Originally Posted by Toto (Post 34508854)

Er...yeh, possibly, but I suspect down in terms of the overall market performance, not about what Phorm are doing themselves.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------



Unless he doesn't live in a cabled part of Swansea. :)

Originally Posted by ceedee (Post 34508846)

Hey, at least BT Retail have a forum in which they're willing to discuss the issue with their customers!
VM can't even be bothered to revise their three-week-old, error-ridden statement!

And, particularly as a Virgin Media employee, how do you feel about VM "stealing our personal information"?
Shouldn't you be calling for VM customers to leave too?

Originally Posted by dav (Post 34509059)

Isn't it odd how quiet Phorm and their PR robots have become in recent days?
After the flurry of interviews and webchats over the last 2 weeks, it certainly seems as if Kent's out of ideas about how to further try to pull the wool over the eyes of Joe Public.

The pressure is certainly on. I wonder how long until Kent is sleeping under a bridge?

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34509084)

After the tip-off today on the BBC news site, I had a look for details on the virgin site. Couldn't find anything - what a surprise. Found the 'register' article on this site with the link to virgin's webwise page, read it, and directly cancelled all services after 7 years as a customer.

Trying to grasp those few extra pennies will cost them a lot of pounds. What contempt they must hold their customers in. Unfortunately, they will get away with it with 98% of them.

Great site, thanks for the info.

Originally Posted by mark777 (Post 34509093)

Cobby:May have been a touch premature, they've not implemented it yet & if we all join the struggle they may not...

Thanks for the welcome. It's time to go, i've had enough of them - besides I don't like laughing-boy Branson!

Originally Posted by GuestUK (Post 34509108)

... but Virgin Media is standing ground of having a fully unescapable system? Or am I mistaken (please)

Originally Posted by SMHarman (Post 34506133)

So, I read the EY report properly this morning. Some thoughts...

• it is performed by EY, LLP 5 Times Sq, in NY, not EY, LLP the UK entity, why? Both have sufficient expertise
• it is performed to AICPA standards, not ICAEW standards
• it is addressed to Phorm inc, 264 W 40th NY, NY. Not Phorm plc 222 Regent St.
• the process as described talks about opt out mechanisms. If this becomes an opt in process as TT are discussing then one of the key aspects has significantly changed (for the better IMHO) but how does that change the security process as auditited.
• the wording of the management control descriptions is interesting. Phorms systems do not use or store. Rather than phorms systems cannot use and store.
• it goes on to say this specific data cannot be accessed by our ISP partners. So our ISP partners are allowing hardware to be injected into their networks on their premises that scans data packets and they cannot see what this hardware is doing!
• Page 4 we have created a privacy policy - well it is easy to create a policy, less easy to stick to it.
• Page 6 Para 6 is it not an inconsistency that the doc says 'for example phorm may tell a merchant that our network contains 50,000 users who have visited a travel website URL in the past six months, but cannot disclose which randomly generated IDs have visited that URL because the information is not stored' yet they say on Page 5 Para 3 (end of) Phorm Service will retain only information about general categories of interest associated with an ID such as IDnnn is interested in travel [to paraphrase]'
• Again Page 5 Para 5 the bullet points Phorm does not collect, not cannot collect or will not collect.
• Page 7 Para 2 For a US report issued by a US firm to a US recipent why is the data protection officer located in the UK?
• Page 7 Para 7 nice clause about export of data to other countries there. 'if you use your computer and usual browser in a country other than your home country to log on to the internet via one of our partner ISPs in that other country, the data Phorm holds in its systems that is associated with that cookie may be automatically transferred to Phorm's systems in that other country.'
• Pages 8 - 13 is a nice piece of padding, basically the AICPA template for creation of a privacy policy. So if you get the Phorm privacy policy it should map nicely to this template.

Page 7 Para 7 nice clause about export of data to other countries there. 'if you use your computer and usual browser in a country other than your home country to log on to the internet via one of our partner ISPs in that other country, the data Phorm holds in its systems that is associated with that cookie may be automatically transferred to Phorm's systems in that other country.'
Gives another scenareo, you take your laptop usually connected to TTs firewalled implementation of Phorm around to your mates for some gaming or whatever and log on to his internet connection which is with VM, now your cookie from Phorm and your data will pass to the phorm harvester. Great.

I don't know where I read it, but someone wrote a great thing about giving data and the benefits of giving. Well I don't need anti-phishing I use IE7 and that has it built in and enabled by default, though the install clearly asks if you want to switch it off as you will be passing data to Microsoft.

I don't mind giving google my data as they give me fantastic search results in return. If they were mediocre results like MS Live then I woudl not be using them. There is a reason Google is the No.1 search engine.

Originally Posted by JackSon (Post 34509134)

Taken from Florence's post:
It is getting rather tiresome that Phorm are not listening to the fact that it is not only the saving (or not saving) of data that concerns a lot of us (including Sir Tim) but the actual process of being profiled itself that we are opposed to. The not saving data is frankly irrelevant, it's been read (opted in OR out), that's the first violation which should be stopped.

---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:32 ----------

I am taking Berners-Lee's line of "It's mine; you can't have it" to mean he doesn't want the thrid party to even collect and analyse the data - any coversation of whether it is then saved or not means it is already too late as far as his privacy wishes go.

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34509136)

dont forget unnecessary collecting is also not allowed in the DPA, everyone seems to miss that one, alongside explicit in the RIPA, they are important.