Originally Posted by popper (Post 34573813)

hmm, conflicting ICO statements are starting to appear it seems!

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com...rmProtest.html
"The test is being closely watched by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office.)

"We believe that it is only by allowing their technology to be subject to detailed scrutiny by independent technical experts that they will be able to prove their assertions regarding privacy," commented a spokesperson for the ICO.
"

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34573609)

Google showing Phorm at 975p - it looks like the dry rot in the £10 floor just gave way. Someone just sold £8K at 975p.

Originally Posted by Johnny Arrowmaker on iii

From a srictly mathematical point of view, Phorm has about 50 trading days left before it becomes a 'Penny Share' - based upon losing over 2% per trading day.

However, it should do well in this market as Phorm already demonstrates key characteristics common in this market - no SMART Targets, no cash flow, no profits, but it does have brilliant blue sky thinking. Perfick!

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34573422)

...BTW its getting so expensive to invest in infrastructure these days isn't it?

I'll probably use that money to invest in a new 10 GBit fibre optic ethernet network for my house.

Pete

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34573830)

im more interested in why the spokesperson for the ICO said that quote, im assuming at least that part is word accurate!

and the "be able to prove their assertions" now its they BT/Phorm need to prove they are telling the truth...

they have had independent technical experts look at it and say its unlawful, yet i assume another seperate ICO spokesman says they will take no action [at this time]....

[]the classic get out clause later.

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia (Post 34573547)

Nop it's the Vulchers circling overhead.

[Edit] Click on the Attached Thumbnail for a laugh. ;)

Originally Posted by davethejag (Post 34573748)

Hi, just heard this, part to do with loss of our personal freedom.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

Dave.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34573813)

"We believe that it is only by allowing their technology to be subject to detailed scrutiny by independent technical experts that they will be able to prove their assertions regarding privacy," commented a spokesperson for the ICO.
"

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34573776)

I like the quote below:

"And exposing our personal Data to careless Civil Servants, and Criminal Hackers."

It would be very interesting to see what his opinion in regards of Phorm is, and whether or not this is part of the reason he resigned.

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34573908)

Phorm shares close at...

950.00

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34573848)

Well, how about disclosing who these 'experts' were? and disclosing the advice you were given?

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34573908)

Phorm shares close at...

950.00

Perhaps someone could ask David Davis what he is doing on July 16th?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34572836)

Upon investigation this morning it would seem one person from the same organisation, not saying its Phorm or associated agencies, have come here to just spoil the poll. These votes have been tracked and have now been erased.

With the following now happening - I have now decided it best to close the poll, so thank you for your votes but the poll is now closed.

From day one of the poll - It said 95% voted Yes. It's been consistent throughout. The outcome of this and number of votes is nothing near what I expected. But the overall result is clear:-

Virgin Media Broadband Customers don't want Phorm.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34573960)

Who did all the original anti Phorm images for people to add to their sigs? If you are interested in designing some web buttons/banners for the protest event please get in touch.

I would like to try and start getting banners and buttons distributed in the next couple of days if possible. Sorry I was quiet yesterday I had an academic emergency to try and sort out.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34573961)

They were done by a user who I've not seen for a while Alex.

If you PM me the sizes, and wording - I'll get some drawn up for you (I have the original templates). If you need animation, state your prefered filetype, and same with images.

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34573996)

Wonder what it would cost to get that in a newspaper?

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34573996)

Wonder what it would cost to get that in a newspaper?

As if you could click on a newspaper. :doh: sorry.

But you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34573997)

The link won't work. :)

Seriously, I think people have looked at newspaper advertising and the costs were horrific.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34573960)

<snip>Sorry I was quiet yesterday I had an academic emergency to try and sort out.

Originally Posted by OldBear (Post 34574012)

Somebody gave you a B for an assignment, was it Alex? ;) :D

Serious note: it would be great to ask David Davis for his thoughts. I hope you do manage to get a hold of him.

OB

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574014)

Actually no, much more shocking than that, but I don't really want to go into it.

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34573848)

@BT
You keep spouting "BT sought expert legal advice before commencing the trial."
Well, how about disclosing who these 'experts' were? and disclosing the advice you were given?

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34574005)

Hows about approaching a newspaper that is sympathetic to our cause?

Also, when folk post their FREE ads in the FOR SELL section of their local paper, do you think they could get away with a small image as such?

eBay? A nice banner strategically placed beside the item for sell?

Originally Posted by Hank (Post 34574030)

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34574035)

...

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574036)

I was hoping that was real but no auction found for that listing number.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34574035)

Originally Posted by Bobcat (Post 34574045)

Hugo Drayton, Phorm's UK CEO believes...

"The ISPs are the Internet and they're being expected to roll out ever better networks to support functions that they do not gain from," he says.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574047)

Actually it was £84M over 4 years if I remember correctly which means even if they did pump the profits into cheaper prices it would amount to a reduction of just 44p per month (based on BT having 4 million customers) and that's if they put all the money back into cheaper prices (pre-tax)

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by SelfProtection (Post 34574060)

Don't forget the cost of all the extra monitoring Hardware & the ongoing Power Consumption. This doesn't look like a good business model for an ISP when taking all this into account.

The only real winners would be the Advertising Agencies & Phorm.

Originally Posted by Hank (Post 34574053)

Er, wrong Hugo.

No, no, Hugo... The ISPs are NOT the internet and that is the point you have missed setting up Phorm.

No. The internet is many things, but it is NOT the ISPs.

Before the internet we had letters, faxes and phone conversations. The Post Office was not the communication, they were the conduit for it.

The ISPs provide a conduit for data and that IS the way it WILL stay!!

The internet is enabled by the conduit and the communication on it is ours, the readers/listeners and the content providers.

When will you get this through yours and Kent's thick heads?

How low does your share price have to go?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hank

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574069)

Yeah the power usage (although I would have to double check the BT report) for the entire Phorm network would be about 300KW/h so using my electricity price as a very rough guide that comes too:

7200 KW per day @ 12p per KW/h comes to:

£864 per day or £315360.00 per year if the servers run at peak 24/365

Obviously this is a very rough estimate it is impossible to say how much power their systems will drain and I have no idea how much BT pay for their power but I assume it is a great deal less than my domestic rates; but it does provide a basic illustration. It would seem that power costs could be around the 1% mark when you take into account the £84M over 4 years.

That's assuming they still use the cookie option, without cookies Load Balancing could be a real problem.
The cookies were being used to prevent infinite loops 1% was the figure quoted I believe.

This was of course before this became Public knowledge, the first thing a User does is to try to block unwanted sites.

How can BT or Phorm detect & drop these loops in a hostile environment without cookies?

The Nebuad System may well have the same problem.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574044)

If we can put together a promotional pack for the event, we could sell it in this eBay category for free:

http://everythingelse.listings.ebay....istingItemList

Any DTP professionals reading who fancy putting together a PDF "booklet" for this?

In fact I could put two auctions up, one for free and one for £1.00 so people can choose to donate by purchasing the booklet rather than getting the free one.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by tarka (Post 34574111)

I feel so stupid.... i must be sooo slow.... it's only just occured to me, the irony of their chosen company name (someone must have mentioned this before)...

We've had Phreaking, Phishing, Pharming, Phlooding etc... and now we have Phorm.

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34573915)

When they reach 666, Kent will vanish in a puff of smoke. There will be a distant sound of beating wings and a hawk-like squark as he returns to ...

... Delaware innit?

Originally Posted by davethejag (Post 34574157)

Hi All, just to lighten things up a bit and very much off topic" has anybody seen this "search engine" (it sometimes takes a while to load)

http://www.msdewey.com/

Dave (have fun!)

Originally Posted by Florence (Post 34574167)

While we are fighting BT and phorm maybe we need to look into the suppliers of the internet like opel, tiscali, orange,02/be, bulldog, cable and wireless etc and see if there is any chance they might be silly enough to think while BT is being hit they can stealth it in...

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574174)

We just changed it to permalinks, it should be working now.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by wecpc (Post 34574181)

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------



Still not working Alex.

Colin

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney (Post 34574180)

At first I thought she was actually going to do it, but then she said: "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?"

I was going to tell you the search string I used but I'd only have to get me coat!


:D

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574190)

Working fine here, maybe you have the page cached? the new page for the forums is https://nodpi.org/forum

But the old page should still work fine.

Anyone else having any problems?

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by warescouse (Post 34574138)

It has been mentioned before on The Register I think. I noticed that the name is an anagram of morph which it tried to do from 121Media but got noticed!

Originally Posted by davethejag (Post 34574157)

Hi All, just to lighten things up a bit and very much off topic" has anybody seen this "search engine" (it sometimes takes a while to load)

http://www.msdewey.com/

Dave (have fun!)

Originally Posted by SimonHickling (Post 34573907)

I've just had an e-mail from my MPs office regarding the copies of e-mails to BT she's been receiving, regarding my contempt for them wanting to profile my site.

The office manager has replied on her behalf stating that "she will understand them as little as I do" and asking if there's anything she can do.

Originally Posted by serial (Post 34574270)

I was thinking about how Phorm think it's ok to use the googlebot(and dirty its reputation).

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe (Post 34574300)

Here's an initial draft of a flyer which could be sent to MPs to try to explain in non-technical terms what is happening and why it's wrong.

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Flyer_V1.pdf

Please everyone, review it for accuracy and effectiveness.

Thanks. PG.

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe (Post 34574300)

Here's an initial draft of a flyer which could be sent to MPs to try to explain in non-technical terms what is happening and why it's wrong.

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Flyer_V1.pdf

Please everyone, review it for accuracy and effectiveness.

Thanks. PG.

Originally Posted by serial (Post 34574314)

Remember

As I previously mentioned these were not small scale with tens of thousands of people profiled secretly. When some of their customers complained about problems, BT denied any responsibility telling them they had spyware or viruses on their PC's.


This was from a few weeks ago, so we should come up with a tighter flyer.
(anyone wanting a copy of the full BT brief PM me)

Originally Posted by Hank (Post 34574224)

Dephormation and tdadyslexia: Great images - thanks - made me laugh :D

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe (Post 34574300)

Here's an initial draft of a flyer which could be sent to MPs to try to explain in non-technical terms what is happening and why it's wrong.

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Flyer_V1.pdf

Please everyone, review it for accuracy and effectiveness.

Thanks. PG.

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe (Post 34574300)

Here's an initial draft of a flyer which could be sent to MPs to try to explain in non-technical terms what is happening and why it's wrong.

http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Flyer_V1.pdf

Please everyone, review it for accuracy and effectiveness.

Thanks. PG.

Originally Posted by roadrunner69 (Post 34574327)

Looks good to me PG. Covers all the main points factually and is not sensationalist or over technical.
Printed a couple off for the notice boards at work tomorrow (if thats ok?)

Originally Posted by serial (Post 34574314)

Remember MPs have already recieved the brief from BT, that brief is a single page and much simpler.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34574355)

sorry but it doesnt work for me... for effectiveness.
...

we are fighting this with facts, but we need to use the tricks to grab the interest.

so soundbites are the order of the day, use quotes from the likes of K%nt and the press offices to make the point in small sections.
...

Originally Posted by serial (Post 34574314)

Remember MPs have already recieved the brief from BT, that brief is a single page and much simpler. OK, here's my response to my MEP after he asked my opinion on the BT brief:

> What is BT’s involvement with Phorm? Earlier this year BT Retail, along with Virgin Media and Talk Talk, confirmed that it had entered into an agreement with Phorm,>a digital technology company.

Since I emailed you Virgin Media has stated it only agreed to look into the technology, they have not agreed to provide webwise:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rm_misleading/

>The agreement with Phorm enables BT Retail, and the other ISPs that have signed up, to offer customers a new free internet feature>called Webwise.

This concept of a "free internet feature" is a worrying way to "trick" their customers to agree to being profiled.

> What is BT Webwise and how does it work? BT Webwise checks for known fraudulent websites and warns customers if they visit one, with no need to download or>install any software.

This feature comes with Internet Explorer 7 and most anti-virus software including Norton who BT themselves provide to their customers already.

>It also replaces generic adverts on participating websites with adverts more relevant to customers’ interests, based on the web sites they visit and the things they>search for. Prior to the announcement, BT thoroughly researched Webwise and was encouraged by the very positive consumer response to the service.

So what webwise is is basically an advertising platform. This thorough research was a single third party survey. BT has not released any details of this survey.

> What does this mean for customers’ privacy? The privacy and security of our customers’ data is of the utmost importance to us. Any information on users’ browsing>is completely anonymous. The system does not store personally identifiable information, URLs, IP addresses or retain browsing histories.

This section comes down to trusting the people running the system, if you look at the history of Phorm(formerly 121Media) they're not inspiring much trust.
From the wiki page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm):

"121media, the former name of Phorm, has had its products described as spyware.[9] As 121Media it distributed a program called PeopleOnPage[10], which was classified as spyware by F-Secure.[11] PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a root kit called Apropos[10][12], which used tricks to prevent the user from removing the application and sent information back to central servers regarding a user's browsing habits.[13]

In November 2005 the Center for Democracy and Technology in the US filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over distribution of what it considered spyware, including ContextPlus. They stated that they had investigated and uncovered deceptive and unfair behaviour. This complaint was filed in concert with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Internet Center, a group that was filing a similar complaint against Integrated Search Technologies with Canadian authorities"

Also note that Phorm deleted key factual parts of the wiki entry but were caught doing it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ors_wikipedia/

> Search information is>deleted almost immediately and is not retrievable. Webwise does not scan webmail pages so emails on Gmail, Yahoo mail or Hotmail are>not scanned.

It does not scan these email sites because Phorm have added them to a block list. They will scan any webmail sites not on that block list, a quick search on google returns several thousand webmail sites. What are the chances that they will all apply to be put on the blocklist, and why should they have to?

>Secure pages>such as banking websites and web forms, such as online registration or sign-up forms, are not scanned. None of the personal>information often>contained in form>fields is, therefore, ever captured by the system. No data is passed outside BT's network.

Often sites will have a secure login, but after that the pages are unsecured, hotmail for example does this. So they will be profiling data from a secure site.
The profiling computer is inside the BT network, but it has been "gifted" to BT by Phorm and runs Phorms software and hardware.

> Webwise privacy standards have been verified by an external auditor Ernst & Young

This audit was based on US law which is far weaker that UK law.

> and leading privacy advocate Simon Davies, MD of 80/20 Thinking, has also>carried out a Privacy Impact Assessment on Webwise technology.

80/20 did an interim report back in mid March, the full Privacy Impact Assessment which was supposed to be released at the end of April has so far not been finished.

> Has BT tested this product previously? BT conducted two small scale technical tests of a prototype advertising platform in June 2007 and over 2 weeks in>September-October 2006. These tests were specifically conducted to evaluate the functional and technical performance of the platform. Absolutely no personally>identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. As with all Service Providers, it is important for BT to ensure that, before any>potential new technologies are employed, they are robust and fit for purpose.

As I previously mentioned these were not small scale with tens of thousands of people profiled secretly. When some of their customers complained about problems, BT denied any responsibility telling them they had spyware or viruses on their PC's.


This was from a few weeks ago, so we should come up with a tighter flyer.
(anyone wanting a copy of the full BT brief PM me)

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574190)

Working fine here, maybe you have the page cached? the new page for the forums is https://nodpi.org/forum

But the old page should still work fine.

Anyone else having any problems?

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34574446)

Petition Link Button:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8...nbuttonhf3.gif

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

125 (W) x 125 (H)

If you have a website add this image and link to:

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

Animated version will be available later today.

Alex, I hope you don't mind - I've put your site URL at the bottom

Originally Posted by SelfProtection (Post 34574457)

I like the fact that it's Black & White, tends to stand out & attract the eye more on a Web Page full of coloured images.

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34574461)

Protest advert Banner (DRAFT):

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2...erani01jo5.gif

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2...erani01jo5.gif

468 (W) 60 (H)

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574369)

Someone PM'd me recently about donating an AdWords gift voucher/promotional code for helping to promote the Protest Event. The problem is I have hundreds of PMs and can't seem to find the right one; so could that person PM me again please as I have set-up an AdWords account and started a campaign.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by tarka (Post 34574506)

I have an observation... the "click here to help protect your privacy" reminds me of those adverts for fake spyware programs and I wonder if that will put people off clicking? Or would it perhaps capture the audience that we need to get to? eg those that are more likely to click that sort of fake advert?

edited to add... apart from that one observation (which may not even be an issue) the banner is absolutely spot on! good job! :D

Originally Posted by tarka (Post 34574519)

in doing that without more information. Am I making sense or being a blithering idiot? hehe

Originally Posted by tarka (Post 34574519)

is a "click me" statement actually required? do most people know to click banners these days? How about "click here to find out more"? (although I know you already have something similar in the main text)

I know this is being pedantic (and I'm finding it hard to explain but here goes)... I wonder if people would be more inclined to click if it were for more information? Currently it sort of implies that clicking the banner will actually do something and people may be hesitant in doing that without more information. Am I making sense or being a blithering idiot? hehe

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Also, another suggestion, would it be a good idea to link the banner to a page on nodpi.org that summarizes the campaign perhaps like the flyer posted earlier in the thread?

If the information is layed out in a clear and concise way on the page it points to it would have a greater effect than people having to wade through blog posts to try and find out what it's all about?

Originally Posted by tarka (Post 34574519)

Also, another suggestion, would it be a good idea to link the banner to a page on nodpi.org that summarizes the campaign perhaps like the flyer posted earlier in the thread?

If the information is layed out in a clear and concise way on the page it points to it would have a greater effect than people having to wade through blog posts to try and find out what it's all about?

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574523)

There is a new section going up on the site today called Events, which will have that sort of information in it specifically for the event.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by davethejag (Post 34574527)

Hi, I had an idea about a World War 2 poster but I could not paste it (not very good with this sort of stuff!) I was looking at "A Walls Have Ears" type thing and came accross this. (below) Perhaps it could be modified by some clever person (copyright permitted) for our cause. Here is the link -

http://www.propagandaposters.us/poster11.html

Dave