Originally Posted by pseudonym (Post 34614273)

There's no "Referer:" header in your browser's request so their opt-in script is rejecting it with an error 403.

Originally Posted by pseudonym (Post 34614178)

The ISP check is carried out from the home page :- http://www.webwise.com/index.php

If you look on the left hand side it should say:-

"The Webwise feature
is not available
at this time."


The opt-in and opt-out are on separate pages


OPT-IN = http://www.webwise.com/privacy/opt/in.html

OPT-OUT = http://www.webwise.com/privacy/opt/out.html

Bypassing the homepage and using either these links works for me (I'm not with one of the Phorm Three)

The opt-out link deletes the UID cookie and creates the opt-out cookie "OPTED_OUT=YES".



I believe they "fixed" the opt-in/opt-out script to check referrer a few months after I mentioned the remote opt-in issue over on ISPReview - So directly accessing the actual opt-in url http://a.webwise.net/services/OO?op=in without spoofing referrer will give an error - I guess people who block referer wouldn't want to opt-out anyway. :dunce:

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34613120)

More thoughts on retention of browsing history by Webwise.

Originally Posted by ilago (Post 34613249)

The correct term is Without Prejudice and it should be at the top of the letter centred, in bold, above the Dear Sir/Madam bit. :)

With the NebuAd and Phorm lobbying about to get off the ground in the US, I would suggest you prepare for an onslaught of anti-Google, anti-social-networking (MySpace, Facebook etc.) propaganda. It will be designed to demonstrate how lilly-white and clean NebuAd and Phorm really are, while these other organisations have been really doing worse than them for years.

It might be a very good idea to prepare well thought out rebuttals. This sort of informercial stuff usually does get into the mainstream.

The Netflix DeAnonymiser algorithm is one place to start on unravelling their arguments on anonymity. The Gator connections to NebuAd and Phorm's previous life as 121Media "rootkit installer", origins should be useful as well.

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34614317)

social networking sites (virus and security risk

Originally Posted by feesch (Post 34613401)

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result. And what happened to the ISPs – Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Create demand, drop the price, fuel the masses… Look at iPhone G3 for a case in point. Its marketing.

So human rights, privacy issues are all thrown into this argument (and rightfully so I equally want to make sure these are given adequate consideration and why I personally went to a Parliament debate last month) but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising. No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

Originally Posted by Graham M (Post 34614320)

Virus risk, how do you figure that? And it's only a security risk imo if you put your full address down

Originally Posted by feesch (Post 34613490)

Agreed! DO I agree with Police having access to little black boxes at ISP level, What about your boss monitoring what goes on via your exchange server? So you look at something online, against company rules, and you get sacked. How would that stand in court? That is generally the thrust of that argument.

Snip

I am answering your question to show their side, as opposed to endorsing methods, here.

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34614317)

in my house / networks all of the following are banned

search engine browser addins (spyware), social networking sites (virus and security risk),nice big hosts file to block majority of ads, and only me and the wife have unfiltered web access

peter

Originally Posted by bluecar1

but Talk Talk for instance offering a £299 laptop and reduced broadband line rental to try and get customers is not the way to generate the income required, the sums just do not add up, as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.

the likes of BT, VM and TT etc all try to lock you into multiple services on long contracts and have to realise poeple are getting wise to these smokescreens and tricks

Originally Posted by feesch (Post 34613401)

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34614383)

As others are also pointing out - and we really are quite tired of doing so - especially this late in the game - google and Webwise are quite quite different.

It's very simple. Just draw a diagram showing you, the isp, and the rest of the internet, including other websites, and also including the google search site and their webmail system, then insert the words "Google" or "Webwise" in the appropriate place on the diagram. Then see how much choice is left for the consumer.

Webwise is between me and the rest of the internet. No bypass available. If my ISP adopt it, I go through the DPI kit on my way to the internet. No choice. opted in or opted out, it's between me and the internet. I have to go through that DPI kit and get intercepted, and probably profiled too (even if I can't be tracked - and quite frankly I don't trust them not to do that either)
Google tracking only occurs when I use the google search engine (if I keep google cookies and a constant IP address). If I don't like gmail I don't have to correspond with anyone with a gmail address (except once to tell them so).

But I CAN'T avoid Webwise/Phorm DPI. I can't get out of my "front door" without going through their kit. It's like they've built a porch over my front door. They own the porch. They decide what furniture is in the porch, They have hidden cameras and microphones in that porch. They strip search me as I go through it, and want to know who I am going to see, where I am going. And I don't like that. I wouldn't like it if they were honest. But they have phorm, previous, a record. So I like it even less. And it is just so they can make money, and probably also so the government can use the facility whenever they might feel like keeping an eye on me.

I take that seriously. As a church pastor, I am a member of a people group that experience this sort of surveillance in various countries around the world ALREADY. I'd rather it didn't catch on here.

It really is that simple. It's not the tracking, it's not the adverts, it's WHERE it's happening, it's HOW it's happening, it's the lack of genuine choice, and of course it's the multiple layers of illegality and the stealth that goes with criminal behaviour that we object to. As well as the corporate arrogance.

Have we got that clear? Can we discuss the finer points of advertising and media elsewhere? Can we stick to the point?

Thank you for listening.

Originally Posted by R Jones (Post 34614383)

As others are also pointing out - and we really are quite tired of doing so - especially this late in the game - google and Webwise are quite quite different.

It's very simple. Just draw a diagram showing you, the isp, and the rest of the internet, including other websites, and also including the google search site and their webmail system, then insert the words "Google" or "Webwise" in the appropriate place on the diagram. Then see how much choice is left for the consumer.

Webwise is between me and the rest of the internet. No bypass available. If my ISP adopt it, I go through the DPI kit on my way to the internet. No choice. opted in or opted out, it's between me and the internet. I have to go through that DPI kit and get intercepted, and probably profiled too (even if I can't be tracked - and quite frankly I don't trust them not to do that either)
Google tracking only occurs when I use the google search engine (if I keep google cookies and a constant IP address). If I don't like gmail I don't have to correspond with anyone with a gmail address (except once to tell them so).

But I CAN'T avoid Webwise/Phorm DPI. I can't get out of my "front door" without going through their kit. It's like they've built a porch over my front door. They own the porch. They decide what furniture is in the porch, They have hidden cameras and microphones in that porch. They strip search me as I go through it, and want to know who I am going to see, where I am going. And I don't like that. I wouldn't like it if they were honest. But they have phorm, previous, a record. So I like it even less. And it is just so they can make money, and probably also so the government can use the facility whenever they might feel like keeping an eye on me.

I take that seriously. As a church pastor, I am a member of a people group that experience this sort of surveillance in various countries around the world ALREADY. I'd rather it didn't catch on here.

It really is that simple. It's not the tracking, it's not the adverts, it's WHERE it's happening, it's HOW it's happening, it's the lack of genuine choice, and of course it's the multiple layers of illegality and the stealth that goes with criminal behaviour that we object to. As well as the corporate arrogance.

Have we got that clear? Can we discuss the finer points of advertising and media elsewhere? Can we stick to the point?

Thank you for listening.

Originally Posted by madslug (Post 34614111)

While on the subject of Webwise, I notice that the Phorm site is still talking about TalkTalk starting to use Webwise in the summer of 2008.
There is still nothing about Webwise on the TalkTalk site. Their Privacy Statement says little that could indicate a 3rd party like Webwise being used.

Does anyone know where TalkTalk customers 'hang out'? I have not noticed anyone on any of the Phorm-aware forums mentioning that they use TalkTalk.

Originally Posted by feesch

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash

Originally Posted by feesch

Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result.

Originally Posted by feesch

Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

Originally Posted by feesch

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Originally Posted by feesch

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago

Originally Posted by feesch

We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

Originally Posted by feesch

That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).

Originally Posted by feesch

but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it.

Originally Posted by feesch

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34614317)

thats very interesting ass they have always denied knowing the URL you visit.

you can take that one stage further, what about keeping search engine URL's with the search data in them?

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

in my house / networks all of the following are banned

search engine browser addins (spyware), social networking sites (virus and security risk),nice big hosts file to block majority of ads, and only me and the wife have unfiltered web access

peter

Originally Posted by bluecar1 (Post 34614328)

..... as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.


peter