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

it says thats on the bt beta forum about broken web if you block them urls but they also say you can block them but it will break the web for you, and i can see a fair few upset customers when they not been give the invite and their web is blocked.

http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64

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

Good spot.

If this is all so harmless, how come the companies driving it are those that previously tried to trick people into downloading their spyware, namely 121media now reborn as phorm, and gator/clara, now nebuad?

Not only is the technology the Internet equivalent of allowing the royal mail to open and read all your letters so that they can insert 'more relevant' junk mail, it is like subcontracting the work to the KGB. What could possibly go wrong?

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

On 20th March I was told in a BT email, that one way I could deal with the Webwise trial invitation was to block the webwise.net domain. Subsequent information from BT (see above) would appear to suggest that this would actually deal very effectively with Webwise but with the unfortunate side effect of giving me an error page to look at no matter where I wanted to go on the internet.

I was also told on that same date, that if I chose not to take part, I would not have my browsing information mirrored or profiled, and no information would go to the BT managed profiler. No information would be gathered, and therefore no information would be forwarded to Phorm. If I opted out, I would not come into contact with any Phorm-managed equipment.

(Note they have avoided using the word intercepted)

I can see where their wriggle room is on that last phrase "phorm managed equipment" but I take issue with the claim that by opting out of the trial after receiving an invite no information would go to the BT managed profiler.

It's been one long confused mess really in terms of what BT have understood and said, about this Webwise trial.

The relevant section of ONE version of the published BT Webwise FAQ
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64 and Q21 says:
21. Is my data still viewed when I am not participating?
Your data is not 'viewed' even if you are participating. The system simply applies relevant advertising to a non-identifiable random number. When you choose not to take the service, or switch off, it's off. 100%. No browsing data whatsoever is looked at or processed by BT Webwise. Those who have opted out will not have their browsing information mirrored or profiled. No information is gathered, and therefore no information is forwarded to Phorm. Customers who opt out will not come into contact with any Phorm-managed equipment.

I suppose I need to do some detailed exegesis of that large pile of emails from BT managers to tease out the inconsistencies and exact wording of what they were telling me.

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

One of the best times to politely ask BT to honour their contract & reconnect your to the WWW, or insist on them giving you a MAC & releasing you from their broken contract!

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

Can anyone else confirm that Emma Sanderson has completely stopped answering emails regarding Phorm/Webwise?

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

All I can find on there is about blocking cookies from that domain, not blocking the domain per se, via hosts file for example. But I do recall them saying something about breaking browsing so they have admitted that somewhere. Now where was that email....

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

I can confirm that our relationship came to an end on 2nd July. But I was quite an ardent correspondent with my "voracious appetite for detail".

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

Guys - if you want to keep to date on anything Phorm related which appears on the web, just subscribe to Google Alerts:

http://www.google.co.uk/alerts?hl=en

Enter 'Phorm' as a search term and Google will mail you links into your inbox.

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

The name that interests me there is Neil DuLake, commercial development manager, guardian.co.uk and his session

* How the Guardian uses BT
* Learning from experience: Top tips for success
* Case study / Segment focus: the challenge, strategy, execution
and results
* Best practice

It would be interesting to hear him answer a question about the ethical dimension of choosing an ad targetting system, and what lay behind the Guardian's decision to walk away from OIX/Phorm a few months ago!

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

I notice that BT state that they are included in the "Ethical Investment Register" (http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir...ards/index.htm ), Since learning of the Phorm trials, not to mention the BT MOD call center fraud ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-contract.html ), I no longer consider them an ethical investment.

I wonder if we can get them removed from that register?

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

I disagree. Monitoring the presence of a cookie must be classed as interception. Also all the contents of the communication is available to someone who is not the sender or the recipient IMHO.

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

"We haven't firmed up the dates [for the upcoming trial] yet. It will be in the coming weeks," said Morgan. "We just want to make sure it's technically ready for trial, and make sure the people participating in the test are trialling a technically robust service."

So BT are saying they've had to repeatedly delay the trial because they've discovered bugs in Phorm's system? (that inspirers my confidence in Phorm's security - NOT) - I wonder if they've been reading some of the issues raised on Badphorm.

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

found it i think http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/help.php

There are two ways you can opt out of BT Webwise:

1. visit www.bt.com/webwise and click Switch Off. Note that this will be activated only after the service is launched. This standard opt-out method does depend on a cookie remaining on your machine indicating that you have opted out. If you delete your cookies regularly, you will have to opt-out again each time you start a browsing session.
2. if you delete cookies regularly and want to remain opted out, you can set all your browsers to block cookies from the domain www.webwise.net. When you block this domain, the service will opt you out permanently. You can use this option now and will then be opted out of BT Webwise.

Isn't that a pain in the neck?
We provide the facility to block cookies permanently from BT Webwise so if you want to opt out permanently you can do so through a one-time only activity, by setting your browser to block cookies from the domain www.webwise.net. When you block this domain, the service will not put a cookie on your machine and you will not be asked to opt in or out again. [X]

from the webwise web site help
http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/help.php

i found at least 3 ref to allow you to block cookies but how can they say they not intercepting cos they must have to read the state of the cookie or lack off em to find out if you in or out so bang goes the pass through not looked at if they looking for cookies or lack off before you can surf.

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

I believe it should be classed as an interception. However I'm not sure that a court would class it as such under RIPA. Baroness Miller said, "They intercepted people's communications without their consent. That can't be any more legal than someone slitting open a letter addressed to me and reading the contents." I agree with the sentiment, but I think there is potentially an important difference between phorm and someone opening letters. Phorm uses machines, not people, to read your communications. If phorm can demonstrate that no part of the communication is made available to a person, then it is not an interception under RIPA. The Baroness also said, "If the trials were not illegal, which they should be, it is because the law hasn't kept pace with technology". I agree unreservedly with that statement.

Note: I am not legally trained and this is only my opinion. I am in no way endorsing any of phorms past or planned activities.

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

Many thanks for your welcome, it is much appreciated :)

I cannot possibly comment on my 'initial questioning', as this will shortly be the subject of litigation. Also, I'm likely to get more points on my Cable Forum licence for breach of the T & C's ;) and might be silenced.

My frank opinion ? ... is based on thinking for myself, and not being effected by all the hype and FUD. I have no objection to getting targeted ad's which suit me, rather than getting ad's which don't.

If that involves inspection of my browsing history/habits, then so be it - I don't see that as a problem, as, as yet, it has not been proven to my satisfaction that identifiable information will be used. If it were proved that the intercepted information was identifiable, I would be concerned.

The same applies to the earlier BT trials in 2006/2007 ... though it is wildly stated that such trials were illegal, I am yet to see or hear proof that they were illegal. Again, if proof does emerge that the trials were illegal, I will be concerned.

It seems to be a common theme of the anti-Phorm/webwise campaign .. lot's of accusations, lot's of techspeak trying to obfuscate the facts, lot's of speculation .. but, IMO, very little real substantiated substance.

To give you a very small, and recent example, in Tom Espiners report to ZDnet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm, he said the following ...

Note the terms used .. 'convinced', 'believes', 'also believes'. I have seen lot's of that - lot's of 'belief'. When I see irrefutable facts, I may get concerned.

Thanks for that, but the above ZDnet article was more forth coming .. 15 protesters. I rest my case (well, probably not ;)).

D_A :)

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

Actually you are not entirely correct on this issue. The legislations which are relevant to this make it very clear that it doesn't matter whether it is a person or a piece of automated equipment carrying out the interception - without consent it is a criminal offence.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------

For the record:

BT Group PLC committed criminal violations of the following laws in their 2006 trials (and Phorm were complicit in those breaches):

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Computer Misuse Act
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

They -also- committed violations of the following civil laws and torts:

Data Protection Act
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act

I am perfectly happy to go on record and make this as a statement of fact and if BT wish to take me to court I would welcome the opportunity for said court to rule on this issue.

As for just a few people making wild accusations:

Nicholas Bohm - Legal Counsel for FIPR
Earl of Northesk - Peer in the House of Lords who was involved in the process of putting many of these laws into statute.
Baroness Miller - Peer in the House of Lords
Dr Richard Clayton - Technical Expert and member of FIPR/Lecturer at Cambridge University.
Information Commissioner - Stated that the trials DID breach PECR.

They are just a few of the people who state the trials were illegal.

So frankly, YOUR opinion is the one which is unsubstantiated, not ours.

Alexander Hanff