to a network based routing solution, their suggestion that people use different logins to their PC would not work.

A better way for them to do this (ethically) would be a piece of software on the client PC (a browser plug-in) which asks whenever the browser is opened, whether or not the user wants their browsing profiled. Of course that sounds too much like spy-ware, but would be much more acceptable to me if it was open about it.

I'm still confused with how this thing really works, as a web page producer. On one hand we have the spectre of deep packet inspection, and on the other suggestions that the robots.txt file can be set to keep them out (I will be asking the direct question regarding user-agent [again]). I'm sure I've seen something suggesting that they will cache the robots.txt file for 20 days. If this is the case then webmasters of the world need to know the agent string and the start date of the trials in order to avoid being intercepted.

I'm getting increasingly angry that this seems to be a case of a small number of big companies against a number of like minded individuals with no united voice. Where are the people who should be representing us? Talking to MPs is all well and good (and the right thing to do), but they will not get anything sorted out before the trials (and possibly the roll-out) start. Where is OFCOM?

I understand (I think) the reticence of the ICO and HO to get involved, but this is such a big thing that I would like to think that there is some similar body which is able to investigate this prior to it being rolled out. With the best will in the world I can't see any action being taken once it's out of the box.

Some truthful, spin-free answers would make my day.

Any way that's the end of my Saturday rant.

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

In that case I would suggest: when in doubt, Opt out.

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

And there in lies the problem. I'm at a friend's house and I use there PC. I don't have the option to over-ride their opt-in, so my traffic is illegally intercepted.

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

Thank you for the primer on InfoEthics 1.0.1

However I wouldn't go around publishing presumptions about my priorities with regard to stakeholderage. You may end up feeling sheepish.

Simon

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

Cant you just make a definitive statement about the screening process and the criteria and compliance checking met for the PIA? There is little to be gained by an " I know something you don't know" attitude. I'm not really concerned about the PIA content, I'm fairly confident of what I think it will say.

I'm more concerned with the framework applied to the process and would hope that you might offer up information about that, in the interests of openness and transparency of course? I'll be happy to accept your own ( perceived by me from your last comment ) view that you will have met the stakeholder criteria and if so then well done. All I ask is you tell me who the stakeholders are, how they were identified and why no poll of the public who are the biggest stakeholder outside of Phorm?

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

I don't think we are on strong ground trying to create scenarios of multiple people using one PC on a single PC login - as it can be argued (and surely will be argued) that PC's aren't meant to be used like that. Each user should be logged on with their own account, or on a "guest" account. That way they can control their own security preferences.

But even if that was the scenario - it IS possible in the model, for the user to simply go to Webwise while logged in as the other person, and turn it OFF. Then when they have finished, if the other person wants it on again, they can turn it ON again.

I'm not in favour of doing that - I don't think anyone should use Webwise, it's not legal. But I think the "single login/multiple user" scenario is not good ground to choose to battle on. Sure we can argue about it, but I'd prefer to discuss things much more fundamental - like its basic illegality with regard to ISP customers and the misuse of website content/intellectual property.

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

Simon, another thought. Profiling is needed for better-targeted and more relevant content. I can accept that argument. Data in profiles needs to be secure and protected, and I accept your expertise in advising companies in how best to achieve this.

Why not work with browser manufacturers to implement a unique browser ID function (that can be turned off and on) or talk about allowing true global cookies (with the user’s permission) to operate across all domains?

Profiling can then be achieved by paying website owners to insert a simple script that classifies the content being visited and reports this alongside the unique ID back to the profiler, and webmasters get paid a small sum per report.

The problem of course being that browser manufacturers, the W3C etc have all resisted any calls on the grounds of privacy.

So instead the net effect is that Phorm will still provide the unique ID, which can be solicited anyway, and on top of that introduce unknown performance and security risks by installing kit in to the ISP.

I can see the logic, that by limiting the players to those who can get kit into ISPs allows the privacy impact to be manageable, but this assumes a flawless implementation, not one that leaks UIDs.

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

The line "When in Doubt, Opt out" was there for your hypothetical friend - not you.

I honestly don't know any people who when enlightened of the true 'zero' benefits of the Webwise/Phorm system would actually Opt in. Its illegal, intrusive and written by an organisation who used rootkits to install their spyware/adware products, so I don't trust them.

What would a person get as a benefit if someone were to opt in - Nothing at all in most cases in my opinion. The anti Phishing filter (written by coders who have previous very good experience of writing applications that install on your PC - aka SPYWARE) is already built in IE7. Firefox also has this capability.

OK someone opts in and they apparently get targeted adverts (Benefit?). Big deal, as far as I am concerned I don't want any adverts so why would targeted Ads benefit me or most other people. OK I want to buy something on-line. What do I do. I look for the best price from a reputable company. Anyone who has Phorms OIX system in place is in my opinion far from reputable so I would not be buying from there either as they would be attempting to steer me away from my best possible purchase choice. I could go on but I am beginning to bore myself so I should stop there.

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

Virgin Media if they role this out will be damaged goods as well, And certainly will not be worthy of my continued use of there service.

My feelings towards Phorm will never ever change due to there past history, Its as simple as that.