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

Its not just what is going on inside the Phorm/Webwise/FASTHOSTS equipment that BT can't control and don't understand. They don't even tell each other what they are up to within BT itself. I think that the best form of information for BT support staff or other staff is to subscribe to a wire service, to pick up the press releases.

Remember - those BT Webwise trials are due to start before Monday according to the last press reported public statement from BT - except that the Director of Value Added Services says they aren't. It's all perfectly clear and everyone knows exactly what they are doing.

Still - the BT Beta forums seem to back online after only 3 days of malfunctioning.

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

Well as neither a BT customer nor employee I can only take your word for it! But my general point is that all this talk about what fields they will or won't scan, or whether they will look inside cookies, etc., is pretty arcane. There is no way for a webwise customer to validate anything they are told, and no licensing mechanism to verify that they only do what they say they will or that there will not be accidental or deliberate function creep. And there is no specification for an 'acceptable' amount of interception in RIPA, save for the clauses on bilateral consent, and that essential to provide the service. Everyone enjoys phorm-bashing - and why not, they deserve it! - but it is the ISPs who are planning to do the dirty on their customers and it suits them to retain a certain amount of ignorance or even to mis-represent how phorm works so that they can point the finger of blame if the going gets tough.

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

The best path for anyone who feels they cannot trust their ISP once phormised (if ever) is to do as I have already done move to an ISP that is not signing up to phorm. Remember Kent will say he is talking to loads of ISPs as this suits his needs the more doubt he places in our minds our new ISP might be talking the less chance there is of us moving. To be sure you are safe you need an ISP like Zen or Aquiss where the extra phorm would bring is not what they are looking at since both look to customer services and keep their call centers in the UK. Unlike the three that are signed upto phorm where your help is offshore.

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

I agree - I'm much more focussed on my ISP than on Phorm. Kent's out to make a fast buck, and he's a spyware/rootkit merchant and performing exactly as we might expect someone to perform who has been involved in deceiving/fooling the public in the past - in one sense - good luck to him (butI hope he fails).

But my ISP pretend to be good guys, a blue chip mainstream national comms provider, and yet they spin even faster than Phorm do, and much less cleverly. My ISP ran secret and illegal trials, my ISP lied about what they were doing, my ISP holds its customers in considerable contempt, as well as holding quite a few of its staff in considerable contempt too. My ISP have been stupid enough to fall for Kent's spin, or evil enough to be partners with him in this unprecedented Layer 7 interception technology, and even NOW they haven't clearly explained even that it will be only be available by active informed consent to opt-IN.

I just hope that my country's legal system will do the decent thing and prosecute some of the BT executives for breaking the law - instead of just chasing teenage file-sharers to protect Sony and EMI - why won't they prosecute a big company like BT to protect ME!!?

---------- Post added at 15:51 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------


Point taken Florence, but I'm much more trouble to my ISP if I stay with them at the moment, and anyway - it is THEY who should have to change, not me! After all - it's illegality, I'm complaining about, not targeted advertising.

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

<OT>

LMFAO :D :D :D

I just had this picture fly through my head of a big pidgeon with a peaked cap on !

or did you mean coup ?
lol :hugs:

</OT>

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

True but unfortunately VM now have a de facto monopoly for cable in the UK. Even if I was prepared to ditch my 20Mb VM broadband, the best ADSL I can get where I live is 6Mb and I'd still have to pay for BT to reinstall a phone line even if I wanted to go with Zen or whoever. So a proper opt-in with zero touch from phorm if you don't opt in will do me fine. And if some people are stupid enough to opt-in, well that's up to them. Some people still use IE.....

BTW "Never trust anyone who takes money from you" as a wise man should have said.

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

k. np

:) :)

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

Thought we needed a laugh so left it open to personal interpretation of each member :D



Yes I had to go the pay for new BT line have a steady speed with lower pings in game and no spiking.. Soon many exchanges especially midlands and south will move to 21cn giving 24meg.. Bournemouth has 100meg all none cable.. BT will go fibre to the home and other ISPs will start to supply this...

Times are moving on and if BT, tasktalk and VM wnat to saddle themselves with the rootkit technology which is hackable regardless of what anyone says.

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

But anywhere in the world you have a monopolistic cable supplier in a particular area. It would be better to argue that BT has been slow to roll FTTH which has been Verizons response to Cable in the US.

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

On 24th April the Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government a question which was due for answer by 8th May and was answered on 20th May:

He asked: "Whether any official or Minister in the Home Office has offered written or oral advice to any executive of the company Phorm as to the legality of their targeted advertising software product; if so, what was the advice; in what circumstances was it given; and what was the justification for giving it." [HL3268]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office (Lord West of Spithead who is responsible for Security and Counter-terrorism) has replied:

"The Home Office was asked by a number of parties, including Phorm's legal representative, for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It provided a guidance note for those parties.

The note is not, nor was it intended to be taken as, a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only a court can give. Nor was it intended for publication. However, a copy of that note has been published at http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf.

Working to protect the public, the Home Office is keen to help industry understand its legislative responsibilities, and to work with business in order to achieve a workable balance between commercial interests and public safety. In this way potential legal obligations can be taken into account in the conception of new products and services."

So we're just waiting on that other question:

"Which law enforcement agency, Department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of (a) the Data Protection Act 1998, (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and (c) the Computer Misuse Act 1990." [HO HL3267]

Hank

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

looks like the OH are dragging their heals on the questions cos they made a booboo.

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

Hank, it seems a good time to start using that new website were you can offer up a "Freedom of Information Request"
and publicly track the responses, given they said "Nor was it intended for publication", that way we can get the real public domain responses directly (dont forget the later response Florence got OC).

might be a good thing for Alexanders website too when he gets it up and running ;)

Freedom of Information Request website
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

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

Already done LOL!


Dear Sir or Madam,

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office) has stated that the Home Office was asked by a number of
parties for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

How many parties requested this information about RIPA 2000 and compatibility of targeted advertising prior to the writing of the
January document produced in answer to these questions? (published here http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf)

When were the requests received?

How many of the parties making such requests are British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in the UK?

Other than Phorm, have any other non-ISPs made such requests prior to the writing of the paper referenced above?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

I'm sure there are more questions that we can ask but these are the most interesting ones I could think of. I think if one asks too many then it can easily become what they term vexacious (spelling?) as it costs a lot of time to pull answers together. Will see what comes of it...

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Patricia Hewitt has been kind enough to respond to a second email I sent her. Unfortunately I'm still quite new to all this (never felt so strongly about a need to stop something!) and I did not say I wanted to publish her response, so I will paraphrase very carefully to keep the meaning the same:

Dear Mrs Hewitt

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I have to say though, given the current information available and the detail that BT has provided you with, I believe that the actions of BT may not have been legal.

I fully agree with them that if no personal information was stored or used then it was not illegal under the Data Protection Act. However, 'RIPA' is another matter and they intercepted the communication of thousands of customers without any legal authority to do so. I don't see how that action could be seen as within the bounds of the law.
I am xx years old and when someone tells me that customer research says something I know that the detail behind the statement is what matters. In your business you will be very well aware that surveys will obtain answers in support or against a position depending on the way the questions are asked and the specifc content of the questions. Therefore, assurances based on reference to the research do not work without full published detail which makes it somewhat worthless. I do understand BT is a plc, so publishing might be completely unacceptable in terms of the competitive nature of the sector.

Thank you again for your contact. It is unfortunate that the secret trials took place. It is very concerning that BT are working with Phorm at all and, since contacting you previously, my views are now firmly set that this use of the interception is wrong and should be stopped.

Regards


She thanked me for my email, she's checked the exact detail with colleagues at BT and confirmed that, before conducting the small-scale trials in question, BT took advice on the legal situation.

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

She does remind me about how the forthcoming trial will be on an opt-in basis, so customers are entirely free not to take the service and the BT team is confident that their legal position is robust.

She acknowledges that the BT Board will want to debate the trial after it has run, but she doesn't think that it would be right for BT to end their business relationship with Phorm when the trial has not yet run its course.

Note to self: Tell them you will publish their response unless they ask you not to!!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

I've had a letter from the ICO - They've assigned a case worker to my questions. It's taken them 7 weeks to do that which they say sorry for. They enclose detail of how long it can take to complete cases and respond fully. So... I see it could be a long wait for an outcome!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Hmmm. Good point popper... I do wonder what changed their mind on that... Alexander? Dr C? Was it one of you perhaps?

:p:

Hank

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

That is almost word for word BT press release stuff. She's reading from the BT script.

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

so what I get from that lot is they must have a opt in to be legal as apposed to opt out, with that been so the business model is worthless well worth a lot less and may be it`s failure to make them the money they was told they would get.

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

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

They must have used selective wording since it is obvious to anyone interception is illegal.

Another trick way to ask perhaps they should just resign their posts now and lets get in people who do care about out privacy without resulting to the spy state.

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

Hank - that is spooky. I asked the Home Office the same questions as a FoI request on 5 May. I asked them to;

- Reveal the full PDF opinion document sent to ISPs after 4 February 2008 (as opposed to extracts already published)*
- Reveal the full correspondence, request for opinion and reply, associated with the publication of that document
- Reveal which organisations – specifically 80/20 Thinking, Phorm, BT, and/or other parties - asked for your opinion on RIPA with respect to Phorm prior to 4 February 2008
- Dates of contacts between the Home Office and each of Phorm, BT, 80/20 Thinking concerning Phorm’s Webwise product since the start of 2008.
- Dates of contacts between the Home Office and independent IT experts, if any, concerning Phorm’s Webwise product since the start of 2008.

I'm still waiting for a reply, which is due about now.

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

Ha Ha Ha Ha :LOL::LOL:

"Hey Mr Rapist, what are you doing"?
"Relax, it's good for you and its legal"

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

Hank, i cant find ANY submited Phorm,Deep Packet Interception,or ISP correspondence "Freedom of Information Request"s on the
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
from anyone to any Govt Departments ,never mind the Home Office section?.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/home_office

and only 3 people are tracking on the word Phorm right now
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/phorm should any turn up later.

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

Incidentally I think ICO are long overdue a few FOI requests too.

How many complaints? How many actioned? How many upheld? How many contacts with Phorm? How many contacts with 80/20? How many contacts with independant IT consultants? etc

It will be interesting to see what happens if they ignore FOI requests, they are responsible for handling FOI complaints ... argh implosion.!!

oops:

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

<irony> It's spelled pigeon...</irony>

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

They can't ignore FOI requests; the requirement to respond is statutory.

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

Unfortunately Simon can't see Phorm for what they are with those £50 notes sellotaped over his eyes. ;)

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

I don't want to get into any spats, but I'm really uncomfortable with the personal criticism of Simon Davies that is going on here. I don't think the world will come to an end if we just wait to see what happens with the PIA.

We can disagree with actions that 80/20 may have taken, but I do get uneasy when that turns into personal remarks and they certainly don't take our campaign forward. The guilty parties here are the ISP's and Phorm.

Just my penn'orth.

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

Some mature words there. In the spirit of 'publish and be damned' let's first await the act of being published.

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

80/20 my publish and hand to phorm but then it is upto phorm to announce it sadly my faith in their honesty is low, my trust in the large ISPs to consider the customers privacy at the expence of money for their pockets even less...

No attack on Simon really I do realise he is in an awkward position just feel that many people unaware of all this will get conned into phorm and 80/20 thinking PIA might be what makes them think they are safe when in fact this is the start of the slippery slope to dictatorship

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

It wasn't your faith in Phorm I was ever questioning, Florence. I do strangely share that level of confidence with regards to that bunch ;)

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

:angel: You rang? :angel: :D

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

My own "personal" remarks about Simon should be taken as cruel satire rather than hateful personal attacks on his person. I know of Simon's previous work as a privacy advocate and he has done some fantastic work, however many people see his engagement with Phorm as a betrayal (I personally do not, and I see it as an opportunity to play devils advocate and point out the perceived privacy dilemma seen by others).

I know that Simon has mentioned the "opt-in" position several times but another observer over on BadPhorm pointed out after a Channel 4 News interview (London event) that "Simon had certainly _earned_ his Phorm paycheck" the way he came across. (note in that interview Simon mentioned "opt-in" again).

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/data+pimping+or+just+bad+phorm/2028147
(Simon's opinion is around the 2m20s mark)

I think it is valid to keep mentioning Simon's role in the ongoing Phorm debate and how it appears (personal attacks valid upto a point). Another poster remarked that Phorm have tied Simon up with this PIA work in order that he cannot spend an equal amount of time as a critic wearing one of his many hats as 'Privacy International' director. Simon 'Two hats' Davies has damaged himself by taking on the role as Phorm's sycophant privacy advocate Vs his role as the peoples champion battling privacy scums such as Phorm.

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

I’ll admit that, so far, I haven't made one post where I mention Simon Davies that hasn't been derogatory but I'm willing to bite my tongue until it's so blatently obvious that even Alexander believes that the man has sold himself out.

If the PIA still requires three days work before it's finished it could indicate that Phorm are not leaning on 80/20 Thinking for a completion date because they realise that publication will do them absolutely no favours whatsoever.

Apart from that, based on what I've seen both on this forum and elsewhere on the Net, I doubt very much if Alexander is either a bad judge of character or would allow himself to be hoodwinked by anyone over such an important matter.

I’ll go with this:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6992.html

:)

EDIT: Sorry BP I didn't mean you were guilty of making personal attacks - I probably was!

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

from BT today


*********************
Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Regarding "What is to stop my children / subaccount holders agreeing to the change of contract when they have no authority?":
If you block the domain now on all PC's then the interstitial page will not be presented.

If someone opts into the trial there is a facility for opting out and back in again:
Customers who have been invited to participate in the trial will be able to change their choice to participate or not at any point during the trial. There are two ways customers can do this:



1. Visit www.bt.com/webwise and click 'Switch Off'. This function will be available once the trial has commenced. This method depends on a cookie remaining on your machine to indicate that you have chosen not to take the service. If you delete your cookies, you will be presented with trial invitation page again, giving you the option to accept or decline the trial.



2. If you delete cookies regularly and want to remain opted-out, you can set your browser to block cookies from the domain www.webwise.net. When you block this domain, the service will opt you out permanently. To do this in Internet Explorer, click on 'Tools', then 'Internet Options' and on the Privacy tab, click 'Sites'. In the 'Address of Web site' field, enter 'www.webwise.net' and click 'Block'.

Cookies: As stated before:

In parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received.


As my IP address is DHCP what happens if it changes to an IP of someone who has opt-ed in?
If the IP address is re-assigned to a different customer, the invitation page will be displayed for the new customer. This will be triggered by the lack of a Webwise cookie on the new customer's machine.

Regarding: Does the change [accepting trial ts&cs] require me to authenticate to the system before agreement to ensure it is the main account holder, not just one of the subaccounts?

No. The trial invitation page will be presented at the start of the next browsing session following the addition of the trial broadband line's IP address to the trial pool. As stated previously, the invitation page will offer a simple and clear choice of options: yes, no and find out more. Authentication is not required. This approach is consistent with our customer research, but as this is a trial, we will assess the success of the mechanism prior to deciding plans for a full rollout of the service.

If you don't have this already:
Specific techical segregation information can be found here: http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html <https://mail.bt.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html>

I hope this addresses your concerns and questions. We are endeavouring to respond to all your questions, though your comment "On all other occasions I have tried to contact them I get the same, NO REPLY / IGNORED" seems to imply that you are not recieving our emails.

Regards,


BT Webwise Helpdesk

________________________________

From: Broadbandsupport@btinternet.com [mailto:Broadbandsupport@btinternet.com]
Sent: Mon 19/05/2008 16:04
To: BT Webwise Help Desk G
Subject: FWD: RE: Broadband & Internet - BT Broadband - I want to make a complaint (KMM46016865I248XXXXXX)



However, if we have sent this to you in error, please return to us at BT Broadband

Thank you for your assistance,
Jamie XXXXXXX
Kana e-mail Handling Team

Thanks for that,

So it is an account level opt-in?

As my IP address is DHCP what happens if it changes to an IP of someone who has opt-ed in?

What is to stop my children / subaccount holders agreeing to the change of contract when they have no authority? Does the change require me to authenticate to the system before agreement to ensure it is the main account holder, not just one of the subaccounts? Like parental controls

the only loose end now is the cookie situation,

Will any cookies be placed on my pc if I do not opt-in

Thanks

peter

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

so anyone on a pc in my network can agree and change my contract!!!

the responsibility is mine to ensure this does not happen!!!!

i have to block the cookies in my browsers that way i do not know when they start spying on ME!!!!

on the plus side the full product rollout will be cookie free, but by which time a large number of users will have been duped into a contract change by a sub account holder with nothing they can do about it!!!!

peter

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

Absolutely right!

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

my response to bt

*************
I have 6 machines in my house why should I have to do this due to your lack of technical abilty to provide a trial with correct authentication and safgegaurds in place that mean only the account holder has the ability to make the initial change to my T's and C's

How will I know if a subaccount holder has agreed to phorm and changed my contract ?

BT should be making sure the trial is conducted in a way where the account holder only has authority to accept the service as it requires a change in the term and conditions of my contract with BT

If I block the domain I will not be aware of when you start spying on my browsing

Can you confirm the statement earlier in the email from one of your colleagues that unless I agree to phorm my terms and conditions will not alter, so I will not be allowed to terminate my contract due to material change to T's and C's?

If I am not receiving your emails in the past it must be an issue with your systems I have always used my BT email account when contacting you asnd I regularly check my bulk mail folder and it is only ever full of viagra adverts which I find funny as I have never emailed anyone other than BT and my sub account holders from this account so who gave them my email address, (you then expect me to trust me with my browsing data?)

If a subaccount holder accepts the change to my T's and C's during the trail how do I get it reverted to the original contract as they would not have had the correct authority to make this change

Does the trail require me to accept a new contract or is it only the full service when released

Regards

Peter
*************

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

I think the only thing that will make these companies look at this in a different light is if they are given notice of intention to move if it is implemented or more if allthose thinking of moving request a mac key if it is used then you change ISPs if not you stay where you are but BT will think twice if enough request MAC keys saying it is due to phorm.

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

i have another 9 out of 18 months on my contract,

i am praying for a change to my contract so i can bin them, if not i have £200 to pay to buy my contract out :mad:

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

Okay to play devil advocate once again as much as it pains me to say anything derogatory about Alexander, you have to appreciate Alex is a raising star in the privacy movement and is being recognised by the privacy glitterati as one of their own. You can't help but think Alex may be influenced by Simon Davies status as a top privacy advocate and all his new found connections that it brings him. I could be cruel and repeat what Oblonski wrote about how that might be going to his head a bit (/me STOP!).

We do know that Simon Davies gave Alexander his initial privacy launch at that London event as a guest speaker, and we do know that Simon hugged Alexander and this was a moving moment for Alexander, we know that Alexander has a direct red-phone to Simon, which seems to get more useage than Commisioner Gordon to Batman... I could go on, but you get the picture that Alaxander may well not be the best person to trust with regards an objective opinion about Simon 'Two Hats' Davies and his role as Phorm's top pocket privacy supporter.

Waits to be shot down :D

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

My twopenneth is this is what Phorm want to cause paranoia between us then weaken our fight. Alexander will not give up the champion for our privacy that easy. As to trust between Alexander and Simon over my privacy right now I trust Alexander.

He has grown tremendously thanks to this he has struggled to fight our corner at his expense, to protect privacy for those trapped within BT, talktalk and Vm contracts. He is not with an ISP that is working with phorm so he is safe yet he spends hours looking at legalities to help those who are less fortunate.

Simon yes he has to pay his bills etc but technically he could still pay his bills without conflicting his two hats by working with companies less invasive, less controversial and maybe less illegal.

But it is too late for him to turn the clocks back he seems to accept that phorm will promise one thing then not deliver which turned around could mean phorm will promise this software will not log personal details then will once active..

Ones honour is also ones word phorm have broken their word hence have no honour..

Simon should look at what phorm say look at what the patent says it can do then judge it on his merits, if the company has honour(which it has shown it has none) then look who he is supposed to be the advocate for.
Then the PIA should be to protect the innocent from the ravages of the dishonourable company..

Alexander has done nothing but work for us yes he made friends on the way so did many people in many walks of life but not all sold out for the 3 pieces of silver...

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

I can't believe I fell for this whole Phorm/Webwise hoax.

Wow, I was completely fooled. That cookie stuff, the 4 redirections, the whole PIA ruse, the 'opt in' by default spoof, the pretend debate videos, the Emma Sanderson TV confessions, the Moscow bit, secret trials, Home Office memos.

ICO/Police doing nothing should have been a give away...

Bloody hell. I really fell for it all. Hook, line, and sinker.

I'm so embarrassed. :blush: I'm going to wake up tomorrow feeling like a proper idiot.

It is a hoax isn't it? Because it can't possibly be true. No one in their right mind would still be contemplating this, let alone a firm like BT.

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

I won't shoot you down - /puts on cynical b@stard hat - I've considered all of the above too at one point or another :Yes:
/removes hat

I just thought that Alexander's reply to me was the sincerest post I've read for quite a while...

:)

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

Just a quick note re: FOI requests.

It is always better to ask only a single question in a request, because if the cost of answering the question exceeds £350 they don't have to comply with the request. I generally send several requests each consisting of 1 very precise question. That way each request can't be fobbed off with the £350 get out clause.

Alexander Hanff

EDIT: I got the amount wrong, it has been a little while since I sent one but here it is with a source:

Source: http://www.foi.gov.uk/yourRights/index.htm

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

You're quite right. When I first read about Phorm I couldn't believe that BT would even contemplate such a scheme or that the Information Commissioner, Home Office etc etc would allow it. It just shows how naive I can be even in my advancing years.

Simon Davies was one of two featured keynote speakers at the 9th privacy and security conference in Victoria, British Columbia. in February 2008. This is part of his presentation, I wonder if he realised how prophetic it would be?

Privacy dramas, like erectile dysfunction, can strike:

• At any time without warning.
• When you least expect it.
• From causes you never contemplated
• With implications you never envisioned
• With effects far greater than you could imagine

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

This is not intended to be personal criticism but Simon appears to actually have three caps...

1...his 80/20 cap - (80/20 Thinking)
2...his 'Privacy Campaigner' cap - (Privacy International)
3...his FIPR cap - (A member of the advisory panel of the Foundation for Information Policy Research)

1 - 80/20 praises Phorm on how it 'protects privacy'. However, the final PIA may change this.
2 - Privacy International says 'Phorm is not endorsed'.
3 - FIPR says 'technology is illegal'.

If correct, that does appear to be quite a conflict of interest.

With regard to the Home Office guidance note on Phorm:
I note paragraph 20 which states that the service should be provided with the explicit consent of ISP's users or by the acceptance of the ISP's terms and conditions, and paragraph 21 which states that the ISP's users' consent can be obtained expressly by acceptance of suitable terms and conditions.

The above would suggest that it is possible for the ISP's to fall foul of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) - Regulation 5(5) 1. (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract - if T&C's are changed without proper written notification.

It is also possible that if Phorm's interception of the ISP users web surfing is proved to be illegal then consent obtained expressly by acceptance of terms and conditions will render that contract void and the contract terms are not enforceable. A contract which cannot be performed without doing something illegal is void.

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

That is very interesting and confirms my suspicions - basically they are putting the onus on the account holder, and they are totally ignoring the issue over children and the issue of contractual obligations to the account holder.

I would suggest we focus on this a little, perhaps using the BT advert family as an example. anyone feel like writing a script for an advert?

In any complaints to authorities about the Webwise trials this sort of thing should definitely be mentioned.

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

rjones,

i also submitted the below as a webmaster from my other email addresss

****From: Peter White [mailto:Peter.XXXXX@******is.co.uk]
Sent: 20 May 2008 23:31
To: 'bt.webwise.help.desk@bt.com'
Subject: restrict webwise access to my websites


how do I prevent webwise / phorm from profiling the content of my websites?

I wish Google etc to index them but want to specifically deny webwise as I do not see why phorm / BT etc should profit from my work with no reward to me.

Google and co provide traffic and visitors in return for being allowed access, phorm / BT provide nothing, and before you suggest it no I do not want to host adverts from OIX

the assumption that because I allow Google you can scrape my work for your gain is not a suitable argument

what can I add to my robots.txt file to deny phorm access while allowing search engines?

the alternative is to deny access to all BT ip ranges and redirect them to a page with as many links as I can find regarding how phorm works and all of the legal issues surrounding it

and how do I prevent phorm from profiling my webmail which is over port 80 (http) not port 443 (SSL)

please note I Specifically DENY BT/ PHORM / VIRGIN MEDIA AND TALK TALK from profiling, intercepting or otherwise interpreting any pages on www.XXXXXX-is.co.uk , www.XXXXXXXcentre.co.uk www.*****ow.co.uk or ********stow.escouts.net

regards

peter XXXXXX

network consultant

*******

suprisingly no reply, and they wonder about the comment of them ignoring requests

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

Don't forget that any awkward legal questions can be sent to the legal team for BT Retail (reduces deniability potential) -

Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer),
BT Retail,
BT Centre, pp B8D,
81 Newgate Street,
London,
EC1A 7AJ


and that would include your letter above, with a bit of rephrasing to turn it into a legal question, as well as the contract issue about whether a child (or any other adult) in your house is legally capable of agreeing to a change in your T&C's when clicking on webwise invitation page and how would they enforce such a change - and whether in fact by failing to take due precautions that they were genuinely dealing with the account holder, they are in trouble.

I think they know that the Webwise trial is full of legal problems and they haven't got time to get it right unless they delay it massively. So lets make sure the legal team are aware of those loopholes.

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

thanks for that ,as i did not have the correct address for that avenue

will be writing that one later today

peter

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

I think I might put a spanner in the works with them also about ISPs who are not BT perhaps being caught at network level and how this by those customers would be interception without consent and data protection since our T&C are with our ISP not BT :)

Would like to give them something to worry about.

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

Ask about how they handle subsidiaries like PlusNet from the point of view of routing and traffic interception?

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

they have said it will only affect BT retail customers and that plusnet and bt business customer will not be affected, what they have not said is whether they will be not affected due to their traffic being ignored or routed past the kit, as it all depends where they put the kit on the network.

as they (supposedly) do not have access to the BT wholesale network they should only be able to place the kit in their network so no other ISP traffic will then pass through it, as other customers of bt wholesale (plusnet, etc) are on seperate routed sections of the BT wholesale network

if bt wholesale were to implement this kit we would all be in trouble regardless of the isp you use, not sure how it would affect LLU providers

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

LLU providers have their own kit in exchanges BT cannot put anything on these without breaking contracts since the DSLAMS are not BT's property.

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

There be strange things going on on the BT network- pointed out by a poster on BT Beta forums
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/me...ID=22635#22635

go to bt.com and do a site search for webwise using their site search box
you now get a 404 page when following the single search result link.

http://www2.bt.com/0?com.bea.event.t...oLDesc=KB_1167

If this link is modified by adding a webwise directory and taking out the 0 before the ? it does then work
http://www2.bt.com/webwise/?com.bea....oLDesc=KB_1167

The ordinary links to the BT Webwise FASTHOSTS page
http://www2.bt.com/0?com.bea.event.t...oLDesc=KB_1167
and the mirrored bt.com Webwise pages
http://www.productsandservices.bt.co...=CON-WEBWISE-I
work normally.

A google search on KB_1167 turns up a forum post with a very similar link, to Webwise, which DOES work - here
forum link
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=...rze4kjn9fQp9Qg
posted link containing the term KB_1167
http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/in...oLDesc=KB_1167

It's probably nothing - but then it is BT, and it is only 3 days before the trials are supposed to start...

I've popped in a query to the webmaster on bt.com using their Contact Us black hole creator.


Update - now all the search results from bt.com seem to be bad links, producing a "page not available" page.
Time to ring Russia?

they were supposed to be doing BT Broadband Office maintenance this morning and yesterday, so maybe that's it. and of course the Business platform should be nothing to do with the Phorm equipment.

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Just noticed that the BTYahoo! official ISP help pages search box does not know anything about "webwise".

zero hits, likewise for "phorm"

That won't look too good in court. Informed consent? Good grief! (as Charlie Brown used to say)

(that's in addition to the broken bt.com search box mentioned above)

Looks like it will be an interesting bank holiday weekend on BT!

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

Unless of course they've bailed out...:)

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

Zero share movement today for Phorm...maybe something is going on...

mine is the one with The Catcher in the Rye book in the pocket...

Alexander Hanff

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

Very strange.
I use Selftrade to follow share prices.
Phorm appear to be completely static with no movement or updates. The last time stamp was 07:59

I have just been into my share dealing account for a 'buy' price and cannot deal in Phorm (PHRM)(PHRM REG S) only PHORM INC COM STK USD0.001 (DI)(PHRX) is available to trade.
Trading suspended?

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

Sorry couldn't resist this one!

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...comment-163362

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

As I mentioned a while back, there was suggestion on the BT forums that Phorm were being investigated with regard to deliberately misrepresenting the potential value of the company thereby misleading the stock market and share buyers by stating they had signed a deal with Virgin Media (who have now made it publicly clear that they never signed any contract to use Webwise).

It has never been confirmed if such an investigation is underway but one of the concequences of it could be, their shares suspended.

Then again, as there is no confirmation of the above, there could be another completely legitimate explanation why two separate brokers will not allow trading in Phorm Inc (Reg S) (PHRM) stock.

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

..Try a few more and get back to us?:)

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

Unfortunately if trading in the securities had been suspended, it would have been annouced via the regulatory news service (RNS).

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

I wonder how the FT will spin this. :)

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

While we are waiting for news, a thought occurs to me...if some worm from an ISP says to you "what have you got to hide?" (as some VM **** said to a poster on here the other week), I believe you can sue them for slander.

When an individual or company brings a libel or slander action, they must show:

1. that the words are defamatory of them;
2. that the words would be understood to refer to them by even one other person; and
3. that the words have been published to a third party.

A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed. A slander claimant will need to prove that the defamatory allegations caused actual damage, unless the slander is within certain categories.




Any lawyers reading this fancy helping us out for a percentage?

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

Even Firefox is doing a Phorm... see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ox_data_snoop/

What I intended asking was would VM actually tell us when to opt in or to opt out... or would they not bother. Just how would we know?

Dave

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

Maybe the problem is with SelfTrade - Google is showing movement for today.

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

Unless I'm very much mistaken, looking at that graphic, if you hover you'll see the prices are all yesterdays values... not todays.

Update; just did a double check on another share price, shows todays date in the chart... so confirmed Google have no data for Phorm today.

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

There seems to be some "unknown" activity of possibly 500 shares, but it doesn't show as a buy or a sell on ShareCrazy, iii, or ADVN - iii shows zero volume as do the others

Oh well - sit on hands till Tuesday...

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

This one shows one trade for today, but at 16:45. This is, I believe, after after the close.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp...re=phorm_reg_s

Perhaps it's simply that nobody wants to buy the things.

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

If they were to try and make the invitation legally, then they could either send you a customer service email, or put a message/popup that would alert the principal account holder, (and ONLY that person) - the adult principal account holder responsible for the contract with VM - while they were browsing the VM customer service portal, (not while you were merely browsing 3rd party web sites) and they would need to take care to make sure they had the right person (with a security question or two) before allowing you to click on any Webwise invitation button.

They would also need to give you a fair bit of information about Webwise, including the links to FIPR, ICO, Clayton, Hanff, etc. and allow you to look at it BEFORE you opt-IN, and that information would probably need to include the fact that Webwise was thought by many to be be illegal and that you could theoretically get prosecuted, and that you might find a lot of websites refused you access.

And if you did not see the webwise page or simply blocked it or closed it, you should remain opted out.

Any other way of inviting you to become a Webwise customer would be illegal according to what has been said here.

That's my reading of the situation - but I doubt whether the ISP's see it that way.

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

whats that all about, i dont have membership?.
23/05/2008
09:07
FBB
Phorm (PHRM) - Google or Microsoft must be after it

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

Oh I don't know - we could could make a small profit buying while they are low, and pass on the proceeds of any profits to Alex's fighting fund next time someone ramps it up a bit.

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

ADVFN is showing that trade at 7:59.11, immediately before the market opened.

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkquo...c=phrm&x=0&y=0

?

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

Yeah that trade was at 16:45 though so it hadn't happened when the original comments were made here. It looks like a sell too given that they closed on 1325 (down again).

Alexander Hanff

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

btw that "Project Canoe." Advertising i mentioned a ways back, is still the talk of the cable industry, puts Neil's stance on the internet side of VM in perspective, and he's not mentioned this "Project Canoe." as yet, its coming to the UK no doubt at some point, the devils in the details OC...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2308070,00.asp

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

Naah that is just showing the last time the data was updated. ADVFN tend to be a bit slow updating that timestamp, I have noticed several times over the last week that it can take several hours for a trade to show on the timestamp update.

Alexander Hanff

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

BT appear to have now fixed their bt.com search box, all the search result links now actually WORK, with one exception - results for the string "webwise" clicking on which produces a very basic browser "page not found" message.

Add to that the fact that BTYahoo! help pages return zero hits for the term "webwise" and we begin to see what Kent meant by the term "privacy revolution". The mission was to remove all public mention of Webwise from bt portals. The UNinformed customer who knows nothing about Webwise has no way (within the bt.com or BTYahoo network) of accessing information about Webwise from their ISP.

Helpful sort of attitude that - and of course things won't change at least till after the Bank Holiday so all that holiday surfing is less likely to discover what this Webwise stuff on BT is all about.#

Wonderful stuff this honesty and transparency - means you become invisible I suppose.

If the UNinformed customer knows how to do a google "site search" then they will find two hits- one for the BT webwise site, and one for a forum posting (but not the actual BT Beta forum thread that is devoted to Webwise)

any BT customers lurking here - you might like to use the BT contact us page to send in a complaint about that. Ask in all innocence why you can't get any info on Webwise from either BTYahoo help search box or bt.com search box.

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

silence from webwise help desk regarding the question i sent in early last night, so much for 24 hour response times

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

I did wonder earlier today if they'd finally pulled the plug, but apparently not. The web page has been seemingly moved from a standard html page, to a php page;

http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/index.html
becomes -->
http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/index.php

Only a PHP session cookie being set, and nothing unusual in the http requests.

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

Thanks Alexander. Good info as always. Hope your results are what you deserve.

On the point about 80/20, the two-hats Simon thing and Alex's role... My view is that we have to accept that there is a place for the middle man in these situations when technology makes possible things which have never been thought of, tried, done before etc The middle man here can earn a living and do the right thing (we wait for the PIA to see if we agree I know)

Alex's role has been to use his time and resources, his skills and developing knowledge to challenge the goals of Phorm, the ISPs and their Webwise labelled implementation - top marks in my view so far. I don't always agree with everything he has said but he presents argument logically and with evidential back-up. Let's not be divided and await the PIA :)

Hank

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

hmmm

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC>ping www.webwise.bt.com

Pinging www.webwise.bt.com [207.44.186.90] with 32 bytes of data:


(Asked whois.arin.net:43 about +207.44.186.90)

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services Inc.
OrgID: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois: //rwhois.theplanet.com: 4321
NetRange: 207.44.128.0 - 207.44.255.255
CIDR: 207.44.128.0/17
OriginAS: AS13749 AS13884 AS21844 AS30315
OriginAS: AS36420
NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-EV1-9
NetHandle: NET-207-44-128-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.EV1SERVERS.NET
NameServer: NS2.EV1SERVERS.NET
Comment:

i see BT's network extend to stateside again!!!!!

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

But some stuff has changed; see this thread on badphorm.

BT have pulled some Javascript that was included by the page on 19 May (and contained refs to Virgin and Talk Talk).

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Nuggets from Netcraft;

www.webwise.bt.com
USA
Linux/Apache
Last change:23-May-2008
IP: 207.44.186.90 (ThePlanet.com Internet Services)

http://webwise.bt.com
UK
Linux/Apache/2.2.3 (FH)
Last change:23-May-2008
IP: 88.208.248.102 (live-servers.net)

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

Holiday weekend in the US (Memorial Day) markets are usually apathetic on the Friday before and will be pretty stagnant on Monday as the US markets are closed.

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

Makes a mockery of none of our profiled information leaving the ISP network.. More words you cannot trust...

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

Nuggets from Netcraft;

www.webwise.bt.com
USA
Linux/Apache
Last change:23-May-2008
IP: 207.44.186.90 (ThePlanet.com Internet Services)

http://webwise.bt.com
UK
Linux/Apache/2.2.3 (FH)
Last change:23-May-2008
IP: 88.208.248.102 (live-servers.net)[/QUOTE]

uk server still at fast hosts not BT network,

(Asked whois.ripe.net:43 about 88.208.248.102)

inetnum: 88.208.248.0 - 88.208.248.255
netname: FASTHOSTS-UK-NETWORK
descr: UK's largest web hosting company based in Gloucester
descr: England
country: GB
admin-c: MW8691-RIPE
tech-c: GD8691-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: AS15418-MNT
remarks: report abuse to abuse@fasthosts.co.uk

no data leaves the BT network???? hmmmm

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

The numbers tell a story.

If I query the netcraft netblock owner (see here)

3 hosts are listed in the same netblock (88.208.248.0,88.208.248.255)
webwise.bt.com 88.208.248.102
www.phorm.com 88.208.248.102 (the same host as above), then 88.208.250.66, now 89.145.112.32
www.tecreports.co.uk 88.208.248.85 (same address range)

History of www.phorm.com;
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.phorm.com
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) 23-May-2008 89.145.112.31 Phorm IPv4 Assignment
Linux Apache/2.2.3 (FH) 25-Apr-2008 88.208.250.66 UK's largest web hosting company based in Gloucester
Linux Apache/2.2.3 (FH) 8-Apr-2008 88.208.248.102 UK's largest web hosting company based in Gloucester

History of webwise.bt.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=webwise.bt.com
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/2.2.3 (FH) 23-May-2008 88.208.248.102 UK's largest web hosting company based in Gloucester
Linux Apache 5-Mar-2008 207.44.186.90 ThePlanet.com Internet Services



So something happened today (or was first recorded today)... Phorms hosting has changed hasn't it?

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

moved to somewhere wwith more bandwidth ready for the trial and mass of data to be collated?:confused:

or moved to cheaper hosting centre as phorms going down the crapper?:LOL:

would prefer the later but probably the first :bigcry:

peter

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

So Phorm are now comfortably in the bosom of BT, I'm sure Virgin and TalkTalk are confident that their "competitor" has control of a partners domain.

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

That's on my manor. Time for another letter to my MP to ask if he knows what's going on in his constituency.

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

There are 5 domains on 88.208.248.102:

openinternetexchange.org
webwise.bt.com
webwise.net
www.phorm.com
www.webwise.com

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

Can someone Please Confirm I read www.oix.net & www.oix.com with the same IP as webwise.bt.com ????

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.oix.com
Addresses: 89.145.112.31, 89.145.112.32, ""88.208.250.85""


Non-authoritative answer:
Name: webwise.bt.com
Addresses: 88.208.250.66, ""88.208.250.85"", 88.208.248.102

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

[pete@localhost ~]$ dig webwise.bt.com

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> webwise.bt.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 13869
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;webwise.bt.com. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
webwise.bt.com. 1 IN A 88.208.248.102
webwise.bt.com. 1 IN A 88.208.250.66
webwise.bt.com. 1 IN A 88.208.250.85

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

[pete@localhost ~]$ dig www.oix.com

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> www.oix.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6061
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.oix.com. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.oix.com. 718 IN A 89.145.112.32
www.oix.com. 718 IN A 88.208.250.85
www.oix.com. 718 IN A 89.145.112.31

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

www.oix.net is 89.145.112.31
On that domain are also:
blog.phorm.com
blog.webwise.com
webwise.net
www.oix.com
www.phorm.com
www.webwise.com
youcanoptout.org

hmm interesting.

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

I Get:

www.oix.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| SOHO.WORKGROUP - 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| xx.xxx.xxx.x - 0 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 27 | 61 | 10 |
| xxxxxxx.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 42 | 210 | 10 |
| bagu-t3core-1b-ge-013-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 38 | 160 | 30 |
| lee-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 29 | 110 | 20 |
| pop-bb-a-as1-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 11 | 11 | 20 | 31 | 70 | 20 |
| amst-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 11 | 11 | 20 | 33 | 61 | 30 |
| ams-001.interoute.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 30 | 31 | 50 | 30 |
| Gi2-0.ams-koo-core-2.interoute.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 20 | 45 | 60 | 20 |
| PO1-0.lon-wal-core-1.interoute.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 20 | 36 | 60 | 30 |
| Te4-1.lon-wal-access-4.interoute.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 20 | 41 | 80 | 20 |
| ge-0-1-1.edge-1.sov.lon.uk.as29017.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 30 | 39 | 71 | 71 |
| ge-0-3-0.core-1.lhc.lon.uk.as29017.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 30 | 72 | 190 | 30 |
| 89-145-106-198.as29017.net - 0 | 11 | 11 | 30 | 36 | 70 | 70 |
| No response from host - 100 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |



webwise.bt.com
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| SOHO.WORKGROUP - 0 | 27 | 27 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 0 |
| xx.xxx.xxx.x - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 20 | 81 | 20 |
| xxxxxxx.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 24 | 81 | 20 |
| bagu-t3core-1b-ge-011-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 30 | 200 | 20 |
| lee-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 27 | 160 | 20 |
| nth-bb-a-as0-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 30 | 140 | 60 |
| bir-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 10 | 28 | 80 | 21 |
| aztw-t3core-1b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 28 | 50 | 30 |
| osr02azte-tenge83.inet.ntl.com - 0 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 30 | 70 | 50 |
| 195.188.230.74 - 0 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 31 | 60 | 50 |
| 82.33.208.14 - 0 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 35 | 70 | 20 |
| pc3.prt0.fhcon.fasthosts.net.uk - 4 | 27 | 26 | 20 | 48 | 210 | 30 |
| pc1.hrt0.fhcon.fasthosts.net.uk - 0 | 27 | 27 | 20 | 38 | 80 | 20 |
| No response from host - 100 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|________________________________________________| ______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR - 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir

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

[pete@localhost ~]$ dig www.oix.net

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> www.oix.net
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 28327
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.oix.net. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.oix.net. 554 IN A 88.208.250.85
www.oix.net. 554 IN A 89.145.112.31
www.oix.net. 554 IN A 89.145.112.32

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

On 89.145.112.32 is:
oix.net
openinternetalliance.org
openinternetexchange.com
webwise.net
www.oix.com
www.phorm.com
www.webwise.com

On 88.208.250.85 is:
webwise.bt.com
webwise.net
www.oix.com
www.phorm.com
www.webwise.com
www.webwise.org

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

I wonder how long it will take them to reconnect the dots and tell the BT search box where webwise is?

Regarding the location of Webwise
I still get the following for the IP's of "webwise.bt.com"
88.208.250.66
88.208.250.85
88.208.248.102
and they all resolve to FASTHOSTS on the tools I'm using
(Karen's Power Tools - WHOIS, and url discombobulator)

and for www.webwise.bt.com I get
resolving to
207.44.186.90
which a WHOIS lookup gives as
OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
OrgID: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US

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

Looking up 'www.oix.net'...
Pinging www.oix.net [89.145.112.32]....


Looking up 'webwise.bt.com'...
Pinging webwise.bt.com [88.208.250.85]....

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

If anyone wants to find what sites are hosted on an IP, this is a very nifty site:
http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/we...on-web-server/

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

as a side note, i looked at the OIX website and came up on this http://www.oix.com/about/introducing/OIX.html

it gives a fair idea about the level of data thats going to be collected and how it can be used to target ads, skip the animation and look on the page re channels and the next one .

scary amount of data and granularity

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

So if I've got that correct
webwise.bt.com = www.oix.net = www.oix.net (A 88.208.250.85)

On my Windows/Linux box webwise.bt.com is resolving to 88.208.250.66/ 88.208.250.85/ 88.208.248.102 apparently a round robin DNS (and not responding to ping)

Similarly www.oix.net 88.208.250.85/ 89.145.112.31/ 89.145.112.32
Similarly www.oix.com 88.208.250.85/ 89.145.112.31/ 89.145.112.32

But...
www.webwise.bt.com is a US address (A 207.44.186.90) (and is responding to ping)


Have I got that right? (nb I'm not a BT subscriber)

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

http://www.bt.com/ -> completely blank?!

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

from a bt connection


C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC>nslookup
Default Server: api.home
Address: 192.168.1.254

> www.oix.net
Server: api.home
Address: 192.168.1.254

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.oix.net
Addresses: 88.208.250.85, 89.145.112.31, 89.145.112.32

> www.oix.com
Server: api.home
Address: 192.168.1.254

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.oix.com
Addresses: 88.208.250.85, 89.145.112.31, 89.145.112.32

> www.webwise.bt.com
Server: api.home
Address: 192.168.1.254

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.webwise.bt.com
Address: 207.44.186.90

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

So (if I've got this right) a search on www.bt.co.uk for Webwise returns one result, which takes you to a broken link on a US web server where you will be able to 'opt out'.

The confusingly similar UK site (which you can't find on a BT search) may resolve to various addresses outside the BT network, and may even resolve to a machine owned by Phorm/OIX.

At least when you are assigned your UID it won't be possible for Phorm to link it to your... oh God....

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

From www.webwise.bt.com

How do I switch BT Webwise on or off?
When BT Webwise is available in your area, simply go to www.bt.com/webwise and click 'BT Webwise Off' or 'BT Webwise On'.

However

www.bt.com/webwise

redirects to

http://www.webwise.bt.com/webwise/index.php (ie, the US "ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc." server)

So even when you think you're visiting a www.bt.com url, you're being sent to the states to opt in/out.

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

Found this text on an OWA page referred to on Beta BT forums today
https://mail.bt.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=

The warnings on the top of the page took my fancy.

LEGAL WARNING: You have accessed a computer managed by BT. You are required to have authorisation from BT before you proceed and you are strictly limited to the use set out within that authorisation.

Unauthorised access to or misuse of this system is prohibited and constitutes an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. If you disclose any information obtained through this system without authority BT may take legal action against you.

Do not open attachments on PCs that are open to use by non BT people as copies may be left behind in TEMP areas on the PC.

You must take care when accessing commercially sensitive information in a public place and be aware of people viewing information 'over your shoulder'.

They seem to be aware of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. It's good to know that they take it so seriously. I might just borrow the wording for my own web site.
I wonder who they would get to enforce a breach of that legislation? It's so difficult nowadays to get anyone interested in computer crime. Maybe they use their local police?