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

With refrence to Jelv's correspondence from BT...

What if it cant find a robots.txt file? If via an htaccess file all Phorm ISP IP ranges were denied access to robots.txt so that the profiler kit cannot determine google's permissions (google et al can still read it from not residing on the ISP network) would this be read as no implied consent? Or is my suspicion that Phorm would carry on regardless prove to be more accurate?

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

Perhaps aconcerted effort to Google about this might get them on our side and in the fight.

If I remember correctly when I first built a website I had to apply for google bot to visit which would give them consent then. So google have conscent from me due to me applying.

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

I know damned well that this will sound defeatist, and I do not intend to diminish the obvious effort being put in but (thank you Margaret and Ronnie) the Corporations have won, money is everything, the individual stands for nothing unless he’s rich, democracy has been sold and laws exist for the repression of the powerless and the protection of the powerful. And it’s NOT going to get any better. A rearguard action over privacy will – even if not over this particular issue – inevitably have to be fought. To that end, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater – I agree that VM, BT and whichever ISPs are arrogant enough to think that data generated my ME is THEIRS as of right should be resisted, but the long-term trend is on their side. Alternatives (TOR, Relakks, DIY) shouldn’t be discounted. In reply to the question “Can you trust them” the answer can only be “more than the alternative”. Spyware technology will run and run. It’s too profitable not to. It’s the way of the future – I don’t like it either, but that’s how it is. Once all of us who had a half-way decent education (and are in some measure able to think for ourselves) have died off, it’ll all be left to the remaining Murdoch-informed population to enjoy – good luck to them! If you think I should change my username to “tin-foil hat” then you haven’t lived as long as I have.

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

Was just taking a look at the robots.txt files of some major websites and came across this for ebay.co.uk:

The paragraph at the top explicitly says no to phorm but the machine readable part mostly says come on in.

Also on the subject of robots.txt - Googlebot's full user agent string is something like:

The interesting part is the url pointing to information about google bot and what it does. If phorm fake that then they are certainly committing some offense IMO.

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

Your insight puts a different perspective on the share price movements that I find very interesting.

Thank you for your time and for giving us the benefit of your knowledge.
Please post again if you see anything interesting happening.
:tu:

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

AFAIK Phorm/Webwise doesn't leave or use ANY user-agent string at all.
It assumes consent to profile if Google is allowed to spider, but I don't think it is using a googlebot useragent string. So far, there has been no information at all about what information a website owner might find in their logs to indicate that Webwise has been accompanying a site visitor.

Remember Webwise doesn't crawl the site in the way a spider does, it simply profiles/copies/ the browsing done by a site visitor with Webwise switched on.

To detect their visit a site has to detect the phorged cookies it sets, and also the Phorm UID cookie. (Which is what the dephormation tools for webmasters are attempting to do).

If anyone knows otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.

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

Oh for goodness sake, cheer up (and cheer me up too why don't you).

They won't win if you don't let them. Move to a non-Phorm ISP. Don't think about it, don't stall, don't sulk, don't hesitate... do it now. Its one call and you'll thank yourself afterwards. Vote with your feet.

Phorm still hasn't launched. Still, 3 months after it was first announced.

BT still aren't off the hook with respect to RIPA, PECR, DPA, and the consequences of their secret trials by a long chalk.

And even if... even IF behavioural targetting eventually escapes from the cess pit, copyright ownership will lay waste to Phorm and BT like a 1000 Megaton GPS guided thermonuclear strike on their HQ.


Phorm parasites suck the life blood from content owners.

I'm certain test cases (or very big out of court settlements) are coming down the line.

And Phorm, BT, Virgin and TalkTalk directors will be left sitting on smouldering scorched earth wondering whether a chat with a copyright lawyer would have been a smart idea before switching Webwise on.

"The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to ... copy the work... issue copies of the work... make an adaptation of the work".

Exclusive.

Pete

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

It's getting harder to contact those BT managers

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<emma sanderson's email address>:
62.239.224.89 failed after I sent the message.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Message rejected as spam by Content Filtering.

I've sent the same email again via a different account and sending address so we'll see if that gets through.

I can't see what they didn't like about my email - quoted below:

<<Greetings.
Are you yet in a position to tell us what Phorm looks for in robots.txt to
decide whether a site can be snooped on?
If you are relying (wrongly) on this argument to claim that webmasters have
the ability to opt-out, then you cannot withold the information, especially
as we are now within 14 days of your latest published not-later-than date
for the start of the trials.

Does Phorm use a phorm specific user agent that a webmaster can selectively
block?
Does Phorm look for a robots.txt directives affecting ALL spiders?
Does Phorm rely on robots.txt directives aimed at Google?

If the latter - have Google been consulted?

Perhaps there is a need for a tutorial on the difference between Google and
Phorm from a webmaster's point of view.

Google spiders a site (and can be selectively blocked by the webmaster while
other search engines are allowed) - and then sends traffic to that site, for
the site's benefit.
Phorm makes illegal page copies of a sites intellectual content, snoops on
the entire (yes- ENTIRE) data exchange between a site visitor and the site,
and then profiles some of that data exchange (relatively imprecisely
according to Kent Ertugrul, and insecurely according to Clayton) and then
profits from that profiling, and cannot be selectively blocked by a
webmaster without shutting out search engines entirely. Choice for
webmaster? No choice. Informed choice? No information given to webmaster in
advance. Explicit informed choice of webmaster - NONE.

Final question for tonight in addition to the ones above (and this is the
crunch question if you really mean it about webmasters having choice

How does a webmaster ALLOW search engines, and BLOCK Phorm, using robots.txt
?
Easy to answer if you are sincere about offering choice.
Probably result in a fudge answer if you are NOT sincere about offering
choice to webmasters.

NB - offering to black list websites is NOT an answer I will accept. It's
not practical to run that system for the whole internet unless you are
contacting every website on the planet to warn them about Phorm, and
repeating that regularly for as long as Phorm is in existence.

I have a LOT more questions about website profiling issues from a
webmaster's point of view so I hope someone at BT has been thinking about
it. It's the next phase of the campaign.

Best wishes.
Not getting tired yet.>>

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

I hope people are not confusing the user-agent string which is passed across by a visitor to a website (be that a browser or a bot) and the user-agent string which search engines look for in robots.txt - they are two totally different things.

Phorm are quite incorrectly looking for googlebot in robots.txt (it will be interesting to see if Google object to this).

I would think that when a user on a Phorm/webwise ISP visits a website the user-agent string will be replicated from the intercepted request from the browser.

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

Next target?

Kent's Hind-Quarters. :D

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

Stop right there! I know what the problem is... The email was rejected because it had the word(s) "Phorm" in it and went straight into the spam bin.

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

OK couple of things.

Re: Robots.txt
Phorm claimed at the PIA Public Meeting that before they push a request through for a GET from a user to a website they will visit the document root for the domain to see if there is a robots.txt which allows Google access; if there is they will profile the pages the user requests. There is no indication (in fact they refused to tell us) what the user-agent will be for this robots.txt request but the user-agent for the user's GET requests will (I expect, although this has not been clarified either) be unchanged from the user's normal user-agent.

re: Share Prices
Talk in the press is that the reason for the latest shoring up of the stock is down to the BT trials being imminent to start in the next 2 weeks. Nothing to do with any large new contracts with anyone.

re: Google
Watch this space (and that is all I can say on the matter for now).

Alexander Hanff

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

The number of votes seems broadly consistent with previous votes in ISPreview polls, the last 4 have all had over 1000 votes. http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/p...cgi?archives=1

If people had been rigging the vote I'd expect to see significantly more votes cast in the phorm poll, than in previous polls.

One thing I do find slightly surprising, is given that news items about Phorm have appeared on ISPreview, 25% of voters still had no idea what Phorm is.



Also Other polls on phorm are similarily negative, with only 4% voting here would not opt-out. and 82% of Skyuser forum members would leave Sky if Phorm was introduced by Sky http://www.skyuser.co.uk/forum/polls...u-stay-go.html

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

No they won't win - not this time...

This is the Internet where you don't have to have a mountain of cash to have just as much say as the big boys. Every single article that has mentioned phorm or webwise since February this year has so far been attended by teckies ready to denounce it for the nasty crap that it is.

Why do you think kent's PR machine doesn't bother posting their spin anymore? Because they got fed up with being beaten and made to look stupid - we did that -
Just with a broadband connection and probably no more than a couple of hundred quid between us ...

See?

:D

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

If only! What's Kent's personal worth? What's his NYSE reputation?

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

What's Kent's reputation on the Internet?

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

hmm , i find this rather odd, the BBC will respond and defend the DrWho trademark and copyright, but so far, not a peep about the long standing BBC "webwise" trademark and copyright....

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...-from-the-web/

"...
“We note that you are supplying DR WHO items, and using trade marks and copyright owned by BBC.

You have not been given permission to use the DR WHO brand and we ask that you remove from your site any designs connected with DR WHO.

Please reply acknowledging receipt of this email, and confirm that you will remove the DR WHO items as requested.”
...
"

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

Did they specifically refer to the Googlebot by name? Most disallows use a user-agent of *, which would, of course, include Google. Google’s a reasonable example. A quote attributable to Phorn in Richard Clayton’s paper is far more general.

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.

Why restrict themselves to only Googlebot, what about MSNBot and Slurp, etc.?

We can’t afford to lose. Everyone deserves to keep their privacy and we can hardly restrict our private communications to only those using non-phormed ISPs. However, it turns out that Phorm on fixed-line connections is only one of a whole range of concerns, including:

• The use of Google and similar companies to store personal data.
• Wireless access points using Phorm, NebuAd, Front Porch or similar.
• The 45,000 UK users of comScore.
• Even services that claim to protect you, but which are no better themselves, such as AnchorFree’s Hotspot Shield.

While we’re trying to get a more balanced perspective, you might like to read Phorm (formerly 121Media) Under Fire. I hope Kent appreciates that I’ve never once said he’s bad… just mad. I know that blog entry’s contradictory. It concludes by saying Phorm are “doing right by end-users�, whereas earlier it states that Kent wasn’t interested in providing end-user value. That’s the problem: Phorm take everything from the user and give nothing back.

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

They only specified Google but I presume they were just being flippant. I expect if there is anything at all representing permission to spider to anyone, they will use that as implied consent.

Alexander Hanff

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

That's not just Phorm, that's capital in action. Get used to it.

---------- Post added at 02:25 ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 ----------

Do you think he gives a ****

---------- Post added at 02:31 ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 ----------

Do you think he gives a ****

The man can get more $1000 whores than you can shake a stick at. And that's what it's all about.

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

Do you think he gives a ****

---------- Post added at 02:31 ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 ----------



Do you think he gives a ****

The man can get more $1000 whores than you can shake a stick at. And that's what it's all about.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think he does - this is a battle of hearts and minds and it's being fought on our terms on forums like this one. We are thorns in his side, there are plenty of laws he's yet to break - and don't worry we'll complain and make a song and dance about every single one until in the end he'll ***** off and dream up some other scheme in some country where there arn't so many laws to break...


:D

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

Haven't read all the thread as it's too long but this may have been mentioned before. If you use Firefox as your browser then download the dephormation add on available. Just Google for it.

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

Global village

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

Alex: I have had confirmation from Emma Sanderson at BT that they will be checking robots.txt for googlebot - see quote from email in post here: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6398.html

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

They responded to me a month or so ago, and they don't have Webwise copyrighted.

---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 ----------

I'm waiting for a BT answer to that specific point, following up their reply to someone else (which I have seen) - where it did appear from their reply that they were talking about Google.The reply was specific enough to make me think in terms of contacting Google if I get similar confirmation because it could mean webmasters singling out google for a disallow while allowing other search engines.

It's possible that the spokesperson was simply confused, as they don't get on well with very specific questions about how Phorm/Webwise works - but the answer seemed clear enough even if it was wrong.

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

I got an email from Emma on Friday saying:

I think it is pretty clear that it is specifically googlebot.

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

The've said that robots.txt will be cached* and not fetched for every phormed user. So it seems unlikely to me that they would pick a random user and forge her user agent string.

Also: If they by some miracle actually followed the robots.txt standard then the user-agent they match against and the one they send in the http headers must match:

"The name token a robot chooses for itself should be sent
as part of the HTTP User-agent header, and must be well documented."**

Sources:

* From http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf "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."

** From http://www.robotstxt.org/norobots-rfc.txt

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

You misunderstood me I think. I was trying to explain that the system will consist of 2 stages. When you send out a web request to a web site, Phorm (not you) will go off and look for robots.txt (providing it is not already cached) to check if search engines are allowed to spider. This stage is the one where they refuse to tell us what user-agent they will use.

Then the second stage is them actually forwarding your original request (yes there are some redirects and stuff going on in between but lets try and keep it simple) where we can only assume your real user-agent will be used. Certainly there has been no indication from Phorm that they will be using a different user-agent for these requests (and realistically they wouldn't want to as they could then be easily identified and blocked).

Alexander Hanff

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

As Robert has already pointed out, using robots.txt as permission to profile is hopeless. Many sites do not use robots.txt and others, like we with ISP hosted sites, are unable to set one up anyway. If you are quite happy for Google to scan our sites and you therefore have no specific reason to include a robots.txt, then you won't bother. I imagine there are countless sites out there, including some significant ones, who have never bothered with it, or in some cases don't even know what it is.

It would be nice to suggest that if robots.txt were missing then Phorm would not profile that site, but I guess that would be asking too much.....

On a similar theme, Phorm have never made clear if they look at and use the <meta> tags in sites. I would feel tempted to include loads of words in those to totally upset the meaning of any profiling information, after all you only need to ensure they are the ten most used words on the site....

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

This has just given me an idea, although not exactly a straightfoward proposition.

If/When the BT trial happens, it's not going to be that difficult to work out what that user agent will be, just visit your own website (assuming you are phormed) then check your web logs.

Now assuming they don't forge a googlebot user agent and do use their own unique user agent, then it should be fairly simple to configure a web server to parse robots.txt as a script (I am sure I could set this up easily with apache/php) and serve different content based on the user agent. If it's a phorm user agent then deny the entire site, if not then serve your usual robots.txt.

Although this still doesn't get round the implied consent/default opt-in issue for webmasters/content authors, it's something to think about.

Regards...

T

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

I've posted the following on Google Webmaster tools forum
http://groups.google.com/group/Googl...90386b9ad852d0

and await the response. If anyone has a more direct route to Google management they are allowed to give me, I would be grateful - but the forum pigoens seemed the best ones to let the cat loose amongst.

Quote

As a Webmaster I am concerned about what my UK ISP (BTYahoo!/BT
Broadband) have told me about their plans to implement Webwise, a
technology patented by former spyware company 121Media, now known as
Phorm.Inc.
121 Media were formerly responsible for PeopleonPage, and for placing
difficult to remove rootkits on people's computers.

This technology uses Layer 7 interception of a users complete http
traffic to profile/mirror their browsing behaviour, and then use the
information to serve up targeted ads, based on an anonymised, cookie-
based UID placed on the users computer. It also involves the forging
of a cookie, purporting to come from the website visited, even if that
website has a privacy policy that says it does not set cookies.

It is similar but not identical to the US company NebuAd technology.

There has been relatively little debate about the isses this
technology raises for webmasters.

BT have stated that Webwise/Phorm will assume implied consent of
webmasters, to profile copyrighted web content, copy it, and exploit
it for commercial gain IF THE WEBMASTER CONSENTS TO A GOOGLE SPIDER
visiting their site.

They are equating their deep level Layer 7 intrusive interception
technology with that of the Google search engine. This may even lead
to confusion in people's minds between Webwise and Google, and they
may think that Google is in some way linked to Phorm/Webwise.
They are refusing to give webmasters a way of excluding Webwise
specifically using robots.txt - instead they are saying if we let
Google in, we let Webwise in. They have specifically repeatedly named
Google as the search engine robots.txt directive they will be looking
for in order to establish what they claim will be implied consent for
Webwise on the part of Webmasters.

Of course the major search engines allow and even assist webmasters to
exclude their robot from spidering sites by the use of specific user
agent strings. Webwise will neither set a user agent string, nor
permit itself to be specifically excluded via robots.txt.

Google need to be aware of this as it means that one possible step a
webmaster might take is to allow all other search engines to crawl
their site, but exclude Google. That way, they can exclude Webwise,
because they have excluded Google.

I would imagine Google would not be happy about this as it has the
potential to adversely impact their business model, by linking access
to Google robots with Layer 7 interception by Phorm/Webwise.

I am happy to provide further information to Google on this, including
details of communications received from my ISP, if someone from
google contacts me by email. A good starting point for information is
here
http://www.inphormationdesk.org/

followed by a text version of my disposable email address for google

End Quote

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

Yes, a slight misunderstanding. I thought we were just talking about the fetching of robots.txt as your paragraph that I quoted was titled "Re: Robots.txt". Back to the point anyway :)

I think you're probably right about them spoofing the user agent for the "second stage". Otherwise they couldn't be sure they were being served the same content. Many sites tailor content based on user-agent strings.

As for the robots.txt fetch they have a dilema. Either:

They completely emulate googlebot's behaviour which may risk litigation from Google.

or:

They do something that differentiates them from googlebot and allows them to be denied. (e.g. the user-agent string they send in the http headers is different so we serve a different robots.txt - not the easiest solution for a webmaster to implement and impossible unless you've got a proper hosting solution)

If they really wanted to create a new "gold standard" for user privacy then they would be a lot more open on these details.

"The name token a robot chooses for itself should be sent as part of the HTTP User-agent header, and must be well documented."

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

I don't for one minute think Phorm would honour robots.txt if it explicitly denies them access. This is exactly why they won't tell us what user-agent they plan to use because they don't want to be denied access.

Let's not forget that robots.txt is not an access control mechanism, it is an honour based system which robots can either adhere to or ignore, it doesn't physically stop them accessing pages.

If their user-agent ever does get discovered, it would be useful to just add a script to your site which checks user-agent and if the Phorm user-agent is detected it builds a page which says something like "Get your hands of me you dirty ape!" or "Phorm is not welcome here, please go away." etc etc etc.

Alexander Hanff

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

That's assuming that there IS a legitimate Phorm/Webwise user agent. My personal view is - there won't be one. Based on analysing the silences and fudges from my ISP. What they DONT say is far more revealing than what they DO say, it's why I keep asking them awkward questions - to find out which ones they don't answer.

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

I agree that this still relies on them honouring the robots.txt they get served, I am just going by what they have said so far and trying to come up with something that will block phorm but allow google. I know we shouldn't have to resort to this, I was just throwing the idea out there.

My suggestion was just for the request for robots.txt, any other page (eg stage two as you put it) I believe they just pass on the end users user agent which is useless in this situation.

Regards...

T

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

I did say it relies on them having a unique user agent but as Alexander puts it, if they do not have a cached version of robots.txt they will make a request for one. This request I would imagine originates from the phorm equipment and not the end user so do they forge the users user-agent or googles etc oruse their own? This is the key question as you already know, but if/when the trial goes live, the question should be very quickly answered by looking at your own web server logs.

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

I suspect that a big reason for not answering questions is they don't have a good enough understanding of the technologies involved. At least the ones who are allowed to talk to the public don't.

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

My effort http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Goo...a967c5b?hl=en#

I've also fired something off using http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py

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

Real men don't have to pay for it.

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

I have made my contact in Google aware that there is some talk from webmasters with regards blocking Googlebot in robots.txt in order to try and stop Phorm doing the dirty. I expect they will not be very happy with the news :)

Alexander Hanff

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

A categorical reply just now from Amazon:

I would take "We have no connections with Phorm" to mean that in addition to having no plans for Phorm/OIX, they are not in serious discussions with them. Frankly I don't see that Phorm would have anything to offer Amazon which is why I was surprised by their initial reply to Florence, although that may simply have come from a confused junior.

I think I am reassured. Any views?

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

Any big brand distancing themselves from Phorm in public statements and customer services emails, is a good thing :)

Now if we were to setup an Anti-PhormUKPRTeam we would be spinning that news out to the press as:

"Amazon say NO! to Phorm and OIX on Privacy grounds."

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

YAY! PhormUKPRTeam are BACK!!!

Dude where you been? Did Kent forget to pay your ISP bill or something?

Alexander Hanff

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

I'm not reassured - because when I asked them, they sent me some Phorm spin straight out of Kent's dictionary.

"Dear Customer,

What makes the technology behind OIX and Webwise truly groundbreaking is that it takes consumer privacy protection to a new level. Our technology doesn't store any personally identifiable information or IP addresses, and we don't retain information on user browsing behaviour. So we never know - and can't record - who's browsing, or where they've browsed.

If you have any concerns, please highlight them to your internet service provider.

Thank you for shopping at Amazon.co.uk"

and I have never had a satisfactory follow up when I queried it.

Now - where did the Amazon employee get that text from if they have had nothing to do with Phorm/Webwise/OIX ?

:Yikes:
Hello PhormUKPRTeam. Come to check on strategy or are you going to TALK to us? We've got lots of new questions and lots of new laws to discuss. Please go and have a read of my questions on the Questions and More Questions thread that BT Beta forums have,
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...=3152&tstart=0

although it doesn't provide answers any more.

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

Could have just been someone from support who pasted stuff directly from Phorm's press releases because they didn't properly read your original questions.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

PhormUKPRteam, I have a direct question for you which I am sure is reiterated by the many thousands of people who are watching this debate.

When are Phorm going to honour their commitment to release the unedited footage from the 80/20 Thinking PIA Public Meeting (held on 15th April 2008)?

My understanding is that there might be some technical problem with the video (odd that both cameras would have technical issues at the same time). If this is the case why hasn't the audio (which was recorded separately) been released or a transcript?

The public really want to see/hear/read a transcript of what happened in the Q&A Panel at the end of the presentations/speeches.

Phorm claim to be transparent and trustworthy, yet almost an entire month since the event and the video footage which they promised would be released unedited onto the web, is still being withheld.

So, where is it?

(I even posted in red so you can't miss the question!)

Alexander Hanff

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

I had this reply to my last contact with them after I linked them into this thread. They also said they didn't like their emails being posted in forums but before I posted I had checked for any disclaimers.

It would seem though looking at what Phorm plan to do that if someone visited amazon thinking of buying a book,cd,dvd or larger item phorm piggybacking will pick up the keywords then target thos person with adverts from OIX platform businesses so vertualy directing the amazon possible customer elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 ----------

I also wish to know when this will be released, Phorm will not gain any friends in the DU camp showing these tactics to keep information supressed infact it creates the opposite that the new phorm is no different to the old 121media.

I could get definiton of open and transparent but I am sure you already know so this. Hope that the phorm video and or the recording is released soon rather than later since the longer it goes on the less chance of the public trusting you.

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

Also, I find it a little concerning that a company who claims to be technologically advanced enough to spy on every single web page we visit that is not sent over HTTPS without any danger of the system being hacked or suffering flaws which would cause it to break; yet they are unable to post a video (which they promised) onto the Internet due to technical problems. It doesn't make anyone swell with confidence at Phorm's abilities.

Alexander Hanff

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

Oops.... PhormUKPRteam have gone! :(

And not even a 'Hello!'

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

Our questions are just too difficult for them. We should try and put them in CBeebies dialect so there is no ambiguity.

BTW your sig is "exactly not correct" </Kent>. According to Kent's own words at the PIA meeting, Phorm currently have 0 companies partnered with OIX in any official form, they are merely in discussions with a number of interested parties.

Alexander Hanff

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

Inphormed Consent

The "content freely available" argument is a non-starter. The communication itself is protected not the content. Just as an example ...

Let's suppose I request a page from i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com, a public site with lots of freely available help and advice on everybody's favourite subject.

Even though it is a public site, the moment I request a page it becomes a private communication. (I would even suggest that the initial DNS lookup is protected - just knowing I went there is information in itself) The fact that the content is freely available to anyone with a net connection is irrelevant.

The way I navigate the site, the search terms I use and the pages I dwell on are all unique to me and together form a private communication. Private for good reason - this is potentially very valuable information to some companies.

Phorm's blacklist argument is bogus - they simply cannot know what any one of the millions of URL's on the net lead to. i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com may have several less obvious aliases for very obvious reasons.

i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com probably has very strict published privacy policies. No logging, no cookies, no advertising links etc. All in place to re-assure users that their 'consultation' will remain anonymous. I would suggest that they most certainly don't consent to the session being wire tapped - even where the customer does.

The copyright angle has been covered earlier but Phorm are certainly, for most sites, creating an un-authorised derivative work.

Comparison with others
There is no comparison. Other companies, including Google, must fight it out in the 'free market'. Phorm is the equivalent of dropping a tape-worm in the gut of the internet. The ISP's are effectively saying to both content providers and consumers "From now on ..if you want to eat..."

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

Information taken from http://phormwatch.blogspot.com/
Also these companies have statements quoted on the Phorm website suggesting they are already 'in bed.'

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

Yes because the video of the Q&A Panel from the meeting hasn't been released yet, which is when he said it (in his little tangle with Charles Arthur from the Guardian regarding the Guardian dropping OIX).

So you only have my word for it (unless anyone else here stayed for the Q&A?)

Alexander Hanff

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

This puplic meeting seems to have answers for many questions is it after he re listened to what he said decided it couldn't be released since he put his foot in his mouth again?

Wellif it is never released then what ever kent says phorm will only do you can be sure once in he will adjust the get commands and remove more information from your PC than phorm was supposed to do..

Also knowing todays volitile society where power mad extremests are hidden under nearly every rock I have a hypethetical question..


Who will be held responsible if it came to pass that Phorm was hacked reprogrammed and caused all the ISPs customers online to do DOSS attacks on governement servers, military etc?

Since the number of PC's they say phorm will have total access to over theinternet what was it Kent said 70% could cause some damage..

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

its nice to see some of the other unlawful interception companys, comScore in this case,getting some more ElReg coverage, shame the other news sites dont seem so interested.....

it might be time to think about sending that Data Protection Act Notice to Experian and Equifax data and CallCredit to stop them collecting and processing your personal data.

see the CAG surlyBonds threads and coments on how to do that including this
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...d-removal.html

it might even be a good thing if Alexander can get hold of Surely,he's been absent from CAG for a while now so it might be hard to find him, but im sure
it would be well werth the effort, and make good use of your growing lords and EU contact lists between the two of you on stopping this unlawful interception subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ore/page3.html
Explores stream of unconsciousness

Page: < Prev 1 2 3
By Cade Metz in San Francisco → More by this author
Published Monday 12th May 2008 12:02 GMT

page3
"
According to Ari Schwartz, the vice president and chief operating officer of the The Center for Democracy and Technology, a well-known privacy watchdog, this sort of "email append" is common.

"Experian, for instance, offers an email append service, so if a company provides your email address, Experian can provide your household information," Schwartz told us. "Companies will say 'Sign up for our mailing list,' and they can go out and get all of your other information."

Experian owns HitWise, a comScore competitor, but it seems that HitWise doesn't collect quite as much personal information that comScore does. HitWise licenses most of its data from ISPs, and the company says this ISP data is kept completely anonymous. But more on that later.

We're looking at comScore. The difference with comScore is that it can match Experian data with your internet habits.
Mouse movements and keystrokes

Once comScore knows who's in your house, its software can track the behavior of each individual user. Scrutinizing mouse movements and key stokes, it can easily distinguish between you and your wife and your daughter. "We can attribute over 90 per cent of the behavior to a specific person - though there is some ramp-up time, from a day to a couple of weeks," Chasin said.


Again, this only happens in certain cases.

The company tracks individual users for its main "Media Metrix" research service, but not with other services, including qSearch, specifically for search data, and comScore Marketer, for marketing info. These track at the machine level. Each month, 150,000 American users and 45,000 UK users play into the company's Media Metrix data.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2008/05/74.jpg Josh Chasin

But even with Media Metrix, Josh Chasin says, comScore does not share personal data with outside companies.

.....
"

"Well, he does acknowledge that the company may share your name or address with an outside firm in order to nab that Experian and Equifax data. "

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

Campaign to get webmasters to post concerns to Google is under way.

The route for filling out a Google "contact us" form is as follows:

Sing into your Google account then go to Help Centre, and put "legal" into the search box, (All Google Help) then choose the option "how can I inform Google about a legal matter?" and then choose the options "contact us" at the top of the next page, then choose "Report a legal matter" and "Google's Trademark" which will result in a Contact Us form (not easy to find Contact Forms on Google!).

Then tell them about Phorm and how Phorm are equating themselves with Google and using Google robots.txt declarations to imply consent from webmasters, and that you may have to consider blocking Google from your site as that seems to be the only way of blocking Phorm according to the statements that BT and Phorm have made in public (and also the ones they have declined to make, like declaring a user agent, or declaring how Phorm/Webwise may be banned via robots.txt.

Indicate that you feel this may damage their business model.

I haven't posted links as it is a signed-in site, so my links probably wouldn't work.

And do post on the blogs along with me and jelv.
http://groups.google.com/group/Googl...90386b9ad852d0

and don't forget to rank our posts if you agree with them.

This is a timely moment to be raising the "webmaster concerns" profile of Webwise with Google management and also Google Webmaster Tools users.

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

I have been in some discussions with a friend at Google this morning and have been passing on the concerns raised here. It is definitely being discussed so hopefully I might have some official feedback in the not too distant future.

Alexander Hanff

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

Hi - don't rely on Dephormation. It doesn't give you much in the way of protection (I wrote it). Its a fig leaf.

If you are relying on Dephormation you should move to a new ISP at the first opportunity.

Pete

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

I was looking at a simple query response from google & saw that it used chunked and gzip compression - wonder how phorm is going to handle that on the fly?

Http header

Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Encoding: gzip

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

"There has been a great deal of commotion recently about Phorm, a company that aims to help advertisers better target consumers by monitoring their web browsing habits. At first glance, what Phorm is proposing seems absolutely outrageous and quite possibly illegal under UK data protection laws. Take a closer look, and Phorm’s technology is more subtle than it might appear , but no less dangerous and insidious for all that."

Full story here:

http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/comme...rs-put-3986634

I added a comment at the bottom but I don't think the editors have had chance to clear it yet.

I just had my 8 weekly infusion at the hospital for my arthritis so will be resting a lot today and tomorrow so probably wont post much but by thursday I will be back to normal speed and all fired up and ready to go. Keep up the good work everyone.

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

I just done myself out of 50 quid because of Phorm; all because I choose to spread the word.

Just got a call from a 'survey group' working on behalf of BT asking about BT Vision. It seems they are looking for people who have both BT Vision and Sky, and a child over 10 years old in the household.

They want to interview families who have this combination at their homes for an hour, (for which they are willing to pay £50); this is then followed up by attending a 'focus group' in a west end hotel for a couple of hours to discuss BT Vision.

I told the lady (who was vey nice btw) that I was planning to leave BT when my current contract was up at the end of July, so would not have BT Vision after that date. She, of course, asked, "Why?" I told her all about Phorm/ BT Webwise, about their evil plans to intercept our browing to feed us useless ads, and all about the illegal trials BT had carried out. She was appalled, and said she understood my stance.

Before ending the call she asked me to spell out Phorm for her so she could write it down and tell her office colleagues and friends about it.

Having a BT 'survey group' visit for an hour: £50
Getting a slap up meal and a nice night out at a top west end hotel: more dosh.

Spreading the word about BT/Phorm/Webwise: Priceless!

Why? Because it's worth it!

OB ;)

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

Naah! You should've gone for the £50.00 and told them face to face.

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

Someone over on BT Beta forums reminded me that Yahoo! are "content" partners of BT in their ISP role, and might have a commercial interest both in the advertising revenue that Phorm is attempting to wrest away from search engines and in the issue of robots.txt abuse by Phorm. I've sent in this to Yahoo! via their Site Explorer feedback (their equivalent of Google's Webmaster Tools)

Quote
As a Webmaster I am concerned about what my UK based ISP (BTYahoo!/BT
Broadband) have told me about their plans to implement Webwise, a
technology patented by former spyware company 121Media, now known as
Phorm.Inc.
121 Media were formerly responsible for PeopleonPage, and for placing
difficult to remove rootkits on people's computers.

This technology uses Layer 7 interception of a users complete http
traffic to profile/mirror their browsing behaviour, and then use the
information to serve up targeted ads, based on an anonymised, cookie-
based UID placed on the users computer. It also involves the forging
of a cookie, purporting to come from the website visited, even if that
website has a privacy policy that says it does not set cookies.

It is similar but not identical to the US company NebuAd technology.

There has been relatively little debate about the isses this
technology raises for webmasters.

It also raises issues for the major search engines, and I wonder if you have any comment on a commercial partner of yours - BT plc, being involved commercially with a technology which is designed (and promoted by its CEO Kent Ertugrul) to take business and revenue AWAY from search engines, and which is in effect a direct competitor to Yahoo! Search..

When I allow a search engine to spider my site, I am aware that the search engine allows me to use specific user agent declarations to limit where it can go, and it respects those declarations. The end result of my site being spidered by Yahoo! Slurp is that traffic/visitors are driven to my site and I benefit.

When Phorm/Webwise visits my site, it intercepts and profiles the browsing habits of my visitor, profiles the unique data exchange they have with my site, without my informed consent, then develops targeted ads to that visitor which will result in them being driven AWAY from my site. If this model proves successful it is likely to reduce Yahoo!'s income from adverts and paid links.

BT have stated that Webwise/Phorm will assume implied consent of
webmasters, to profile copyrighted web content, copy it, and exploit
it for commercial gain IF THE WEBMASTER CONSENTS TO A GOOGLE SPIDER
visiting their site.

Now it may be that they have got this wrong, and they may in actual fact be relying on generic spidering prohibition (or its absence) in robots.txt to decide whether they can infer consent to visit from the webmaster.In which case it becomes of interest not only to Google, but to ALL operators of commercial search engines. I wonder how you feel about Phorm using the permission given to search engines to decide whether Phorm/Webwise may snoop on a visit to a site?

We are still in the process of trying to ascertain this from your commercial partner BT plc

How do you feel about webmasters feeling that they need to begin blocking search engines in order to protect themselves from Webwise?

Of course the major search engines allow and even assist webmasters to
exclude their robot from spidering sites by the use of specific user
agent strings. Webwise will neither set a user agent string, nor
permit itself to be specifically excluded via robots.txt.

I am happy to provide any further information you may require on Phorm/Webwise and their tie-up with your commercial partner BT plc.
Quote ends

Anyone else want to join in?

The more we can get the BT phones ringing the less time they have to roll out those trials.

Hello Yahoo! here, can I have a word about Webwise please....?
Hello Google here, can I have a word about Webwise please....?
Hello ICO here, can I have a word about Webwise please.....?
Hello ISPA here, can I have a word about deep packet inspection please.....?
Hello Lord Northesk here, can I have a word .... etc etc.
You get the idea!

Hello Kent Ertugrul here, What the ?@~XX"$%&***!!~~@: OIX is going on?

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Could tell the whole focus group (after the meal).

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

Yeah, now that I think about it... ah well. :dunce: :p:

Actually, I couldn't have done it anyway, due to work commitments.

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

So using BT's own metrics then

1 hour betraying my privacy = £50.

Where as Phorm want to study my habits for the rest of my natural life. At those rates, I reckon they should cough up

30 years (fingers crossed, E&OE) x £50 = £13,140,000

If you think of all those hours of 'privacy value' you retain, I think you'd have to agree you make the right choice if you avoid Phorm :D

Pete.

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

You're still trying to work out how to get to the Bahamas aren't you!?

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

I now have absolute confirmation that it is googlebot and googlebot only that Phorm looks for in robots.txt:

Email from me to Emma Sanderson of BT:
Reply from Emma Sanderson:

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

There is still wriggle room. She's said "because with the exception of msn no OTHER bots are allowed". She hasn't said - "the only thing we look at is whether googlebot is allowed".

It's like trying to wrestle with a mud covered eel.

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

Dont belive anything bt says phorm will be working for another 60+ years to work out all the nessecary filters required for 100% non profilled net usage, just dont touch the kit at all is safer.

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

you read the other post he had here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6398.html

its a all a bit funny msnbot no phorm googlebot phorm

confused i am

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

Silly question, but after Ms Sandersons performance on TV, why would anyone even want to speak to her, let alone try and get the truth out of her?

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

An email I sent to Ben V. was passed on to her to handle - I've continued corresponding with her since - I think the several hours I've seen between her reading the email and responding each time (I request read receipts) indicates that I am not getting off-the-cuff replies and I think we can rely on them being official statements.

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

That’s perverse. If correct and there’s no way to specify Phorm and Phorm alone, I predict the matter will go to court. It’s like going to the Mailing Preference Service and being told the only way you can say you don’t want junk mail is by telling your bank to stop sending you your credit card statements.

While Phorm have said webmasters can exclude their sites by sending a written request to Phorm, that’s slow and not in keeping with the speed of the Internet. How long is it going to take Phorm to act on a request and ensure that it’s propagated to all their interception hardware in different ISPs across the country? Phorm aren’t supposed to have that sort of remote access to the layer-seven switches.

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

"A source claiming to have spoken to a Virgin Media director has suggested to me that Virgin Media, one of the three ISPs (along with BT and TalkTalk) that were considering implementing Phorm's server-side adware system in the UK, has now decided not to go with it."

More here:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...hun_phorm.html

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

I don't think he would publish this unless he had confidence in the source.

Could be a big day tomorrow.:D

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

I sure hope you are right. I really do. It would be fantastic if it is true.

On another note, though, I picked up on the fact than another american ISP seems to be about to launch a "service" *cough, cough, bull...* very similar to Phorms and they have 6million customers. I have posted the information and link to an american forum I frequent.

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

To Virgin Media:

Do yourselves and your customers a favour and confirm that this rumour is, in fact, true.
If you decide to go ahead with Phorm, you will lose a significant number of customers, and, perhaps more importantly from your perspective, brand integrity.

However, you now have the opportunity to really steal a march on your (bigger) rival BT and state that you will not integrate Phorm into your network, resulting in a mass influx of disgruntled BT customers and the kind of publicity and reputation enhancement that no amount of advertising budget could achieve....

Look at it as a loss-leader: you'll lose what little revenue you might have gained from Phorm royalties (and I suspect that once systems had been developed to defeat Phorm, you'd have made sod-all from it anyway), but you stand to gain a hefty chunk of your largest rival's customer base.

YOU CAN'T LOSE!!

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

Yep, it's time to trade the pounds for kudos.

Go on VM, you know it makes sense.

Give us all a nice warm glow and prove we can start to trust you again.

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

I think I just peed a little.

Alexander Hanff

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

It's well worth the effort - and what they put in writing they are stuck with, especially when it comes from management. Believe me - its been a most helpful correspondence. I even like to think it has delayed the trials a bit.

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

I'll second that!!

davethejag

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

Particularly if they go national with the new service mentioned at the bottom of this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...ginmedia.bskyb

Just as BT start their trials.

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

What's the best site to look at to watch their shares tank in realtime if the rumour is true?

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

Hmmm -

I just checked Yahoo stock quotes, and Phorm, BT and Carphone Warehouse are all down, but Virgin Media is up on the day. Coincidence?

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

Hmmm part 2.

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

I just phoned Claer Barrett at home (writer for Investors Chronicle by the Financial Times) who as some of you know I spoke to at length 2 weeks ago regarding Phorm, for an article she has been working on.

The gravity of the news is such that I felt I had to call her as soon as possible and she was very grateful for the information. Her article gets published on Friday and from the conversation I just had with her, it is going to make for very interesting reading. She is sending me a hard copy on Thursday night by post and I will have access to the electronic copy on Friday.

Man what a great end to the day. With Tesco's currently suing The Guardian it is unlikely they would be willing to publish anything dodgy so I think it is fair to believe that Charles thinks his source is reasonably sound to have published the article in the first place.

Alexander Hanff

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

Good news :)

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

*does a little dance for joy*

This really has made my month. I am still a little hesitant until I hear it confirmed but oh boy if this is legit then it will be brilliant news and will help give us more publicity and more leverage to throw at BT too. Lets not forget those poor souls stuck with BT as a phorm-affiliated ISP.

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

I hope this means I can keep my Virginity. This has the potential to be the best economic decision they have made since Tubular Bells was released on the Virgin label. I can hear dem bells a-ringing :D.

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

We might getting a little ahead of ourselves here folks...

However, if this news does turn out to be true, I for one will not be giving up the fight to banish Kent and his cronies from this sceptred isle :angel:

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

I hope someone has posted this to iii?

Make sure to remind them to read Investors Chronicle this Friday :)

Alexander Hanff

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

Especially Brettypoos :p:

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

Absolutely. VM may well have decided to absolve themselves, but the pure insidiousness of the Webwise concept deserves that the fight be continued and Phorm sunk without a trace.

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

Too true. If VM hurry up and confirm this, they will have a very large, free of charge, PR Team working on their behalf. It will be working against BT and pointing their customers towards VM.

You can't buy that sort of publicity.

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

Ditto hence my comment about more leverage to throw at BT. Even if VM confirm they are dumping Phorm I will still fight against Phorm so that I can inform BT and Talk Talk/CPW users about the risks and fight on their behalf.

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

That Guardian link was certainly posted on iii very early on.

Incidentally, a self calimed Phorm investor declared his/her lost faith in the investment after reading this...

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

Apparetnly that investor is unhappy with the revelation of Phorm being able to target content as was as just ads.

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

Deep, deeeep, DEEP, DEEEEEEP JOY!

If VM declare this to be true, expect a rush of BT customers asking you if they can get out of their contract. Even if I cannot, I'll be counting the days to the day I can. Did they change the Ts & Cs yet? Could it be that I see the chanegs as material? Oh please VM do it. Then, please BT, launch your smelly stinking trial and change the TS & Cs. Try telling me it's not material and I'll tell you how material it is when I stick it up

[This user disconnected unexpectedly but is very happy tonight]

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

I've just put the news on the iii discussion forum, so that might be worth watching tomorrow
http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...scussion&it=le

for the forum, click on the Trades tab for the prices, graphs etc. Not sure how "real time" it is.

for a "fifteen minute later" site
http://www.sharecrazy.com/share2607s...hare&epic=PHRM

---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Done a little while ago, specially for Brettypoos

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

Does anyone have connections at The Reg? It sounds like this is a story they'd want to break ASAP...

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

Good post Mark :)

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

Done that too.

---------- Post added at 21:38 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Yes - don't you guys all go to sleep if VM pull out. There is a BT battle to be won yet.

I offered them the opportunity to be the first ISP to unequivocally ditch Phorm as a major PR opportunity to recover some lost moral stature - if this story is true I shall take some pleasure in telling them they missed the opportunity.

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

Hey whoever posted on iii about Investors Chronicle, be careful, I never said the news was good for privacy and bad for Phorm. I just said it will make an interesting read. Also the phrasing of the post seems to suggest some breaking news about Phorm, whereas it is a news article, it is not an exclusive or anything like that. Please correct the post otherwise it could be seen as more than it might end up being.

Alexander Hanff

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

Don't get too excited about T&C's - the most likely scenario if BT stay on board with Phorm/Webwise, is an opt-IN trial, which won't give you strong legal grounds to leave, then more waiting and waiting, while they decide what to do. I'd just keep hassling them, while your contract runs out, - stay with em, and make their life very awkward, continually. Hassle, hassle hassle, a question a day, polite persistent awkward embarrassing questions. Far more constructive than a losing battle over T&C issues.