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

Preface: the following applies to copyright and not RIPA

Just look at how search engines operate. They breach website owner's copyright, but they offer an opt-out. robots.txt is an established mechanism for saying whether or not as a content owner you agree to have your pages read and classified by an automated process.

Parallels will be drawn by lawyers whether you like it or not, and worldwide courts have sided with the search engine's arguments.

Google make money. A lot of money. From your copyright. Yes, they give a lot back to both vistors and content owners, but at the end of the day they are making money off the back of content owners.

The ISPs will put every argument forward to show they too are part of the symbiosis and they should be allowed to make an honest buck too. I don't agree with this, but I firmly believe they will continue to stress this point.

When someone puts content online there are certain expectations as to how the content will be used and accessed. In my view you are wrong to make these black and white distinctions and parallels. My view, my opinion.

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

Worldwide courts have done no such thing. There have been a number of cases which have done the opposite. Google Images had one case overturned on appeal but only because they only provided thumbnails as opposed to the actual images and linked directly to the site to see the actual image so it was determined as fair use.

Google rarely gets taken to court over caching or storing keywords not because the courts have judged in the favour but because most web sites want Google to spider them, they benefit from it and it drives people to their web site. The minority who do not what Google to visit them have the choice to take them to court or use robots.txt which is seen as a valid option because Google provide a unique user-agent string and have an established reputation for adhering to robots.txt. I don't recall any judgement ever being made in Google's favour over robots.txt opt out, if you know of one please cite it.

The -big- difference between Google and Phorm is Phorm uses your content to pull customers away from your site, not drive them to it (as eloquently explained on the BCS blog posted earlier today).

But to say there are worldwide court judgements favouring Google on this issue is "exactly not correct" </Kent>, unless of course as I said above you can cite this overwhelming support from the courts for Google with specific case law?

Internet Archive (archive.org) has also fallen the wrong side of the law on this issue.

This was discussed here about 2000 posts back maybe a bit further.

Alexander Hanff

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

sure, Ok .. so in effect your saying it's your view (and/or the view of these legal people you have talked with/about) that because it might seen as so called "industry Practice" to ignore some/any of the laws and clauses as layed out by the UK and EU , then its also OK for a new player to do the same?.

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

I have already pointed out to amazon that if they became part of the OIX platform I would buy eslwhere that I had no intentions of buying anything from businesses that joined.

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

Phorm is not a search engine. Not never, not ever, not at all. Nothing like a search engine.

Google make money. Not from my copyright content, but from their adverts.

To paraphrase a famous political quote;
"Links to my pages were served by Google: I know Google; Google is a friend of mine. Phorm, you're no Google."

:)

Pete.

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

You are confusing the issue yet again:

RIPA applies to the actual communication itself irrespective of the content within it.

Appears to me that you are phising phorms argument on trying to wriggle out of the RIPA issue.

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

Many will see it that way, yes. The law is fluid. Laws evolve over time to adapt to updated methods and new technology. "Bad" laws are passed as well as "good" ones. High court opinion doesn't always go the way of public opinion nor does it always take what appears to be the obvious route.

Not a popular view but why do content owners have an absolute right to all the revenue from their content? They didn't pay for and build the IP networks. They're making money off the back of this significant investment by communications companies, who in turn are making money off the back of the content (either directly through subscription or indirectly through advertising).

Whatever you think of me or my views is mostly irrelevant. What matters is how the legislators, the enforcers, the regulators, the courts etc will be swayed by arguments. The ISPs and Phorm most likely have a lot more money than any campaign has. Their views will be heard.

Don't shoot the messenger.

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

Can someone do a short and sweet letter that we all can use that covers everything?

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

As I've said numerous times, please re-read my original messages. The RIPA argument relies on consent. It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content.

I am actually trying to strengthen the anti-Phorm argument by challenging some of what I see as the weaker points being used in letters to MPs to hopefully focus people's minds on what I see as the stronger points.

My view, my opinion, your choice.

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

Yes its your view and your opinion which is your right but I disagree vehemently with you. RIPA relies on informed consent not implied consent. This is the very reason we have all argued that the ISPs cannot simply introduce this with a change of terms and conditions.

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

First of all, the vast amount of investment required to develop the architecture for the Internet in the UK was paid for with public money. The PSTN which is the basic framework for ADSL was installed when BT was a nationalised company and even after privatisation BT have been heavily subsidised by our taxes/

Secondly, to suggest content owners don't have exclusive rights to their content is crazy. They pay their provider for the transport of that content to their subscribers and they generally pay significantly for that.

I have been in the IT industry for a long long time and have spent time in negotiations with IDC owners in and around London for large online projects (Globix, Level3, WorldCom, Redbus and BT to name just a few) and the cost of datacenter real estate (in this country mostly owned by the backbone providers) and bandwidth for a busy website (which would allow you to monetise it) is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So suggesting they should give up some of their revenues from that content is ridiculous. The network providers get their remuneration through their tariffs, if they are unable to make satisfactory profits they have the right to raise those tariffs.

This is exactly why Net Neutrality is so important and exactly why it is causing such global concern.

Alexander Hanff

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

A big thanks to phormblonsky for reminding us just how obnoxious and tricky phorm is

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

Oh dear. Are you insinuating I'm crazy? I really wish you would try and read and understand what I wrote before replying. I was suggesting that content owners should not expect to an absolute right to all the revenue from their works when they publish online.

They have an absolute right, bit when they choose to publish online it is only reasonable to expect that others will be making money off the back of the decision to publish online, just as record companies make significant money off the back of the artists when really they are just providing a distribution and marketing channel.

ISPs (even clean ones) do already make money off the back of content owners.

You pay a subscription because you want to access the good stuff on the net provided by others.

You wouldn't pay the subscription, or maybe not as much, if the content was fewer and less varied. Content owners also pay to put their stuff online.

What is the difference between the existing model and the Phorm model (considering only the copyright arguments)?

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

you make some interesting points, and they sure need to work it far better, but i have said before there is ONE SINGLE model that can be made to work, there's NO BIG money in it for the likes of Phorm though.

that model (with a lot of work)is the "walled garden" extended to all partys..., giving their consent including the website owners involved making their opted-in website exclusive to the prison walls ;)

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

I think virgin media's T&C's Changed when they rebranded to virgin media (must have already had talks with phorm prior to the 2006 illegal bt trials and ammended there T&C's so they could run trial's and think they were covered going on phorm's word it was ok).

I think i was part of such a illegal trial and it caused damage to my computer (Time to write directly to them by hand as e-mail isnt getting replied).

If when Dr Richard Clayton examined the phorm system this year 2008 does anyone think that this was the same dodgy equipment that was used in 2006 and 2007 illegal trials my very good guess is no it wasnt so who knows what damage phorms kit (hardware and software) did at that time.

These early stages of kit as in any developing hardware\software and distribution would have had more holes and glitches than the system of 2008 especially when it is alpha/beta prerelease peice of hardware and or software this isnt scaremongering this is known for any product or service (Did they do the old here have a rootkit trick before deciding to use cookies ;)) especially when it is due to affect a national network.

Given all the isp's known to be associated with phorm having the cog's and wheels in place already i.e change in t&c's, webwise faq e.t.c. for a while they must have hoped that the model XIIIIIIIII would have passed without much fuss and would more or less be active now, but knowledgable people threw a spanner in there works and with there model in tatters are beavering away still trying to make it half legal but will still fail imo.

Previous Alpha or Beta models deployed in such a way during illegal trials to help development/assesment could have had unknown effects on peoples machines causing infinte loops (processor usage running abnormally high and a real general slowdown in computing tasks) very very slow or total failure of redirects as the routing that takes place fails or gets jammed with data flow as a couple of examples.

Phorm and the Isp's themselves are as transparent as mud and as open as a black hole theres a huge void there they could fill and back up with solid facts but they dont and wont do in the future imo and untill then i wont belive a thing phorm/webwise and or any isp tell me, the charles stanley document confirmed in my eyes the fears i had about isp's involvment.

As sure as phorm change kit to the next deployment model once it is deployed it does nothing in the confidence of myself to trust these guys in anyway now or in the future.

Is there anyway i myself can request to get information about any trials that took place on an isp involving the public from anywhere that is recorded?

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

I don't want to be seen to be defending Amy Winehouse, but in the context of this thread, is it just me that finds it ridiculous that she could be arrested on suspicion and held overnight for questioning on the basis of a tabloid provided video, but no white collars are felt at BT when they admit to unconsented interception?

Justice - banana :)

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

I've been thinking more about the robots.txt situation.

To stop Phorm pimping the information on our sites when visited by a user on a Webwise ISP I have to stop Google indexing my site. Phorm know damn well that the majority of people want their site indexed by Google and are quite cynically using that as a way of forcing us to allow them to profile our site.

There's a term for that: BLACKMAIL - They are trying to force us in to a particular course of action for their own financial gain.

I wonder if we could get the police to investigate that crime?

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

I don't want to wade into a heated debate here but isn't it true to say that Google wouldn't exist if it couldn't scan pages and index websites, arguably breaching copyright in the process?

But as I said I don't want to stir controversy - seems like its been a hot afternoon!

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

I see this as a very interesting topic. At the risk of poking the angry bear(s) (not a reference to Old Bear) I'd say that Phorm have a duty to identify themselves as an indexing or profiling engine of some sort.

I'm not sure of the laws or even the recommendations and RFCs but I feel it would be wrong for Phorm to use a browser user agent string when asking for robots.txt (but "okay" to mimic the browser agent of the user when transacting with the website - "okay" if you agree Phorm is okay in the first place!).

It would also clearly be wrong for it to impersonate any of the major indexing robots, which leaves them with 2 choices - use a unique identifier that sooner or later someone will work out as Phorm or leave it blank.

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

If Google scan my website, which I allow, a client may find my services from the search. Good for me good for the client. If Phorm scan my website, which I do not want, a client may be shown an alternative website with a rival service : absolutely no benefit to me whatsoever and naturally not such a good service either in my opinion.

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

I disagree and so does the law, specifically the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which explicitly states all copyright owners maintain sole rights to their works and licensing of those works is through choice not mandatory, as is who they license them to.

I find it unreasonable and utterly unacceptable and again so does the law and again this is one of the reasons the Net Neutrality debate is so crucial at a global level, because the second you start employing that model is the day that providers start blocking content because content owners refuse to be extorted. Then that devolves even further and providers start blocking content because competition to that content is paying them to do so, and then it devolves further where political and religious content gets blocked and so on and so forth until eventually the net is nothing but a manuscript with 98% of the words blacked out and censored. Am I passionate about this never being permitted to happen? Damn right I am and so should everyone be.

Furthermore, no the record label is again a terrible analogy and does not fit. The record label pays scouts to find the bands, they pay studio time to make the records, they pay manufacturing costs, they pay distribution costs, they pay marketing costs and most importantly they usually -buy- the copyright, which gives them the right to monetise it anyway they see fit (legally) and they then pay royalties to the artist. So as you see a completely different scenario altogether.


The difference is the ISP making money off me to access the internet is exactly that, it is nothing to do with the content on the Internet and they don't read everything I do on there, profile me from it and hit me with behavioural advertising so some company in the US can get minted off the back of my personal data and communications and off the content (not licensed) provided by the resources I visit.

From the content owner's perspective, the ISP is not making a derivative works of -their- content and then using that works to build a profile of their users for the purpose of hitting them with behavioural advertising in order to generate revenue which the content owner will never see, the content owner will never get any fiscal benefit from their own work whilst unlicensed 3rd parties make billions.

Alexander Hanff

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

Sorry if this has been mentioned already but thiis is an interesting blog re web site owners from the British Computer Society http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlogEntry.425

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

After visiting the phorm (phah) website to look for OIX partners, I cannot find any listed anywhere.

Could this be because there aren't any? Or are they simply witholding the information (at the partners' request?).

As suggested by 'murfitUK', contacting such partners/retailers to inphorm them that you would not buy from/use their services if they were to commit to the OIX project may be another avenue to pursue.

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]
 

Is it possible that BT realise they are going to struggle to get 10,000 positives to their Phorm/Webwise trial so they are weeding out the negatives before they do any invites?

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

I have been reading this and unsure as to your motive if you have joined purley to discredit Alexander then you need to think twice. If I was give a poll today of who I would trust my privacy protection to Kent or alexander then I would select Alexander.

What happened in the past is not part of this and has no relevance to this discussion. Alexander didn't hide the fact he had been sacked for talking in a news recording.

Now if you have nothing to help the fight of Phorm but trying to discredit the ones trying to save our internet from spyware,adware and privacy invasion.

Technically I am safe since I moved from VM on the 5th of this month to a phorm phree ISP. I will not desert the ones left since many have been posting on her for as many years as me..

To allow this topic to stay focused, on track and feeding information that is, can be, possibly of use to members who are on ISPs that are courting Phorm. Lets not turn posts into personal ones or derogartory remarks have no place here. All through this thread we have had no troll's to call anyone a troll who has posted so much information in this thread given guidance and free information to members also spent houirs reading up to help.

Given time freely to continue the fight for our rights let that stay the main focus and not forgetting phorm.

Now back to the VM and phorm phenominum, this courting phorm could change the VM churn rates back up since they are posting they are dropping due to packages they are offering to keep customers.

If/when phorm is released would it come under unfair trading if they set it up to flag a customer who visits a site like ISPreview which is a site where members of the internet community can post about their ISPs faults errors or even great feats. Would this flag as if the customer was thinking of leaving the ISP. Making them release the offer adverts on the customer...

Now to know this customer was looking at ISPs reviews wouldnt the cookie have to hold a little more information than just the random number. As without how will the ISP know what packages to offer a reduction on, which customer was thinking of leaving etc...

enough said for one night... time to reflect and think..

There is room for everyones opinions but noone should try to undermine another forum member or person in this thread ever, each and everyone has qualities that put together will help to win this.. If one tries to break us apart then we will be on shakey ground each to their own personal opinions and lets all stay focused..

Apologise Mick been working on this and helping someone on ISPreview so been so long you had closed the thread then reopened it..

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

In fighting against Phorm I feel (personal opinion) it is important to focus on a few issues of significance rather than spread the discontent over as many issues you can think of.

A case in point is the issue of copyright infringement, as Struan Robertson wrote about in out-law.com:

http://out-law.com/default.aspx?page=9090
"Arguably Google breaks copyright laws when it indexes the web; Arguably Microsoft breaks anti-spam laws when it attaches tiny ads to the foot of Hotmail emails. But nobody cares about such minor transgressions. After all, where's the harm?

Legal risks and new technology are inextricably linked. Typically, upon being identified, some risks will be avoided, some will be mitigated and some will be ignored. Phorm has to look at all the legal risks and decide which ones to address, which ones to mitigate and which ones it can afford to ignore."

No my visit to this thread, as a veteran of the anti-Phorm debate on Badphorm, was to impart the opinion, my personal opinion, that it would be better for the campaign to focus on the less contentious legal issues, such as RIPA is very likely to be breached if email is scanned, rather than digress into issues such as but not restricted to copyright infringement.

The key issues as I see them are:
1.) RIPA s2, but only focussing on private email, protected content etc.
2.) DPA s11, the right to opt-out of direct marketing, because it is very hard to comply to this with a cookie opt-out model, and once a real network opt-out is implemented it is very hard for the ISPs to get those who have opted out to reconsider, furthermore in the event that Phorm blockers are deployed, this could cause many more people to ask for the opt-out (so long as the blockers allowed truly opted-out people to access).
3.) Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations, because this *could* force an opt-in model, although I'm reliably informed due to a technicality with the ICOs v1.3 statement the commissioner could have misunderstood what actually constitutes header information.

Many other avenues, whilst perfectly valid forumfodder, and in my opinion, are markedly weaker and the ISPs have reasonably strong defence.

For the record I didn't get out of bed the wrong side this morning, but I will rigorously defend my arguments on the few times I choose to post. It doesn't matter that I am not here all the time.

Good night all.

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

There is defending and then becoming personal. The latter of course which will not be tolerated on this forum. Please take this on board in future.

Now can we get back the Phorm debate without all the nastiness. Thank you.

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

I'm not such a fan of that article because I felt the author was creating an analogy between the Google situation w.r.t. copyright and Phorm situation under RIPA.

Not taking anything away from your most recent post, to my mind the two are very separate and diverse issues, copyright having a history of hundreds, if not thousands of years whilst intercept and privacy & communications concepts being relatively modern. The latter being defined if you like because of the internet era and the former being a concept struggling to catch up in the digital era.

But granted both concepts are undergoing rapid redefinition as communications and digital media technology exploded in the last 20 years. And I have to agree with the sentiment of what you say because I feel privacy in communications is actually the most important issue at stake here and I would be happy for the depate with MPs and public bodies to focus on these issues alone. Not least because I don't see how the copyright model will survive in its present form without draconian measures that I don't want to see implemented (Eircom v IRMA).

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

Phew what a read today's action was. I know it's been a bit of a scortcher for early May, hope you guys have cooled down a bit LOL

Anyway... As the Money Saving Expert site has merged the threads, I've asked a bit of an off topic question about Phorm Webwise and BT shares/investments in them.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=903715

Hank

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

Hello everyone. I've been lurking on this thread for a while. I just registered.

I run the phormwatch website:

http://phormwatch.blogspot.com/

So far, we have a small list of participating websites who intend to use OIX spyware. We don't have a list, yet, of any advertisers. I suspect we won't find any until the trial goes live.

If anyone knows of any advertisers, please email me at: phormwatch at fastmail dot net

I will add the advertisers to the list.

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

I just stumbled into this via another web-site ... https://www.relakks.com/ ..

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

good.

you are aware that there are more people on this very thread, that have had, and have, direct contact with simon watkins in this RIPA regard, far more responses than the single reference in the original news posts....

several searchs have seen several quotes for instance

#4017
Dephormation
Pete
"More reasons to love the web

Protecting privacy and protecting the public

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


"#3415 15-04-2008

Florence said:
I have had a reply to my email sent to Simon Watkin, he was informed this would be posted here, so here goes.


Quote:
Florence,

Simon Watkin said:
Firstly, I should explain that the Home Office was approached by a number of
parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In response to those requests we prepared an informal guidance note.

That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give.

Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology.

There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual, and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user is considered to be interested in a category of advertising.

As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all depends on how they are offered and how they work.

> > To me this is unlawful interception of my surfing habits on the second
> > point I already block all advertisements online never see them so why
> > would I want this company to snoop on my clicks to target me with
> > adverts from only companies signed upto their packages.

You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the protection of their personal data.

Explicit consent should be informed consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do.

> > .... you are opening a whole Pandora's box with this ruling which might
> > come back later on and bite you back.

It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully.

> > I hope that you will review this and take a look at the illegal trials
> > undertaken by BT and Phorm in 2006/2007 where thousands of people where
> > intercepted without their consent.

My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable
information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".

Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE

[1]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ch/083561.html

"

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

popper you are wasting your time he has some reason I don't know what.

I bow out with just one warning if unsure then move to an ISP that is phorm phree evewn if it means slower speeds your privacy is more important than speed on the internet which will slow donw with the interception.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

stay cool guys and focused I am around if needed just pm me but as for posting public

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

Please, everyone, take a minute to consider what I posted before replying:

"It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content."

the ISPs...

I don't care if you don't agree with my statement but please don't misrepresent me.

We can simply and effectively avoid the strongest part of the ISPs defence by steering the debate away from the areas covered by implied consent (published material) and focussing instead on the private messaging services and webmail.

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

I have to admit that I enjoyed that exchange. It is good when views, even when opposing, make you think. And the Oblonsky/Alexander chat did that for me. There is a less palatable side to the Phorm discussion but as long as it is kept civil, my experience of this thread is that everyone can express and discuss their views and, one way or another, we all learn something from it. The overriding aim though must be to keep our guns pointing in the right direction and that means we need the intellect of everyone concentrated against Webwise. As Mick says, agree to disagree, and get back on the clock. Please.

Interspersed in the heat have been several interesting posts that got burned up in an ongoing flame war; we really can't afford that.

On a more positive note, we are getting more contributors everyday; many of whom are self-confessed lurkers who have been inspired by the dedication of this forum's membership. That dedication has a common purpose and we all need to remember that. And before anyone says "pot kettle black" fair enough, you got me. But I have moved on; sometimes you just need to take a deep breath and get over yourself :)

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

It is all data being effectively intercepted & manipulated by ISP's that needs dealing with, narrowing this to fewer services as you suggest would weaken the overall case, not strengthen it!

The Very Act of narrowing the debate would imply to some extent legally that you accept the other parts of the interception & data manipulation!

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

But, and this again is opinion, you can't legally intercept one and avoid the other, so the net effect is the same - all interception is outlawed, all just from the argument that email and private messages should not be touched.

That is because it is (i) a technical challenge bordering on impossible to distinguish protected HTTP content from open (published) HTTP content and (ii) if it was possible, without using opt-in (whitelists) then it would involve looking at the stream, i.e. intercepting content, in order to classify content as content that must not be intercepted - catch 22.

I'm not actually saying one should be allowed without the other. I'm saying that, in carefully picking the battles fought we can get a clear message to MPs and the like.

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

you didnt OC mean me with that "don't misrepresent me" ;)

now that you have seen that Simon said explicit consent and not infact Implied consent, then is there a real problem for any IPS's defence of implied consent, .......

personally i think it's good we have someone willing to play devils advocate, after all we do have currently 38 minus one person (that officially stated they changed sides after they learned more about how this effected them and the estimated 70%+ ISP customers) that i assume are willing to advocate this model on some level due to their vote cast (have YOU voted yet, join the thread comments and cast YOUR vote please).

are you one of the shareholders that have been advocating the Phorm model over on iii by any chance oblonsky?, perhaps your infact that brettypoos chap :), no matter, its all good as long as it stays polite and informative.


"You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the protection of their personal data.

Explicit consent should be informed consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do. "

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

Courtesy of the BT forum - interesting indication of Phorm's long-term intentions:-

http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

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

Thanks to Peter N over at the BT forums for this link: http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

Most interesting part is:
Didn't someone previously mention 'function creep'?

OB

Edit, you just beat me John. :)

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

Cracking work PG :)

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

Wasn't so much function creep but more that the phorm system could be scripted to harvest anything from your name/address bank anything that you have on your pc or visit it is just a change in the get command...

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

"Think of it, says Drayton, as a search engine for people. "

I'd rather not think of it at all. For obvious reasons, Phorm's spin to their (potential) customers is somewhat different to their spin to the end users.

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

It is an interesting thought and I don't have any issues in principal with most of what he writes. I do however feel Hugo Drayton conveniently papers over the issue of the intra-ISP snooping with a pretty picture of the benefits of personalised content.

Front of my mind is an interesting exchange (of the pleasant variety) between myself and Simon Davies a few tens of pages back about browsers and the lengths companies like Phorm have to go just to get an overview of how a visitor exhanges information with several different websites.

I believe it is fundamentally wrong to do this in the ISP. The intra-ISP angle is just a way of forcing users to adopt something they clearly don't want, otherwise by now all browsers would have a unique UID or at the very least cookies would be accessible accross domains (given user consent). There isn't such an option even for users to opt-in with cookies and modern browsers.

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

Phorms website say they are working with Virgin Media.

http://www.phorm.com/

John

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

Just what we need... junk mail by web browser!

The author seems to have left his critical facilities at home though.

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

Exactly florence and this is why phorm/webwise should just stop the silliness now imo.

The next model will just be as bad as the last maybe have a scripted front end with vv small font about t&c's and usage but will still hit the profiler on the way and i dont want any phorm supplied kit between me and the internet.

Its like buying goods off known criminals you just dont do it.

All phorms tall tales are just that tall tales, they have not provided any proof or attempted to get real independantly verifed proof from a government (related) specialist (They could say Dr Richard Clayton but he like us knows it's illegal phorm of wiretapping).

Would you take the word of this company, i certainly wont especially given there previous phorm and the isp's defening silence over the matter is the same as phorms but they dont have a clue whats in this wonder kit do they, just phorm's word yet again of advertising revenue lining there pockets while they syphon off the customers history and whatever else they wish to dephorm pharm on end users.

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

That would be the same system they are telling us is anonymous, that delivers a revolution in privacy would it?

For Gods sake when is this going to stop.

When are the regulators, ISP business, Government, or Europe going to wake up and pull the plug on these twits.


Pete.

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

K*nt must be fuming - while he is trying to pour his soothing spin on the ICO and UK media his board are blabbering off in the US about how powerful phorm is and all the wonderfully intrusive things it can do. "See the whole Internet" indeed! :monkey::monkey::monkey:

---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Dig it up here http://digg.com/tech_news/Privacy_is...e_you_see_them

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

done vicz need some more to digg it..

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

Not content with lodging the Early Day Motion to Parliament, Don Foster MP continues to ask awkward questions.
In his monthly newsletter, emailed to a huge number of his constituents (and available online), Don writes:
:clap:
Rather proud to have Don as my MP.

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

I just sent Don a letter of praise and thanks for the work he has done.

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

If Don was my MP he would certainly get my vote. My own MP's reply was so uninspiring it caused me change my vote in the recent local elections.

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

Just a quick one, have you noticed how they tag you when you're voting? You become a number, and you can be traced. Anonynous - no.

You may as well have a "random" UID assigned.

The only answer is to spoil your ballot by scrubbing the paper no.

Is that my tin foil hat? How do you know?

Si

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

(Tongue in cheek) Is this how they do it? ;).

Watch the swinging pendant with your eyes.

You are feeling sleepy...... sleepy .... ....... sleep.... when I count to 10 you will wake up and agree with everything I have said. 1....2...3 ------...10.

You are an ISP. Whenever you hear the name 'Phorm' you will relax and do everything I say. You will agree to us putting servers within your exchanges. You will not question this, as it is normal behaviour. relaaaaaaax,

Nod your head if you agree (nods twice)...

You will not question anything we say or do.The equipment we are going to install, you will understand that only we will have access to it and although you know we are intercepting all you clients data for our own purposes, you will relax and be happy about it because we are Phorm. Sleep, relax.... Sleeeep.

When I count to ten you will wake up and every time you the hear or see the word Phorm or WebWise mentioned, you will smile and say it is legal. If you are sent to prison, you will be happy as you will feel that you needed a holiday. Relaaaaaax .....
I am now going to count to 10.

1, 2, 3, .....10

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

OOH - could I have some more Phorm please. Zzzzzzz

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

I disagree (which I know you won't have issues with Oblonsky) - there are issues to be debated and whilst we have the resources to go into battle on all fronts we should not withdraw on any.

We are not losing resources to fight these battles, we are gaining them. We are not weakening but growing in strength.

So, the implied consent battle is something we should continue with.

If this was an actual war, given our growing numbers we would not withdraw from one front because we don't need to. And the implied consent issue is another front or part of the battle which we should stick with because we can win it too. :D

Hank

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

Implied consent should mean some sort of hand writen signature not an electronic tick box that might be clicked or activated by accident by another member of your family.

When will phorm open up there kit fully and be transparent and open CAN WE SEE THE SOURCE CODE FOR THE PROFILER,ANONIMISER and AD CHANNEL KIT we know the process is already illegal and i bet that the source code for 1 if not all the items i listed is illegal too.

If something is getting released on the general public we want it verified by the government or a goverment appointed body not the phorm tall tales of trust us we have the Phorm and done it in the past.

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

I was lucky enough to speak to 2 MPs about this, one of whom couldn't see what all the fuss was about. He was also a solicitor. When I used an argument from a letter published further UT about cyber security threats, and explained about RIPA and web email it was a different story.

The problem we will face is not simply "numbers" but also legitimacy and power of arguments. It's not about battling the letter of the law, its about showing powerful reasoning. It's about pursuading the poeple in power to act.

I can't prove anything I write so I will just have to leave it to you all to decide, but I was surprised to see my CF reputation actually grow rather than shrink despite the public bashing, because, during the heated debate, some people out there actually agreed when I said we need to choose our battles.

Find the weakest points in the ISPs defence and stick to that.

They can't distinguish between protected and published web content therefore their system can never be legal.

To respond to some of you, the implied consent argument is not instead of the informed opt-in argument. Informed opt-in relates to users and the "implied consent" argument relates only to web publishers. RIPA needs consent of both parties so the implied consent argument coupled with user op-in together, arguably, get that consent.

It may or may not be valid in law, no-one knows, but it is irrelevant to the debate, since more powerful arguments exist once you establish that there is no sound way of ignoring all web based email services without an opt-in from website owners too. And there is no way a sender of an email implies his or her consent for that email to be intercepted and profiled en-route.

You may not see the subtlety of what I am saying, but again I can't do anything else but assure you it is vitally important to the debate.

The copyright argument will garner no support from MPs or regulators. It's a dead duck.

I've taken my time to explain this in great detail over the last 2 sessions of posting to hopefully pursuade some of you to think about how you present arguments to the likes of MPs

I'll repeat again what I said earlier, again I can't prove it but take it on face value. Someone very close to BT told me they were confident that nothing would come of the trials, because of a confusion [amongs protestors, amongst authorities] over what sections of the law had been breached.

Help clean up the confusion.

I've been reading this thread from the start but I posted to spread a specific message about tightening up your legal arguments.

Alex may tell you that all the legal experts he's spoken to agree on all the points, which would be excellent news, but unfortunately if all legal minds did agree then I very much doubt any of the ISPs would have signed up to Phorm.

Lawyers exploit loopholes. Focus on defending against this.

It will be a battle even getting anything to court and an even bigger battle thereon in.

I feel strengthened by the messages of support from some of you. I'm not a Phorm shareholder and some people UT obviously think it's good sport to prod the "grumpy bear" but honestly, why would a Phorm shareholder rip apart the system:

How Webwise Works: Sun Mar 09 2008, 05:58PM
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...wtopic.php?548

With a lot of help from other Badphormers we established how bad the system was in terms of performance and redirects a full month before Clayton published his report. Special thanks to Phormic Acid for working out also that phorged cookies would be planted in other people's domains, as well as many other contributors.

It's time to leave, I have work today. Have a nice day everyone.

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

A professional IT organisation would ONLY accept the source code, which would be compiled and deployed in-house. A copy would be held 'in escrow' in case the supplier went bust and for audit purposes in case of unexpected processing outcomes. I would imagine the BT IT/Network people are deeply unhappy with having a 3rd party system inline with their network without full control over its behaviour, and I expect that there would be some internal tensions with the marketeers in BT Retail. Unfortunately the BT Board seem to be asleep on the job and blissfully unaware of the legal and financial liability risks they are running.

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

We know what your opinion is, you have made it quite clear. However, we (as in everyone on this forum who has responded to your opinions) don't agree.

So as I said yesterday, why can't you just agree to disagree and leave it at that instead of obfuscating the thread with the same things over and over again.

If you guys at BadPhorm want to only concentrate on email and private sections of sites, that's fine you are welcome to do that and you have your own forum for it. Please stop deteriorating this thread on this forum though; you have stated your opinion you don't need to keep doing it over and over again when it is clear we are not going to agree.

All it does is antagonise people here and turn the thread into the steaming pile of irrelevance that it became yesterday.

Alexander Hanff

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

What the fudge?!
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...IM+B1WTNC4PHRM

How can the trade of (edit)7000 shares bump the price up by 20-odd%?

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

Rampers. Notice how they are all small trades. We might see a lot of selling this afternoon.

Alexander Hanff

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

Is that not against the rules, if not the law?

Is it likely to be Phorm people artificially inflating their stock value, or other mugs (sorry) investors?

EDIT: I know nothing about stocks.

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

Ever been to a car boot sale? Same dynamics at work.

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

Coming into this a bit late I realise... but several pages back, some were saying that Google relied on implied consent to crawl websites...

Don't you have to physically add each site you wish them to index to their list of URLs, at www.google.com/addurl

therefore inphormed consent is gained, by the act of you adding your site to their index?

Or have I got confused? :D

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

Confused: google automatically follows links from pages to find other pages.

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

Damn, thought I was on to a winner there :(

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

Google runs 'webcrawlers' which follow links to find and index websites. So if you have a site that is linked from anywhere eventually google is going to find it and index it. If it finds a robots.txt file the webcrawler will obey its instructions about what and what not to index. The URL you quote can be used to encourage the webcrawler to visit your site sooner rather than later, most website owners welcome this.
;)

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

Actually, no, I haven't.

I find the whole idea of people swapping their unwanted crap for pennies slightly distasteful.

Probably why I have no interest in stocks:)

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

One for Alexander... using this flow I can't see how Phorm are not processing personal data I guess you agree?
from here

Particularly noted this example... perhaps replace 'CCTV' with spyware and 'physical characteristics' with 'browsing characteristics';

There will be circumstances where the data you hold enables you to identify an individual whose name you do not know and you may never intend to discover.
Example: Where an individual is not previously known to the operators of a sophisticated multi-camera town centre CCTV system, but the operators are able to distinguish that individual on the basis of physical characteristics, that individual is identified. Therefore, where the operators are tracking a particular individual that they have singled out in some way (perhaps using such physical characteristics) they will be processing ‘personal data’.

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

Interesting discovery relating to my BTOpenworld free ISP space. I use this site, which used to be the forwarding location for my domain (now moved to its own space), to host pages which simply now redirect to the new site - to make sure that old google links take people to the new site.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment to prepare it for Webwise, with an appropriate Webwise cookie trap, and robots.txt that didn't forbid google, and a "body text" statement banning Phorm and all its works, and some 3rd party stats counter links to give me a logging facility (there aren't any logs available on my free ISP space) and then see if any Webwise visits occurred when the trials started. Webwise has not been given the url for its black list.

I set up the Google Webmaster tools, including getting the site google verified, then just checked that robots.txt was working properly - I'm familiar with doing this from 2 other domains.

Then I discovered the problem - I can't actually set up a "valid" robots.txt for the ISP hosted pages - because as far as google is concerned the only robots.txt it sees is the one at the top level domain - the ISP domain of btinternet.com .

My site robots.txt is www.btinternet.com slash tilde~ username slash robots.txt

The one google sees is www.btinternet.com/robots.txt which merely says

User-agent: *
Disallow: /Templates
Disallow: /virtualworlds

which seems to be the one that btinternet.com uses for all their hosted space.

So I suppose my question is - IF the "official BT/Phorm/Webwise" way of keeping webwise out of my site is supposed to be by using robots.txt (not legally good enough I know, but let's put that on hold for a moment) - how could I do it? On my ISP hosted pages I CANT create a valid robots.txt that would keep google out.

I don't actually WANT to keep google or phorm out of this test site by robots.txt - I want to use it as a test site - but IF I wanted to use the official declared robots.txt method of banning Phorm/Webwise, I can't see any way of doing it.

And if the official way of doing this, recommened by my Webwise-prone ISP is actually not possible on ISP webspace provided by the same ISP, don't THEY have a problem?

Anyway - I'll throw this at them and see what happens and keep you posted.

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

Got it in one! :p:

Early in the day, more buyers than sellers, prices high. Later in the day, buyers are spent out or have gone home, prices fall.

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

You keep going on about this point, but this is exactly what phorm are saying they CAN do. In fact this is their STRONGEST point.

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

What you require is a meta tag like the robots meta tag.

Perhaps an easier solution would be the one described in the link below, allowing you to reclaim royalties for unauthorised commercial exploitation of your content;

Copyright, Royalties and Invoicing

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

I was of the impression that you CANNOT rely on acceptance of terms and conditions to give explicit consent.

I was also of the impression that any changes to T&Cs must be notifed in writing (Not simply posted on a web page) to those that it affects.

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

I run and maintain several web based application sites that require log in to access, most of the site can only be seen after log in and it contains sensitive information. Google cannot index it by following links from the main site as there are none unless logged in. Phorm will be able to see it though as they intercept the stream at the ISP's end and that is not legal.

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

Has any looked at the fact that they cannot profile children who cannot give consent, and have NO way of knowing who using the pc at any given time only that it is been used, and that they claim they don`t profile children is a lie.
also look up on the reg about the ruling made on J K Rowling case about her sons private data been process. although it was a photo it`s still data used on him.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rivacy_ruling/

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

Yes - the metatag is the obvious one, but I don't recall anything from Webwise/Phorm/BT that says they are looking at the metatags. They have been SO vague about robots.txt and unless I've missed it, there has been nothing about metatags. Please - if anyone has anything concrete explaining how they deal with noindex,nofollow metatags, please do post it.

I know that for some this is "not the issue" - but it seems that even if the way Phorm/Webwise/BT are looking at it has practical holes in it then it tends to cause more embarrassment for them and more pressure.

I agree that the real issue is the legality of the interception in the first place, and the need for explicit, informed, rather than implied consent, but I am trying to challenging the way even their "implied" consent model works.

Let's keep em busy!

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

See may post above : The sensative parts of my websites can only be viewed once logged on. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on and therefore cannot know the data has implied consent or not. I do not need meta tags or robots.txt to prevent Google from seeing this data as Google (other search engines) cannot see them. If I have to use meta tags or robots.txt then I am being asked to Opt-Out which is not legal!

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

The free hosting with your ISP is not always thrown open to general public, many of those sites are family orinated with links only handed around the family due to idetifyable data in them.

With the why BT has this at present these will be harvested..

Over PM a friend suggested as a test to see if VM are running phorm if all VM customers started to visit websites like ISPreview ADSLguide and BT to amke it look like you are thinking of moving, then see if any adverts about specioal offers arive on your screen.

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

with BT they can use opt in without cookies, they can use the hubs of the a/c holders like they do with their BT fon opt in, but clearly they don`t wont opt in do they.

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

BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.

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

I do not think they can know if the user is logged on or not. They would have to be able to examine the status of the site cookies and be able to interpret them. Also a laptop owner could be logged on at one location (none phormed) and then take it to another location (phormed) still logged on.

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

one way round this then is to set up your first page as a brief outline of your plans and reason why they have to login thern website behind this login page.

Nothign Phorm can harvest once they login.

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

Some big news in the press today re: DPA. Some may find it strange that an article about paparazzi taking photos of J K Rowling's son might be relevant to Phorm but let me explain why it is relevant.

The Judge has ruled that if other laws relating to privacy have been breached then as a result the DPA is breached as well as the processing of any data which has been obtained through a breach of a another law (such as RIPA, CMA etc etc etc.) that processing becomes unlawful under the DPA.

This is a pretty big story, it will be interesting to see more legal analysis coming out in the next few days on it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rivacy_ruling/

Now lets see ICO try to wriggle out of that one...

Alexander Hanff

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

Might we see the PIA today?

I fully expect the share price to jump on the back of that and maybe some small investors are thinking the same. A good way to make money on a short term blip.

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

The problem is that there is no way that phorm can know if the page the user is viewing is behind a logon or not. So it will always profile the user's page if it is on http.
Search engines on the other hand will never profile the pages as they need the user to logon for them, so Phorms statement that they are better then Google is an outright lie.

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

Just look at the size of the trades, it is blatantly obvious that there is a very serious effort to ramp the stock, very small trades selling at high prices.

I would suggest someone has a lot of shares they want to dump but they don't want to make a huge loss on them (bought them at 20+) so they are trying to get the price up in order to dump them again.

There certainly isn't any news I can find anywhere (not even on Phorm's site) which can otherwise account for today's market activity.

Alexander Hanff

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

And the author of the register piece is out-law.com!

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

They often write articles for El Reg.

Alexander Hanff

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

Alexander (or anyone else interested in commercial exploitation of copyright content)

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a look at this thread on BadPhorm, and share your thoughts.

I think there may be a way to obliterate Phorm using a combination of UID leakage, copyright law, royalties and invoicing for unauthorised commercial exploitation.

Pete

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

Pete, I will have a looksie later, I am up to my neck in work at the moment. I have two pieces to hand in in the next couple of hours.

Alexander Hanff

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

I like the idea and although I don't know enough about the legal side to comment, the thought of BT up before the beak for breach of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 puts a big grin on my face.:D

---

Just one thought. A week or so ago, I think it was R Jones who mentioned that BT had offered to exclude domains from the system (by opt out).

Presumably the first invoice they receive will show the domains of the participant, which they would then exclude and thus no more forged cookies to detect.

Leaving aside the issue of the invoice actually being paid, you would need to generate a lot of publicity to recruit new members for the following month.

I don't suppose that would be a problem though as there will be enough people who either hate phorm or would want a slice of any potential income.

I also think the invoicing, if done centrally, would need to be done in such a way as to allow each individual site owner to pursue payment through the small claims court. (rather than one action on behalf of all owners.)

Presumably an ISP deploying phorm would imply consent to being included in your system.:)

You should float this on AIM. It's a much more robust business model than Kent's idea.

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

Nice to see that Don Fosters Early Day Motion now has 46 MPs signed up (9th May 2008). I was disappoint to see that only 3 Tory MPs have signed it, I thought the Tories were trying to escape from "the nasty party" image of yesteryear? And what about Hague why hasn't he signed it, perhaps the original poster that brought Phormscum to Hagues attention should ask him.

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

Just an idea here but what would happen say if a person was invited to take part in the upcoming BT trial, opted-in but then changed their mind further down the line and blocked webwise domains in the host file by resolving them to 127.0.0.1. They would then be unable to browse.

In that situation does anyone think they would have a decent case for a small claims case against BT for breech of contract? Just thinking that just as spybot s & d uses that very way to help protect against spyware and its a well established pc security practice, would they have a good case?

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

Someone else on here poined out that EDM's are restricted to backbenchers and WH is the shadow foreign sec (i think)

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

I suspect they don't know about the meta tags. All I've seen is a vague claim that they will only profile where Google would index. That should mean that they look at robots.txt and meta tags. However they've only ever mentioned robots.txt to my knowledge (and then not very clearly).

Yes. I touched on some of this with some of my previous posts but they got a bit lost in the flames. This seems to me to be a fundamental problem. If you assume webmasters have a choice about being profiled then you have a catch 22. Determining which http requests are for which websites requires an intercept. An opt-in or opt-out could be done at various levels (IP address, domain(via robots.txt) or per page(via meta tags)) but all of these require an intercept of some of the communication. As you go through my list of levels you get more fine grained control, but you also need to look deeper into the packets which starts to very quickly look like an illegal intercept.

Indeed. A strong legal argument doesn't have a single point of failure. If they managed to argue that an implied opt-in for webmasters is OK, then this is a fall back argument.

Either they inspect all outgoing packets or they don't touch any of them. Unless they've invented a clairvoyant packet filter.

They might be able to argue that filtering on IP address is not an intercept - it's just routing. I actually think there is some merit in that argument. However that falls far short of the level of control that Google offers. A single IP address can relate to thousands of websites with different webmasters and completely different types of content.

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

Confirmed.

I've sent this one off to BT and also posted a reference to it on iii investment site and the BT Beta Forums which are incredibly sluggish today.

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

Oh no. I'm not that evil.

I would ensure the ISP gave me explicit consent... ISPs will indicate their explicit consent to be charged for commercial exploitation by Phorging a UID cookie in my domain.

As for AIM, joy to say the mechanism for generating this revenue is so simple anyone could do it. In a nutshell; force leaked UID cookie, log commercial exploitation event, invoice ISP for page impression royalties and then... either draw income from factor (and allow them to chase bad debt on your behalf) or sue ISP in small claims court for royalties once a month.

Anyone with a relatively basic web site hosting package would be able to do it (and never have to show an advert). Or you could use the expected income to upgrade your hosting package if necessary.

No legal fees, you can represent yourself in small claims.

:)

Pete.