Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33628733)

CaptJamieHunter 13-04-2008 14:47

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527349)
I'm meeting a techie tomorrow about this. There are some messy rules about using the SOAS bandwidth though. We'll try and work through the problem.

Simon

I do think it very important that the whole event be recorded in some way and posted online in an unedited form so that people can hear everything that is said by the speakers.

How representatives of a company conduct themselves and what language they use reflects on the company.

dav 13-04-2008 14:53

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527349)
Depends whether you can trust us to do the right thing.

Do you not think it is ironic that you feel the need to make such a statement?
Do you feel you involvement with Phorm has had a negative impact on your reputation in privacy circles?
After all, while your assessment of the system may be perfectly correct and it may well represent an advance in online privacy, it seems as if Phorm have been caught wrong-footed by the backlash from the general public's natural distrust of anything that tries to pigeon-hole and categorise them in order to make money off their data while giving nothing in return. If it turns out that it complies with the letter of the law, it certainly does not reflect the spirit of it, nor do ethical considerations come into it.
Unfortunately, it looks as if you have been put in a position where you have had to defend and explain yourself due to some over-zealous PR from Phorm and the perception has (wrongly, I think) been that you have been in cahoots with them all along. Why would Phorm pay for and advertise a PIA that they know would condemn their system?
I sympathise with your position (not that that means anything), but it does seem as if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

serial 13-04-2008 15:10

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

Originally Posted by popper (Post 34527242)
ohh, and the wiki i linked in the other day got reverted back so NebuAd are still hard to find any info on there again.

Wow, you're right, I think we have found a weak spot ;)

80/20Thinking 13-04-2008 15:13

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

Originally Posted by dav (Post 34527368)
Do you not think it is ironic that you feel the need to make such a statement?
Do you feel you involvement with Phorm has had a negative impact on your reputation in privacy circles?
After all, while your assessment of the system may be perfectly correct and it may well represent an advance in online privacy, it seems as if Phorm have been caught wrong-footed by the backlash from the general public's natural distrust of anything that tries to pigeon-hole and categorise them in order to make money off their data while giving nothing in return. If it turns out that it complies with the letter of the law, it certainly does not reflect the spirit of it, nor do ethical considerations come into it.
Unfortunately, it looks as if you have been put in a position where you have had to defend and explain yourself due to some over-zealous PR from Phorm and the perception has (wrongly, I think) been that you have been in cahoots with them all along. Why would Phorm pay for and advertise a PIA that they know would condemn their system?
I sympathise with your position (not that that means anything), but it does seem as if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You make some very interesting observations. If I can put my Privacy International hat on for a minute, those thoughts are foremost in our minds.

Imagine our position. We're the only truly global privacy watchdog and we deal at any one time with perhaps fifty major privacy issues affecting up to a hundred countries. After twenty years of fighting endless battles we've concluded that the only way through this planet-wide quagmire is to push across the spectrum for transparency and disclosure. That's why the Phorm case is so important.

Right at the moment, for example, we're in combat with an increasingly secret and unaccountable EU regime, an almost totally unaccountable and invisible US regime and an increasingly opaque Westminster regime. There are more covert agreements between governments than you could ever imagine, backed by IT deals that go to the heart of personal privacy at the deepest levels. Commercial secrecy has crippled any hope of public input.

After the Phorm process you now know the nature and extent of your target. That's a healthy start. For us, as privacy advocates, the real challenge is achieving that level of disclosure across the board - the banks, governments, security agencies, border services, data miners and identity providers.

What we learn through the Phorm process will be important to addressing that larger picture.

Bonglet 13-04-2008 15:35

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
For an international watchdog sorry to say but how can you say that phorm is legal you in your own mind must know it isnt btw dont some of your guys have shares in phorm and some ex staff now working for them, somehow i dont think your actually non biased at least some of your members arent.

manxminx 13-04-2008 15:49

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527387)
You make some very interesting observations.

<snip>

What we learn through the Phorm process will be important to addressing that larger picture.

Amen! :clap:

Phorm is just a thin edge of a VERY large wedge.

80/20Thinking 13-04-2008 15:49

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

Originally Posted by Bonglet (Post 34527406)
For an international watchdog sorry to say but how can you say that phorm is legal you in your own mind must know it isnt btw dont some of your guys have shares in phorm and some ex staff now working for them, somehow i dont think your actually non biased at least some of your members arent.

Oooops. Careful about straying into black helicopter terrain. My views about the legality under the DPA are clearly stated elsewhere. We aren't in a position to judge the RIPA legality. As for your latter assertions, pleeeeeease. I think you just confused BT with PI. I doubt any of us could afford to buy shares in anything, even if we inclined to do so.

But, just for the record: I affirm that no staff member or director of Privacy International, past or present, has either worked for Phorm or is now working for Phorm or has any financial interest whatever in Phorm. We as 80/20 Thinking are contracted as a third party to provide an independent assessment of Phorm.

JohnHorb 13-04-2008 15:55

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527416)
Oooops. Careful about straying into black helicopter terrain. My views about the legality under the DPA are clearly stated elsewhere. We aren't in a position to judge the RIPA legality. As for your latter assertions, pleeeeeease. I think you just confused BT with PI. I doubt any of us could afford to buy shares in anything, even if we inclined to do so.

But, just for the record: I affirm that no staff member or director of Privacy International, past or present, has either worked for Phorm or is now working for Phorm or has any financial interest whatever in Phorm. We as 80/20 Thinking are contracted as a third party to provide an independent assessment of Phorm.

To avoid any confusion, Simon, could you elaborate on the exact relationship between PI and 80/20? I think I read recently (think it was in the NY Times) that 80/20 was the commercial arm of PI. Is that the case, or are the two organisations independant with some people (particularly yourself) involved with both? Again, for the record, your asertion specifically talks about staff members of PI. Can you confirm that the same applies to staff members of 80/20? (I'm sure it does, but with so many conspiracy theories....)

manxminx 13-04-2008 15:56

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527387)
There are more covert agreements between governments than you could ever imagine, backed by IT deals that go to the heart of personal privacy at the deepest levels.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, As Richard Clayton has said, Phorm could become part of the CNI. As I've pointed out a couple of times now, who partly runs the CNI? The same people that could benefit most from the Phorm technology.

MI5.

Please don't laugh, I'm being deadly serious here.

80/20Thinking 13-04-2008 16:03

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

Originally Posted by JohnHorb (Post 34527418)
To avoid any confusion, Simon, could you elaborate on the exact relationship between PI and 80/20? I think I read recently (think it was in the NY Times) that 80/20 was the commercial arm of PI. Is that the case, or are the two organisations independant with some people (particularly yourself) involved with both? Again, for the record, your asertion specifically talks about staff members of PI. Can you confirm that the same applies to staff members of 80/20? (I'm sure it does, but with so many conspiracy theories....)

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. In the legal sense, PI and 80/20 are entirely separate entities. Two of 80/20's staff also work for PI, but one key difference is that there's almost no-one in common between the advisory boards of the two organisations. And although I founded PI, I am not on the PI board, but I am on the board of 80/20.

So, 80/20 isn't the commercial wing of PI. In fact even the money we give away to campaigners won't go to PI. The commonality between the two organisations is Gus Hosein and I.

AlexanderHanff 13-04-2008 16:07

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527387)
You make some very interesting observations. If I can put my Privacy International hat on for a minute, those thoughts are foremost in our minds.

Imagine our position. We're the only truly global privacy watchdog and we deal at any one time with perhaps fifty major privacy issues affecting up to a hundred countries. After twenty years of fighting endless battles we've concluded that the only way through this planet-wide quagmire is to push across the spectrum for transparency and disclosure. That's why the Phorm case is so important.

Right at the moment, for example, we're in combat with an increasingly secret and unaccountable EU regime, an almost totally unaccountable and invisible US regime and an increasingly opaque Westminster regime. There are more covert agreements between governments than you could ever imagine, backed by IT deals that go to the heart of personal privacy at the deepest levels. Commercial secrecy has crippled any hope of public input.

After the Phorm process you now know the nature and extent of your target. That's a healthy start. For us, as privacy advocates, the real challenge is achieving that level of disclosure across the board - the banks, governments, security agencies, border services, data miners and identity providers.

What we learn through the Phorm process will be important to addressing that larger picture.

I have to disagree here Simon, Phorm are far from transparent. They don't answer any question directed at them (they just get the PR drones to go around pasting the same mindless BS on forums and blogs all over the web). As for legality pffft don't even get me started.

I used Privacy International data for years in my academic pursuits I have always seen them as a vanguard; but whether you like to admit it or not Simon, your association with Phorm through 80/20 Thinking is seriously damaging the image and reputation of Privacy International.

I defended you in several places when your draft PIA was published but I no longer can. The work you have done over the past 20 years is becoming rapidly undone by your association and seemingly supportive relationship with Phorm. People used to hear the name Simon Davies and think Privacy International, now they don't think that, they don't even think 80/20 Thinking; they think Phorm supporter.

Perhaps your PIA should take a look at the fact that despite the IC saying their system is ok under DPA, in fact it isn't. Given the current way in which the technology works as reported by Dr Richard Clayton (and verified by Phorm) requires operations to be carried out on the data by the Layer 7 technology in order to determine whether or not the consent cookie exists; then DPA is being breached and the IC can sing from the hilltops that it isn't for all I care, he is WRONG.

Perhaps your PIA should also pay closer attention to RIPA. Privacy of communications as you very well know, is a HUMAN RIGHT and therefore can never be, I repeat -never- be swept away with implied consent. All consent to wave the right to privacy -must- be explicit; so irrespective of the PR spin Kent and his team are coming out with to try and say they can get away with intercepting web requests based on implied consent from web site owners and a change in terms and conditions for browsers; they -are- breaking the law under RIPA. And just to add a bit of icing to the cake, changing the terms and conditions for BT/VM/TT customers in an attempt to circumvent the law WILL NOT WORK. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 s27 makes it very clear that any terms or modification of terms would be void.

You are no longer one of my idols Simon, you are one of my enemies. This is a conflict, a war to protect our fundamental rights and you have defected to the other side. I am deeply disappointed in you and I am sure I am not the only one.

Alexander Hanff

Kursk 13-04-2008 16:09

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

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking (Post 34527424)
The commonality between the two organisations is Gus Hosein and I.

The commonality between the two organisations is Gus Hosein and you and a fat contract to provide an independent assessment for Phorm. Doesn't that look odd even to you when written in black and white? :D

Pasanonic 13-04-2008 16:13

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

I've been following this issue and in particular, this thread, for some weeks now. I've not yet responded to anything before ingesting all of the posts and links to articles so that I can be as knowledgeable as possible before making comments.

I'd just like to say Hi all and also say that well done to the many of you providing information and in particular the sterling and voluntary work done by Alexander on this issue.

I will probably touch more on past postings in further comments but whilst Simon is here I'd like to take the opportunity to address some points with him.

Hi Simon,

Thanks for taking the time to post and answer peoples queries.

you posted recently with your PI hat on. This is where I'm confused. I understand the good work that PI does on behalf of privacy issues and applaud the work. I too am aware of the many disturbing privacy issues we have in the UK on a state level. having worked in many Ministry of Defence installations, BNFL ( including armoury installations on BNFL vessels for the MOD ) and the Bank of England and have learned a few things I'd rather have not known about over the years yet am bound by the Official Secrets act 1989 specifically under Security and intelligence and also Defence. Plus in the private sector, Non disclosure contracts.

I do wonder what 'hat' you will be wearing at the meeting. What exactly is the position of 80/20 thinking with Phorm. You say you ar to provide assessment but I fail to see how you are working as anything other than a technically able public relations outfit. Are you retained by Phorm or are you indeed working independently of that body?

It seems that Phorm have dropped the tactic of allowing the disastrous PR firms to comment further on their technology ( and in fairness, they should as the people spinning the usual and standard responses were only hurting the brand ) due to them not being able to engage in proper informed debate with a public who is a little more tech savvy than they might have expected.
If this is the case are you not now simply taking on that PR role with a better informed view but still with the objective of trying to make the technology acceptable to the public?

Some time ago I mailed Phorm to ask them, in the light of their reaffirmed statements of openness and transparency, to ask them for a complete list of their OIX partners so that we can be aware of who exactly will be operating in conjunction with OIX on their network traffic so that we might avoid them if we wished. As yet I've had no reply. Will it be possible to have this information disclosed in full at the meeting?

I'd love to trust you and am usually quite prosaic in such matters but I am at a loss to see, from a business standpoint how you can be trusted to do anything which might harm your client's product if indeed they are your paymasters.

I'm sure there is more but it would be impolite to go on.
Will there be sandwiches at the meeting? ;)

Kindest Regards

Craig.

AlexanderHanff 13-04-2008 16:19

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 
Welcome to the thread Panasonic and a very good first post I should add.

Alexander Hanff

80/20Thinking 13-04-2008 16:20

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

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34527427)

You are no longer one of my idols Simon, you are one of my enemies. This is a conflict, a war to protect our fundamental rights and you have defected to the other side. I am deeply disappointed in you and I am sure I am not the only one.

Alexander Hanff

Alexander. You should know that in life you have to make choices that others don't necessarily approve. I've pioneered almost every privacy issue of modern times, and your generous remarks reflect that. But do I cease exploring new avenues because some people disagree? Sometimes, but by and large I have to use all my powers of instinct and reflection to figure out where to place my scarce energies and resources. All I ask you to do is wait until the final PIA is published before you rush to judgment.

As for what people think about me or my reputation. Well, I remember from 15 years ago being the first serious campaigner against CCTV and much the same was said about me. Same when I started the fight against the ID card or - in the US - when we launched our action against US VISIT.

Hate me all you want, but also remember that it was only two weeks ago that my actions stopped fingerprinting at Heathrow. And tomorrow there'll be an equally important strike in another area. Just because my approach to issues does not always resonate with yours should not lead you to outright condemnation.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.