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

exactly my thought, rock and a hard place spings to mind ;)

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

Anyone reckon VM might try to fast-track something if the date is significant?

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

Although that becomes a problematic to advertise the service under the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 mentioned in a post above, which I have also copied to the BT Beta forum. The first part of the regulations prohibits misleading actions and omissions. Therefore, companies can't miss out important facts about a product or service that would affect your decision to buy. Which may just be relevant to the way in which customers are invited to join the Webwise trials.


http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-mone...oowftxt0010011

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

In case no-one else has pointed it out yet - the anti-Phorm petition is now at No 3 after only two months.

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

.... and this thread goes over 6000 posts. Keep it up!

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

Good news :)

Alexander Hanff

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

So although vicz postette was a slightly amusing piffle it should really be read like a packet of cancer smokes with 80% of the box covered in health warnings.

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

******************

*** W A R N I N G ***

******************

WebLies will seriously damage your privacy and is a dangerous system written by Russian Hackers responsible for some of the most malicious spyware/rootkits ever produced. WebLies is an Intra-ISP Spyware (Spyware) and it will read all your personal and private communications with no tangible benefits for you the consumer as its anti-Phishing scam is a redundant hoax already provided by your browser (and|or anti-malware scanner) a cynical ploy to hook you up in order to allow Phorm**** to profit from selling your private details to its immoral unethical unscrupulous partners.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM THE BANDIT PRORMSCUM -- WebLies is DANGEROUS!!!

A) 99% say "NO!" as they bend Kent Ertugrul over and pack him into a little suitcase to be posted back to Moscow, Russia.



Thank god for trading standards, public warnings and correct representation of dangerous products likely to damage your health.
Do you think the fonts should be bigger and bolder, for more emphasis of Phormscums danger?

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

After reading that I am spitting feathers and my blood is boiling. There is a huge difference between this kind of technology and spying being done to combat terrorism or child pornography and this technology being leveraged just to target adverts at people. Whoever advised VM customer service reps to use that argument needs a damn good a$$ kicking.

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

Share price diving this morning so far :)

Alexander Hanff

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

That cheers me up some. Morning Alexander.

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

Hmm I think we are danger of losing the plot a little bit here. All I want is to use my VM broadband knowing that my browsing is not being profiled or processed in any way by VM or their scumware lackeys. I don't feel any obligation to defend those who are too stupid / apathetic to not opt in to something they don't understand. I don't feel any particular animosity to VM for investigating phorm, they couldn't afford to ignore a technology that was touted to make them £85m a year - equiv to approx 150,000 users - and they certainly couldn't allow BT to steal a march on them with this unchallenged. They have not deployed it yet - there is no real evidence even of them having trialed it outside of the lab - and whatever way any opt-in question is phrased many users will agree to opt-in because they trust the Virgin brand and trust that VM will not screw them over. And generally VM are one of the more consumer-friendly companies out there, which doesn't make them saints because, after all, they are in business to make money. For many it is the strength of their brand and the image of the bearded one that engenders this trust, hopefully we can help VM understand the consequences to the Virgin brand if people feel they have betrayed this trust. The fact is VM remain in the cable business which is more than Telewest or NTL managed, and their business is to sell advertising through as many channels as they can and they are pretty good at that aspect of it.

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Good to see but its not a victimless crime - not good for the industry generally if small shareholders continue to be taken for a ride on tech stocks.

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

Just thought of another one..

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

@vicz

As a user you may have the choice of whether to opt in or not. As a website owner I do not (unless I also remove my website from all search engines).

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

But the ISP customer is only half of this illegallity - the website owner is the other half. And the arrangements that are in place to "presume" informed consent are pathetic - if a webmaster allows Google, he/she is presumed to be consenting to Phorm/Webwise and the website's intellectual property AND the personal private unique data exchange with their site visitor is profiled and used to make profit for others. Don't forget the webmasters.

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

Do we actually know if it is Google they look for in robots.txt or is it the any agent string? I posed this question a bit back and (unless I missed it) there was no answer:
If (unlikely as it is) they do obey the robots.txt rules we need a robots.txt file putting together which includes all the known valid agents and barring *

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

Just had a thought here. Would it be worth us writing to the Advertising Standards Authority in particular with regards to Phorm and children seeing the adverts?

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

I have seen nothing specific about this - they have kept that deliberately vague, its one of the things they don't want to talk about.

Reading between the lines, I think that what they are looking for is a straightforward robots.txt ban on the page or folder or whole site, or a noindex,nofollow metatag.

But - they are not coming clean on the details, so once again - no proper inphormation available for inphormed consent for customer, let alone webmasters.

You can check out the BT Webwise FAQ here without putting yourself at risk of picking up any webwise.bt.com cookies - I got BT to create a mirror site for the FAQ on their own servers (originally all the Webwise stuff was only available on rather flakey FASTHOSTS servers, outside the BT network

It contains the information that BT are prepared to put record. You'll notice how good they are at not really providing the information we really need to know.
It also tends to be out of date - but then that can work in our favour because you can quote that information to management and ask them if it is still their official line - at which point they sometimes have to go away and have a little think - and the trials go back another month!

http://www.productsandservices.bt.co...=CON-WEBWISE-I

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

Whilst it is great news to digest breakfast to, watching the share price fall to a new all time low of 1225. The slightly sad news is that Phorm has managed to just move off the 'sector heat map' (1 Month Biggest Movers and Losers). This move from the map is due to the share prices not falling fast enough to compete with other losers. They (Phormscum) had a very sharp decline over that 1 month period which seemed to slow down and level off (still falling though) at around the 1400 mark.

I hope broadband users join me :ghugs: in some serious prayer (to whoever your God is) to see the share price take another deep vertical descent towards the pit. C'mon Phormscum we know you can get back onto the 'sector heat map' as a serious contender(loser) for top(bottom) position. ;)

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

Well I am also a website owner!

I think that for most web content it is 'published' and you don't really have a say about what is done to the content - I may buy the Daily Mail just to wrap my chips in for example! Certainly there is a good case for implied consent if the content is available for anyone to view. BUT firstly I don't believe this applies to certain types of content from eg webmail and password protected forums, and secondly I hate the idea of the cookie mangling, which is firstly likely to cause all kind of problems that they haven't anticipated yet, and secondly is not playing by www standards and spirit which is ultimately likely to cause problems for everyone.

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

Couple of problems with that statement. Firstly, if your buy your Daily Mail and put your chips in it, Daily Mail still get their money, you don't steal the news paper. Secondly, opinion doesn't really matter, law states informed consent which means it has to be explicit. The rights being breached are inalienable rights and therefore cannot be assumed to be waved under any circumstances.

Whether or not you like the idea of Phorm doesn't make it legal. As it stands Phorm is in my opinion and many respected legal experts, illegal, and therefore needs to be stopped. It is plain and simple.

Oh and also, buying the Daily Mail doesn't give you the right to copy it in order to use for commercial purposes (or any other purposes for that matter) the AP are very quick to shout copyright foul in the courts. Even their own journalists are not permitted to use something they have published in the AP for other commercial ventures. Read up on the AP you will have quite a surprise at how anal they are.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

OK Folks, time to start writing to Best Buy who just bought 50% of Carphone Warehouse (which I presume means Talk Talk too).

Alexander Hanff

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

@vicz

When you buy your copy of the Daily Mail are you happy for somebody to stand behind you taking a note of every article and advert you read, then when you get home you find flyers pushed through your letter box based on your perceived interests?

Also do you think that the Daily Mail are happy that the value of the adverts in their newspaper is being decreased because you will be targeted with adverts for competitive products based on the ones you have read? How long before advertisers realise what's happening and stop placing adverts in the Daily Mail?

---------- Post added at 10:47 ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 ----------

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7389291.stm

But look out Tiscali users!

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

The Reg are reporting it slightly differently. They say the deal doesn't include their stake in Virgin Mobile but does include airtime reselling. I presume TalkTalk fall under the Airtime Reselling category but I am not sure either way to be honest.

Alexander Hanff

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

Firstly let me clear I don't actually buy the daily mail ;)

What I was trying to illustrate was my opinion that it is impractical to deny consent to read something which is being made generally available. For example, if someone opens your mail and reads a letter, that is clearly interception without consent. But if you send a postcard and postie reads the message - well it would be hard to argue no consent. I wasn't trying to suggest that you could breach copyright at will, just give an example of implied consent.

But IANAL or even an aspiring one(AH) but do have several decades studying in the (IT) corporate university of life.

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 ----------

This is indeed the implication of signing up with OIX and IMHO is what is behind K*nts assertion that over time there will be fewer adverts (if only!) because targeted ads will supplant them thru out the Internet. Doesn't make it illegal though...

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

Then with your IT knowledge you will know that a TCP/IP packet has a destination IP address - it's not supposed to be diverted along the way without legitimate reason.

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

This wouldn't necessarily bother me as the newspaper / website owner - once I have got my money / hits then it is up to the buyer to beware.

If I was the buyer it would concern me very much, thats why I am contributing to this thread. But not all buyers seem to think that way. Some people like flyers and might regard this as a service!

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

But it may take a long and tortuous route...

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Just in case there is any doubt I agree 100% with that statement.

I just believe that a few solid examples where the case is clear is better than dozens of not so clear cut ones.

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

OK, irrespective of whether or not TalkTalk is included in the BestBuy deal, I have fired off an email to the BestBuy Press Office as follows:

Alexander Hanff

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

As usual Alexander, concise, to-the-point and excellent! :tu:

Alas, it sounds like BestBuy is the Walmart of the tech world, and as such I expect them to have a similar lack of regard for everything and anything other than profit. If they think they can make money from invading the privacy of their newly-acquired broadband customers, they will. It's The American Way(tm).

I really don't wish to be a downer, but I think we're wasting our time pleading with US companies not to infringe our rights. The best hope of defeating this abomination is through UK law and demonstrating to UK companies that we'll drop them like a stone if they go anywhere near it.

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

I tend to disagree, BestBuy is a huge "brand" in the US and it is in their best interests not to taint that brand (the same as it is for VM).

Alexander Hanff

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

I very much doubt it - the Q&A thread he opened himself on Beta forums, is now locked and it is a long time since he posted on BT Beta Forums - March 15th according to his profile - a particularly poignant moment as he had to correct his own post stating that the trials had already begun and were running from 12th March to 16th April 2008, by announcing that in fact they had NOT begun.

Not been seen in the forums since although I have had one email from him.

Don't be shy about naming him - Adam Liversage is an official press officer and named in their press releases - contactable via BT Newsroom, email and telephone available if you google him and check out the html version of the 3rd entry for "Adam Liversage" google search. ("I can see the whole internet")

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

I am under no illusion that BestBuy will make any ground shaking action as a result, but I do feel it is important to contact all parties involved in Phorm either directly or by association in order to make it clear that the public are watching and are not happy.

Keeping the pressure on is paramount to the success of the campaign and whereas I agree ultimately it needs to be resolved in the courts, it certainly doesn't hurt to write to BestBuy and/or other relevant parties.

Alexander hanff

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

"Dear Vicz- Daily Mail Reader - I was watching you in the street yesterday reading your Daily Mail and also eating your chips. I have taken a note of which articles you read, and I have signed you up to a variety of advertisers who will be in touch with you shortly to let you know about products you might be interested in. I also noted that you like brown sauce on your chips, and that you bought the vegetarian sausage. Representatives of the Potato Marketing retailers association will be visiting you shortly to interest you in a variety of new chip products, and the "spread the news about Brown Sauce down south" campaign will be sharing their political aspirations with you as part of their latest viral email campaign. The animal Liberation front have added you to their mailing list and the explosives will be delivered shortly.
This is part of a Chipwise Daily Mail promotion to enhance your junk food experience and protect you from bad phish."

?? ;-)

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

Phorm's market capital is now 18.3M GBP slimmer than it was at closing yesterday :)

I wish I could earn as much as they lose every day, I would be minted.

Alexander Hanff

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

Just because content is provided to someone else free, does not imply that you have an unconditional right to access it, or that the owner of that content has given you consent to use that content for any and all purposes... including commercial gain without due royalty payments.

That is what copyright is all about. You'll find most sites make that explicit in the copyright/terms of use ('private and personal non-commercial use only' ).

Try taking articles from the Daily Mail, and use them to promote the Guardian. Without paying the Daily Mail. Then see what happens. It won't be pretty.

Organisations which exist to protect copyright holders include;

Society of Authors
http://www.societyofauthors.org/
Performing Rights Society
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/
F.A.C.T.
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

I think we need to make them aware.

Pete.

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

Taint it in the US or here?

I doubt that a privacy storm over here would damage their customer base much in the US (after all, they're a chain of retail stores, not an ISP, and the majority of the US public don't seem too bothered about their corporations behaving badly outside the US) and over here most people have never heard of them, and certainly wouldn't associate a retail store with their ISP (Maybe that's where we come in - educate the general public to the connection between the two?)

Unlike the Virgin brand - which has "Virgin" and the red logo in the name of each business, people aren't going to know that "BestBuy", "TalkTalk" and "Carphone Warehouse" are the same company....

Okay - I'm playing devil's advocate a bit this morning... I realise that we need to explore every and any avenue for publicity against Phorm-Webwise including relatively minor ones...so keep up the good work and the best of luck with your dissertation/finals :)

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

The press are stating that whereas existing shops will remain under the CPW brand, new retail outlets will come under the BestBuy brand (here in the UK and I presume the other 8 countries CPW does business in).

Given the publicity the BestBuy <> CPW deal is going to receive from the press (and already are doing) it is fair to assume that at least a reasonable percentage of the population will know about the relationship and of that percentage some will know about Phorm <> TalkTalk and therefore associate the BestBuy brand in a negative fashion.

I agree it is not a -huge- move contacting BestBuy but still a valid and important one all the same.

Alexander Hanff

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

OMG.

In the last 30 minutes Phorm shares dropped from 1,275.00 to 1,225.00

http://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=PHRM

:cool:

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

Indeed but the law tends to deal more often than not on tangible concepts rather than minutiae of transmission mechanisms. It’s a contentious point but the majority of experienced lawyers I have talked to regarding Phorm tend to say that for published content then RIPA specifically does not require the consent of the remote (website) party because the communication is that of published content and not of private communications. It is similar to the difference between sending a magazine or video by Royal Mail parcel service against sending a letter by letter post, and I am assured that RIPA applies differently in these two cases.

However as we all know, a lot of web content is interactive, and as another very good and experienced friend explained to me it will be very difficult for an automated process to distinguish between e.g. a Facebook style private messaging thread and published content because of all the bespoke authentication methods out there.

In fact the process of classifying the communication of one that should not be intercepted may require interception so there is a catch-22.

So it seems the only way content owners can fight against intra-ISP spyware/profiling is under copyright legislation and that is doomed to certain failure because Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt, an established mechanism granting a machine the rights to scan and classify the content.

IANAL (but I know a few very good ones).

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

I've been watching it all day. It reminds me of the old pre-internet days when I used to "watch" rugby matches on Ceefax when the match wasn't live on TV!

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

Every time this has happened in the past has preceded either an exclusive in El Reg or an announcement from the Regulators.

Although I noticed on iii that for the first time last year's results were charted, so I wonder whether this has spooked a few of the imbecile home investors who's idea of research is to look at the graphs.

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

Ditto with the cricket. Ahhh the old pleasures with a new twist :)

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

I know some very good ones too and have come to know even more since the scandal started. There is nothing in RIPA which supports your comment on web sites and published data, so I am not sure who told you that but it simply isn't true. RIPA states public telecommunications network with regards to which types of networks apply (as opposed to private which you seem to be saying in your post) but then extends itself to private networks (such as business networks) which has already seen a conviction in the UK and a failed appeal.

Furthermore, Phorm do not state they will abide by robots.txt at all, they have stated if Google appear in a robots.txt with permission to access, they will assume the same right. In fact they have gone even further and refused to issue a user-agent so that robots.txt configurations can choose to allow or deny Phorm access.

Now with respect, the -law- states consent is required and that it must be informed consent from -all- parties, it is very clear and freely available in black and white to anyone who would care to read it. You seem to be missing a few laws as well such as Fraud Act 2006, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, Torts (Inteference with Goods) Act, Data Protection Act (which irrespective of what Phorm or ICO may have said, very clearly defines any operation on data (which includes anonymising it) even if it is by an automated system must first have the consent of the subscriber. Lets not forget the Computer Misuse Act either. Again, all of the above are freely available for anyone to read.

So I am afraid I don't agree with your analysis or that of your legal experts.

Alexander Hanff

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

David Evans, BCS blog article
InPhormed consent not given
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlogEntry.425

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

At the moment Bt & Phorm are "between a rock & a hard place..."

Phorm must test the System to prove viability & if they do without proper legal approval then they are wide open to litigation!

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

In your opinion. Don't let all the TV interviews and requests for comment go to your head.

Do you think the Home Office advice was drawn up by a dimwitted low-grade civil servant? In fact it was drawn up by a legal team who just didn't understand enough about the way HTTP was used today.

Irrelevant.

You're rapidly losing credibility here.

You don't have to agree. But if you stick to the clear facts of the case you will have a greater chance of gaining support and credibility with your arguments.

The fact is you will find a lot of lawyers who agree with the implied consent argument for published works. So why bother even discussing it when you have a rock-solid example of how RIPA is breached with private messaging and email services.

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

Just popping in to post this little quickie.

Chaps, one of the Mods over at the Moneysavers site has decided to merge the thread we were posting on with an old one. here's the link: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=903715

btw. Alexander, you write the most super letters, mate (and so quickly, too); so much better than I could... so.... I was thinking... maybe someone with your detailed knowledge of this whole shebang could pop a letter off to 'consumer's champion' Martin Lewis at the Moneysavers site. (Okay, I'll admit it, my last effort was ignored.)

My wife gets his weekly email newsletter and according to his site this email goes to 2,064,774 people. Just imagine that many people, or more likely a very small percentage of that number, getting involved in this. He could also be the man to get this on mainstream TV.

Worth a try?

While I'm here, another 'consumer champion' to get onto this could be Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/). Marc has done an immense amount of work helping the 'little guy' beat the banks, and in fighting the big companies.

Also worth a try?

OB

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

You think personal attacks and insults are going to make people more aligned with your position?

I don't need to think, the Home Office have stated categorically that their statement is neither a legal analysis -nor- a technical analysis and have reiterated they are not in a position to even make such a legal analysis if they wanted to.



How is it irrelevant? You claimed that because the communications are over a public network they don't fall under RIPA whereas in fact RIPA places more restrictions on public networks than it does on private, go and read it and see for yourself.


More personal attacks?


I am sticking to the facts, I am correctly referencing the relevant laws on the issue and as such have a great deal of support and credibility. I have actually read all the laws as well, which appears to be something you haven't done.

Really? You mean according to you surely? I have found very few lawyers who are agreeing with the implied consent argument and I suspect the reason for that is because the law clearly states informed consent.

Still, thanks for the chat, I need some sleep now though so I won't be able to respond to your inevitable reply until this evening. Have a pleasant day.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

I am a member at CAG so I will talk to some people there next week once I have this huge workload out of the way. Not sure if Martin would be interested (MSE) to be honest but I will certainly give him a try next week also.

Alexander Hanff

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

Robots.txt doesn't allow (check the spec), it disallows.

Its a denial mechanism.

What's required is a mechanism of consent, where no consent (ie, explicit consent is not present) means no consent.

Pete.

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

This sort of personal stuff is uncalled for.

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

Seconded. There was absolutelty no need for that.

@Alexander

Thanks for that; I agree about Martin Lewis, and think maybe CAG may be a better bet.

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

...You know another kind?

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

They were not personal attacks. I was merely highlighting your authoritative tone on the issue, when in fact several individuals have been fighting since day one on this, some of us due to personal circumstances have been forced to take a back seat but that doesn't make your views any more valid than anyone elses.

Because you were talking about the difference between public and private communications. I was talking about the difference between published and freely available content versus private communications.


I did no such thing. See above.

Nice assumption but I have done more than just read the relevant legislation. I was in a position to comment on it at inception.


?? that we both agree on one angle ??

Is this because spend a lot of time on this forum canvassing opinion?!


For interception of communications. You take such a black and white view and I'm afraid that Struan over at out-law.com was actually making a lot of sense when he talked about technical breaches and the fluidity of the legal system. It is just up to us to prove that the breaches were indeed more than technical because they have important consequence.



Get some sleep and think things over. Don't take things so personally just because someone happened to disagree with you. Approaching my 50's I don't need as much sleep as I did when I was your age.

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

Has there been any contact/comment/feedback from the ASA?
I would be interested to hear their view on the targetted advertising aimed at a parent being served up and viewed by the children of the house.

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

If you could reference that, I'd be interested.
I've just done Google site searches on "robots.txt" on the mirrored copy of BT Webwise FAQ, the webwise.bt.com copy of the same FAQ and also on phorm.com - got zero hits each time.

Granted there are various contradictory and confusing and vague public statements out there, about robots.txt, but I have so far found nothing that clearly states the Phorm/Webwise position on robots.txt beyond their statement that if you admit google, you admit them.

I also have private communications from BT managers about robots.txt, in response to my questions, but it is always a challenge to match up what Kent Ertugrul says in public with what the BT management are prepared to put in writing. What I have from them on this is "We are also taking steps to ensure that those websites that do not want search engines to 'crawl' them (by the use of robots.txt) will also be excluded from the Webwise service." which is not exactly clear.

It is still unclear how Webwise/Phorm intend to establish the informed consent of websites to having the unique personal data exchange with their site visitors profiled for profit by a 3rd party who is neither the identified site visitor nor the website itself, as part of a process where cookies are forged including the registered domain name of the site and falsely represent themselves as coming from the site.

It is also unclear how Phorm/Webwise intent to take note of clear "body text" prohibition notices placed by site owners on their sites which specifically bar them from visiting.

Again - if you can quote chapter and verse that would be appreciated. One of the things we appreciate about Alex is that his comments are always backed by clear attributions and references. If you are going to engage in debate here you need to do the same - please quote your sources and your legal authorities so we can make an informed judgement on what you say.

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

Like you quote your sources and provide proof. Another poster with an authoritative tone yet clearly some holes in their understanding of IT systems.

---------- Post added at 13:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:08 ----------

Clayton, par39
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

[QUOTE=OldBear;34547088]Seconded. There was absolutelty no need for that.
[QUOTE]

Well if you want the forum to be filled without a voice to question the technical details of what was posted then so be it. Questioning view is not a personal attack.

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

I sleep 3-4 times a week for approximately 16-20 hours in total, I don't need a lot of sleep I just happen to have been up for over 2 days.

I am not going to get into an argument with you, I do not agree with anything you have said and you haven't responded with anything which makes your position any more tenable, just hearsay and unfounded, baseless statements.

You are of course welcome to your opinion as is everyone else, but resorting to personal attacks (whether you intended it or not) is not a good way to hold a debate. I have been writing about this issue since the news first broke and I have put literally thousands of hours into it, so I am not speaking from an uneducated or uninformed standpoint. i have taken great care and effort to read everything I can on the issue and sought advice from leading academics and experts with regards to my evaluation of the situation, with very positive feedback, so please don't assume that my points are reactionary they are very heavily researched.

As for the comment which seems to hint I garnish all my information from this forum, clearly that is not the case, you will find comments from me littered all over the web on this issue and I have spoken at length to legal experts, economic and investment experts, highly reputable privacy advocates and several politicians. So I find it a little but offensive that you suggest I live on CF. Any way, in the words of Pooh: "TTFN".

Alexander Hanff

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

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

Well this is my robots.txt file:

Comments on it!

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

The original RFC spec only does disallow. However the benchmark they have set is Google and Google's bots support an allow extension. Google's bots also check for meta tags in the documents. Checking those would require interception first though. :td:

Interestingly, if they do obey robots.txt (at all) then they won't be able to use searches done on Google! What a shame ;) http://www.google.com/robots.txt disallows all the actual search pages for all user agents.

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

Agreed, but like it or not, a comment like that below is a personal attack.
There was simply no need for that.

OB

Edit: Apologies, Mick, seems we both had the reply box open at the same time.

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

Thank you for quoting your source. I've pasted below the text from that source which is Clayton's technical report which I have already read and which does not give any details on how Phorm will be using robots.txt and in fact records their refusal to give further details, even to Clayton, and further, makes the clear statement that their use of robots.txt is simply to assume that if search engines have permission, then Phorm have permission - it does not clarify how they will do that. We might think it is obvious, but nothing is obvious when we are dealing with Phorm.

The quote from Phorm in section 44 below is not a blanket statement of respect for robots.txt - it is a conditional statement, without explanatory detail that "if the site has disallowed spidering and indexing by search engines, we respect those restrictions in robots.txt "

"39. When a website is first visited (by any ISP customer) the pages are not inspected. Instead, a request is queued to fetch the site’s “robots.txt� file; viz: a file maintained by the website owner which tells web crawlers and other automated systems which parts of the website should not be indexed or processed.
40. Once the robots.txt file (if any) has been fetched, it will be cached. The cache retention period will be value set by the website using standard HTTP cache-control mechanisms, or for one month if no period is specified. The minimum period that the file will be cached for is two hours.
41. The robots.txt file will be inspected and URLs that fall within forbidden areas of the website will not be processed by the Phorm system.
42. This mechanism, which will permit website owners to opt their pages out of the Phorm system, does not seem to have been previously described in any of Phorm’s documentation. They were unable to provide an explanation as to why this had not previously been disclosed.
43. In the meeting, Phorm were unable to tell us the User-Agent string they match against in the robots.txt file, knowledge of which would be required if a website owner wished to set particular rules for Phorm which differed from, for example, for the GoogleBot.
44. I asked for further clarifcation and was told “we work on the basis that if a site allows spidering of its contents by search engines, then its material is being openly published. Conversely, if the site has disallowed spidering and indexing by search engines, we respect those restrictions in robots.txt�.
45. It therefore still remains unclear to me what the Phorm system does if the robots.txt file does not use a User-Agent: * construction, and whether this will be in line with what the website owner intended."

On the question of dictionary attacks for email addresses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address_harvesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_harvest_attack
http://www.sophos.com/security/spam-...yharvestattack
http://geek.focalcurve.com/archive/2...ary-attack%20/

Obviously I can't comment on what caused the particular spam in question in the original post and did not do so.
Best wishes.

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

From the new they only bought retail outlets not the internet service this has been don to raise funds to buy Tiscali. Soon Talktalk will be larger than VM and a bigger threat to BT than VM.

Also noticed on the news VM released their customer figures.

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

:)

The problem is Phorm aren't a search engine. They need explicit consent for communication interception and/or use of copyright materials.

Lack of robots.txt does not indicate consent for Phorm (or Google for that matter, though Google is generally considered beneficial to publishers). Phorm definitely isn't beneficial to publishers, unless they participate as OIX members (and most ecommerce sites, and non profit sites won't be doing that).

So assumed consent isn't reasonable.

I like the obs that they would have to intercept first :). Ooops. That's a bummer for Phorm. I wonder how they work around that then?

Pete.

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

This was clearly K*nt shooting from the lip and he probably regretted it as soon as he said it. Google is the elephant in his sights and he seems to have the view that anything they can do phorm can do and that will be fine. His lack of a moral compass does not allow him to differentiate between "Don't be evil" and "Would you like to see some puppies".

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

As I've been careful to say, I was questioning not dictionary attacks but your assertion about random alphanumeric strings. But as Mick points out this is OT so PM me.

If you re-read my original post that seemed for some reason to have caused so much controversy:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6037.html

I said "Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt"

I heard them say that in one of Cpt. Jamie's videos. I saw it in Clayton. I had reasonable grounds to say exactly and precisely what I did.

Now I know what I said was maybe an unpopular view, and maybe the moderators will do the courtesy of re-reading my original post, but I really don't think copyright holders do have a very strong legal argument against Phorm *if* what Phorm say is correct and they provide one or more mechanisms for content owners to opt-out.

I also stand by my original assertion that *some* lawyers will argue for the premise of implied consent on published works.

I still don't support what Phorm are doing, so why this original post caused such a wave of anger from some posters which lead to me being cast in a demonic light is beyond me.

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

It doesn't matter how many times it is read by us. It was an uncalled for personal attack. There is no justification for it regardless how much you think you were right in your opposing argument with Alexander.

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

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

Guys, can we get back to the issue at hand here. We have established oblonsky's remarks were uncalled for. Lets say no more about it. Thanks. :)

Phorm would be loving these kind of distractions ...

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

With Phorm's stock croaking on AIM, the small investors are trying to talk it back up....

Quote from Carol & Son over on iii:

"Small volumes speak rather loudly to people dealing in even smaller volumes and this share isn't being traded enough to get an accurate picture of the real market value. There's more to this than the UK market - and enough cash and equivalents to keep it ticking over. Worry though is the Charles Stanley "research" showing forecast of revenues from Germany and Italy. In my view they need to look to Eastern markets where perceived privacy is less of an issue. Also US looks favourable. The board always said UK was a market tester, but Germany is even more privacy focussed, with scars of the Cold War hanging over the East and so it appears a very privacy-focussed legal framework."

It sounds as if the message that the UK won't take this lying down is starting to get through to Phorm's investors. They're beginning to talk about other countries - a tacit admission that the "pilot study" in the UK is failing even before it's got off the ground? I'd like to think so ;)

I always find it fascinating that otherwise decent, rational people check their conscience at the door when they go shopping for shares. It never ceases to amaze me that people living in a democracy feel no shame openly talking about infringing individuals' human right to privacy for commercial gain; "Hey, if it won't fly in the UK, let's do it somewhere else instead. Who's got a reputation for trampling their citizens' rights? Eastern Europe. Yeah, let's do it to them instead..." :rolleyes:

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

I'm under the impression that RIPA requires consent from both parties in a communication. I'm trying to see how that could be satisfied for site owners using robots.txt. I don't think it's possible. In fact I don't think it's possible with any other mechanism either. The http request would have to be intercepted to see which domain it was for before it could be checked if that domain has consented to interception. The destination IP address isn't even enough as multiple domains can be served from a single IP. You have to look at the actual http headers to find the domain.

For those who are less up on the inner workings of the internet I'll try and make an analogy.

Suppose you have consented to have your calls intercepted by BT(Just imagine you did). You make a phone call to a telephone number that is used by several people. Some of these people have also consented to interception, but not all. In order for BT to know if the other party has consented to interception they have to intercept the call and listen in until you ask to speak to bob (or whoever it may be). They can't do that until they know who is on the other end though so it's catch 22.

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

:tu: Nice analogy!

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

http://investors.virginmedia.com/pho...869&highlight=

Virgin Media Reports First Quarter 2008 Results

I won't repost it (huge) - but from reading through it they can ill afford any kind of exodus that the deployment of Phorm may bring. No wonder they were making "backing away" noises a couple of weeks ago:

In the first quarter it looks like they lost 7,800 ADSL subscribers...



:rolleyes:

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

It can't, but there are two issues embroiled in my original post.

For RIPA there is an "implied" consent argument, as raised by Simon Watkins of the Home Office in his email (par 15):
http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm

However Fipr argue that this consent can not be assumed, and provide several layers to their argument, starting with the premise that consent to read (through publication) does not imply consent to intercept - a legally questionable view that I have heard counterargument from several lawyers, hence my post, and ending with less contestable arguments that consent cannot be assumed when:
- reading private email
- a page is not linked from any other page, therefore remains unpublished
- where access controls are in place on the website

Now as far as robots.txt I agree this has no bearing on RIPA but it does on copyright control. Any person publishing a web page and is happy to have their page read and classified by an automated process e.g. Google is unlikely to win damages from Phorm. My view, and I qualify that by saying only for "published" content, i.e. non of the Fipr specific cases apply (password protected etc).

No need to shoot me for having an unpopular view on this. I think the best way to fight Phorm is on the fact that they cannot distinguish with certainty between private content (e.g. password protected) and published content, nor can they accurately and reliably ignore all web email services.

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

They are spoofing the site you are visiting to pass cookies. Do you think that they would not spoof the googlebot robot rather than name their robot their own.

In any case there is no robot involved in the activity of Phorm it is your browser so the agent is not googlebot but MSIE7.x or whatever you use and the result passed back to the L7 switch and your machine.

EDIT
OK so just read post 6060, so they will take the reply stream from the 3rd party site and will not index it until they have also got the robots.txt from that site under a separate request.

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

..and with the potential sell-off of their cable TV channels (UK_Gold/Living/History/etc) to rivals Sky, they're going to be wanting to concentrate more and more on the broadband business - so: not a good time to be p***ing off their Internet customers :D

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

After reading Mick's News Post... I have a question... Do we as consumers have the right to cancel our contract due to the T&C Changes (as we haven't been informed of them) and also the website doesn't give the date of the T&Cs change...

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

Even if implied consent is sufficient the problem is still the same. Unless it is irrevocable implied consent, which doesn't sound much like consent to me.

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

My first post. You are all doing such a good job with this. I haven't posted because I'm not a resident in the UK. I'm an Australian who has been following the Phorm story since February when I found that OIX resolves to our Telstra. Telstra is Australia's own privatised BT, except that Telstra have an almost monopoly control over many Telecommunications function.

I'm an experienced malware remover and I was very familiar with the removal procedures used for ContextPlus, PeopleonPage and the Apropos rootkit.

I cannot conceive of anything worse than using Deep Packet Inspection for the sole purpose of serving advertising, advertising, for Pete's Sake. This is the stuff of nightmares for malware removers and security people. You can do nothing to protect yourself.

I have read every post here and BadPhorm and every other place I can find anything. I've posted extensively about Phorm and deep packet inspection interception methods on dslreports.com in their Security and Privacy forum. Some of the comments are interesting, but in the USA they don't have the same attitude to advertising.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r200...al-Advertising
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r203...h-ISP-Fiddling
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r203...with-Web-Pages

I'm not in the UK, but my concern isn't any less. If the UK ends up with this, it is almost certain that Australia and New Zealand will. Our markets are smaller, but we have far weaker Privacy protection and almost no Data Privacy regulation of any kind.

Phorm and NebuAd wouldn't worry Bestbuy. They will be asking to talk to them I would think, if they haven't already. They are not known for any principled stand on consumer rights in their current business operations. If you're feeling brave you could go through Slashdot for some technical opinions of BestBuy. They are the Walmart of retail computer sales and repairs.

ISP customers should not be regarded as a product to be sold to the highest bidder.

Keep up the good work, specially Alexander. Well done on the paper and well done in the interview.

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

Again this is simply not true, there is existing case law for exactly this situation (which I have cited earlier in this thread). In fact the copyright point is so strong it is one Nicholas Bohm will be referring to himself at the ISPA Legal Forum in London next month.

And again Simon Watkins' comments are not and have been explicitly stated that they should not be read as a legal opinion by the Home Office (and he never posted to crypto either, it was pasted there by a crytpo member). Even the Home Office statement (which frankly isn't worth the paper it is written on anyway which they admit themselves in the very same statement) makes it very clear that even in their opinion implied consent -might- be applicable (again not an official legal analysis as stated directly in the statement) in the absence of any explicit terms. Phorm have stated they will not be paying any attention to explicit terms and will simply assume the right to garnish other people's original works if Google is present in the robots.txt file.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind or any of the very influential people I have discussed it with including the Earl of Northesk, Nicholas Bohm and many others, that implied consent cannot every be assumed with regards to Privacy and -must- be explicit (informed) consent. the fact that Privacy is a Human Rights in both EU and UK Law makes it inalienable, let me just define that word for anyone who might not know what it means:

No-one can assume within the EU or the UK that you have waived an inalienable right (by definition) they must be given up explicitly not impliedly and any judgement in a court of law on such matters -must- be compatible with the ECHR. The implied consent fairytale is nothing but hogwash.

Alexander Hanff
(No I never managed to get to bed yet)

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Yes you definitely have the right to cancel without penalty, this is a material change in the contract and is covered under UK contract Law (specifically Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations).

The new terms don't even appear to be legal, DPA requires (again) explicit informed consent before any personal data can be exported from the UK. So burying it in Terms and Conditions doesn't satisfy the requirements of DPA.

Alexander Hanff

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

TIMTOWTDI

- Copyright is certainly one way; unpriced content certainly does not imply copyright free for unlimited commercial exploitation
- Permission to intercept cannot be implied
- Phorm cannot discriminate private private communications (commercial and personal) from 'broadcasts' even if copyright consent and intercept consent can be assumed.

... plus about 3000 other reasons why Phorm should never be tolerated.

Pete.

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

There is more at stake when Phorm profile the unique personal exchange of website content between a webmaster and the website visitor for profit, without the informed consent of the webmaster. The arguments about content are not confined to the issue of intellectual property and civil actions from webmasters against Phorm - although publishing something on the web does not give someone else the right to profit by profiling it. As the webmaster of a couple of charity sites, I feel particularly strongly about that.

When I have asked questions from a webmaster perspective I always couch them in terms of "the unique personal exchange of website content between a webmaster and the website visitor for profit, without the informed consent of the webmaster" - as far as that exchange is concerned, and from the perspective of the webmaster, there remain a number of legal issues that are being questioned by Nicholas Bohm and to which I have not yet seen a detailed rebuttal from Phorm/Webwise ISP's. And I want to see their rebuttal so I can make an informed choice about Webwise.

I think it is significant that although I have managed to get a fair number of responses from BT about Phorm/Webwise, they have not picked up a single one of the webmaster issues except to keep insisting that they can presume consent to monitor that private exchange, between webmasters and website visitors, without bothering to ask for it. (except they never talk about any unique private exchange of data - just "websites")

They have not yet explained how they read body text Webwise exclusions on site pages. They refuse to give details on robots.txt. They have not yet explained how they will find the non-listed http webmail pages unless those webmail site owners tell them.

On an issue like this we all have our various hobby horses and varying focus - and personally I think that is a strength of a diverse community. Best to communicate what is going on, and let people pursue their particular interest (in consultation) rather than say that a particular avenue of complaint is not important - unless there is an absolutely clear mistake being made.

I have benefited from that here, when sharing things I thought would be a good idea to do - and the comments of others have helped me see that a particular idea would NOT be helpful - or needed particular care. But once we start the ad-hominem stuff we're finished.

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

:welcome: ilago
Its good to see people down under getting involved ;)

So re: useragent.

Am i correct to assume that not only does the phorm equipment impersonate the site initialy, but that the vice versa is also true?

So in effect the equipment impersonates you so the site only sees your own useragent?

Isnt there some kind of legal framework in place to prevent someone impersonating you in order to gain a profit?

This is sounding more than a little fraudulent to me and i can see that as breaking yet another regulation. I dont presume to be a lawyer in any sense of the word but most laws are based on common sense and it strikes me that this practice would be illegal.

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

Yes, Fraud Act 2006, as stated in Nicholas Bohm's legal analysis.

Alexander Hanff

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

Life can be so ironic! Just had this email from BT

Dear BT Forum user,
BT is conducting a survey to help us improve the usefulness of our Support Forums.
We'd be grateful if you could spend two minutes of your time to complete our 10 question survey on your experience with our Support Forums.
To complete the survey, please follow the link below:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/etc *****
Please be advised that this is an official BT survey conducted in line with the BT.com privacy policy. Your responses will be treated as strictly confidential. For more information on the BT privacy policy, please click here:
http://www2.bt.com/btPortal/applicat...privacy_policy
Thank you for your time,
BT Forum Research Team

I really enjoyed completing that one, especially the freeform comment box at the bottom.

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

In your opinion...

Privacy? If you'd actually read what I originally wrote you would see that I was talking only about published content. I don't agree with Nicholas Bohm's opinion in only one respect - implied consent for published content. In fact I wouldn't even go so far as to say I don't agree, just that, after speaking to legal experts I don't see any value of using this weak argument when stronger arguments exist.

I know privacy still applies to published content, the knowledge of what I read is personal and private. However the content of such magazines/books/newspapers is not private.

But, and here is the crux of the argument, if the police want to sequester my subscriptions at my local newsagents, which section of RIPA do you think would apply? I very much doubt it would be section 2.

RIPA section 2 relates to intercept. In my opinion the minute you start trying to pursuade a court or a politician that it applies to "ordinary" published web consent is the minute they switch off.

I know you can argue the letter of the law but what actually matters is the prevailing argument and ultimately the support of parliament, who have it in their power to amend laws, either way.

Someone very close to the issue at an ISP told me the reason they thought no action would ever come of this [the trials] was because of a confusion amongst everyone [implying the campaigners] over exactly what laws were being breached.

To my mind stick with the clearest example rather than inventing increasingly complex and verying reasons why you don't want Phorm.

Phorm is illegal because the IP stream carries a variety of types of communications including but not limited to published content, private messages, broadcast content (possibly not port 80) and it is impossible to identify and ignore private messages separate from other content.

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

Chartism is a valid way of looking at short term investing.

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

Anyone got friends in phorms new target markets that they can give an early "heads up" to?

Perhaps contacts in the national press of those countries?

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

Again, I have to disagree, in a case of this magnitude it is important to fight it with the strongest laws available. RIPA is Criminal Law and therefore is a very good starting point. Fraud Act, Computer Misuse Act etc are also criminal law so again they are suitable. Torts are not particularly useful (Copyright is a tort for example) because they require significant financial support to be carried through the courts, a requirement many web site owners could simply never meet when facing teams of lawyers and barristers from BT. Joe Public doesn't need any money to bring action under Criminal Law as the CPS does it for them.

If we rely on Copyright law and other torts then that means only big companies (like Amazon, Google, eBay etc.) would ever have their rights upheld (because BT would settle out of court rather than go to court and cause significant damage to their public trust and likely lose), but it leaves hobbiests and non profit organisation little chance of having their rights upheld as they would not be able to finance a civil case.

Yes CDPA is a well know and heavily used piece of legislation and should certainly be included in the arsenal where applicable, but I would never class a tort as more suitable than relevant criminal law in any circumstances.

I appreciate you don't like Phorm either and I appreciate you have your own opinion, but I do not agree with it in the slightest.

Alexander Hanff

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

ALEX IF YOU'D READ what I wrote I WAS SAYING WE SHOULD USE RIPA, BUT STICK ONLY TO THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE WEB CONTENT.

In fact my original post, which you really should refer to, was spurred on by discussions over CDPA, to which I responded by saying it was almost pointless pursuing the copyright argument.

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

We are going round in circles here, as I said, RIPA applies to all parties in a communication which includes webmasters. RIPA basically extends ECHR Article 8 into UK criminal law; which -is- the right to privacy of communications, it is not the content that is important, it is the communication that is important and it is that communication which is protected and inalienable for all parties which is why implied consent cannot work and cannot be legal.

But for the sake of stopping the thread turning into a 2 player argument I am not going to repeat it again, I suggest perhaps it would be wise if we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Alexander Hanff

[Edit]
Incidentally the Newsagent analogy you used is wholly inappropriate with regards to RIPA. If they were opening your mail to see what magazines you buy, that would be applicable to RIPA; if they take the bag off the paper boy to find out, that would probably also fall under RIPA; going to the shop and asking the shop owner what you buy would fall under DPA not RIPA as there is no interception but they would be asking for personal data which is covered under DPA and would require a court order to force the shop owner to comply. Without the court order the shop owner can and should tell Mr Plod to get back on his bicycle and return from whence he came.

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

hmm, isn't this phorms argument - It doesn't matter that we intercept everything - because we take steps to ignore everything private then it's legal.

Not in my book!

[Edit]
The argument is a red herring - Interception is illegal period.
RIPA

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

Guys please do not shout, you know the forum rules. I'm just itching to dish out infraction points today, stay within our T&Cs to ensure I don't get my way....

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

Can the cock measuring contest please stop?

Rather than argue about what should and shouldnt be done or whos opinion is right wouldnt it be time better served to actualy go and do something?

If pepople feel the need to continualy argue with one another can they please take it to PM or if they need the ego stroke make a seperate cesspool thread?

The simple fact is the inhouse bickering is doing nothing to forward the cause and is actualy serving only to detriment an otherwise decent thread.

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

Can I ask someone to clarify whether Phorm will insert of change ads of sites not signed up to their system, or simply profile them and then insert relevant ads into sites that have signed up?

i.e the only way the system modifies the source web page is when the host has signed up with them?

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

It is stated they will only display ads on OIX partnered sites; however it should be made clear that we only have their word for this. Historically (the covert BT trials) they did insert ads into pages which did not consent and also their patent application is rather dodgy in this regard.

Alexander Hanff

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

Well, yes and no. I’m not arguing for Phorm. I’m using the same argument as BTs lawyers but against them.

Fipr/Nick Bohm do have some very compelling cases where the implied consent argument clearly does not apply.

The beauty here is that it is relatively easy to prove that Phorm cannot with accuracy detect and ignore all such content. How can an intercept box detect the difference between a private page authorised by a session cookie and a visit to the Times Online?

Or at least without implementing an opt-in for webmasters, but not for the reasons that many people believe.

RIPA (arguably) only applies to communications, and no-one can deny that an email or private message thread on Myspace is not a private communication.

The opt-in would be to indicate that the site did not convey private messages , opt-in being the only reliable way of ignoring each and every one of the estimated hundreds of thousands of private email, messaging and other similar sites on the internet.

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

I've had one too.

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

This I agree with, but again I have to point out that it is not the content of the communication which is applicable under RIPA, it is the actual communication itself, irrespective of the content within it. It applies to all communications on a Public Telecommunications Network (which includes PSTN and Internet conduits etc.)

Alexander Hanff

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

I've been following this thread from the beginning and would like to add my tuppenceworth.

There has been lots of talk of various legislation which may, or may not, be invoked to permit or prevent Phorm from happening. We can't rely on legislation to protect us - even if Phorm is found to be unlawful today there is nothing to stop the government from changing the law tomorrow to allow it.

This issue is about money. Full stop.

VM wants to make money from us as subscribers. VM also wants to make money by handing our details to Phorm. Phorm wants to make money from advertisers. And advertisers want to make money from us - when we click and buy their products.

Without advertisers, Phorm will not exist.

The only way we can really stop this is to make it clear to potential advertisers that we will campaign to boycott their products. Not just their web-based selling sites but high street stores as well. Can we find out which companies have expressed an interest in Phorm? If so, it is those companies we need to put pressure on.

Remember, the Guardian withdrew - they said it didn't phit (sorry, fit) into the ethos of the newspaper, but I bet they got phrightened (sorry, frightened) when they saw the strength of feeling of the public. I myself have taken the Guardian for 25 years and wrote to the editor to say I would stop if they signed up. I like to think that, however small, my protest helped them come to their senses.

Let's set up a boycott site and target the retailers - without the retailers and their adverts, Phorm will not exist.

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

AFAIK they insert "relevant ads" into OIX.net linked websites. Not sure what happens to the ads those sites already carry. Try here
http://www.phorm.com/oix/publishers.php
but wash your hands carefully after handling this site.

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

As Alex stated its only OIX websites that will provide altered adverts based on your personal habits.

However its unclear as to how your data will be handled if you where to opt out, the feeling is (based on the tech at present) is that regardless of your consent your data will still run through Phorm equipment before getting to the page you requested.
Meaning in simple terms they can still see everything you do over http:// sites but that they wont actualy store the information they've snooped.

This may differ on implementation however, for instance BT could implement a way that would effectively give you a direct connection whereas say virgin would rerout your data regardless of your consent. How this would be done at this point is not entirely clear.

Furthermore should an external party gain access to the phorm equipment and youve opted out but still go through the equipment (which at this point seems the default scenario) then you would still be entirely vulnerable to that external parties whims.

Once the equipment is up and running then your ISP has effectively placed every customer at considerable risk for the sake of a few quid per battery farmed human connected.

going slightly off at a tangent here:
Have you noticed the myriad of available viruses and exploits/hacks on the internet today?
Notice that there are very few targeting systems like Linux/BSD/Unix or mac platforms?
People spend considerable time writing these things for what i can see as being two main reasons.
1: A wide target audience to harvest.
2: a dislike for Microsoft in general.

Now look at the phorm system, it will undoubtedly (if Kent has his way) have a vast userbase so point 1 looks promising to any prospective would be hacker.

And the dislike for Microsoft is nothing compared to the feelings on Phorm so point 2 is also filled.

I can see the system (especialy in the early stages) as being full of all kinds of exploits that the russian coders had failed to think of.
I feel personaly that everyones data that passes through the system is therefore at a considerable risk of being missused by people whose motives are unclear. At the current juncture this means everyone connected to an ISP who has launced the Phorm system, irregardless of wether theyve opted in or out.

A little frightening huh?

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

your view is not unpopular ,infact your the only person to bring it up AFAICS in this thread,we can explore that in a reasonable mannor and come to a consensus perhaps!.

its your diversion from stating your view, was the point people took and take offence, nothing new there, attack someone, get berated for it......that isnt beyond your understanding is it, OC its not.

on the matter of your view as regards the not a very strong legal argument assuming they put in place this content owners opt-out.......


OK, so lets look at that...., you agree and understand that in the UK and EU there is infact an automatic right to copyright protection, and all the remedys that go with that, yes/no ?.

its always been my contension that a users content is also covered in this auto copyright legislation, but lets just concentrate on the website owner for your purposes for the moment...


so,admitedly not very long, but for the past 30 minutes iv looked for any and all UK statute regarding opting out of copyright, and at no point can i find anything that does not reference the original content owner signing a valid "legal notice" to give up their right to said ownership (PD)to make 3rd partys using it legal( fair use and the % of content not withstanding etc).

i didnt look at any EU legislation or statute....


can you find or give here, any UK OR EU legislation or statute, or even non binding legally factual advice, or (very ) strong legal argument anywere to move this content owner gives up their many legal right's with a mere (and this is a KEY point) 3rd party provided opt-out option perspective forward ?