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

I see hammy has added his comments

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

:confused:
Maybe its my eyesight (or the blocks in my hosts file, or Adblock Plus or blocking 3rd party cookies) but I don't see anything on that page about Ertugrul's sister, that I am aware of. All I see is the headline "Advertisers will see you read this" By John Gapper, a picture of a man at a desk, and one line of text below that.

Is John Gapper Ertugrul's sister?

What should I be seeing?

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

I didn't see it at first either.

Do a page search for 'sister'. It's in a paragraph towards the bottom.

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

FT have a limit to free viewing of articles, especially ones that are hyperlinked externally (the hyperlink has a UUID embedded).

If you clear your cookies and visit this page: http://www.ft.com/comment

It is currently on the front page, and you can also find it from the "commentators" and selecting John Gapper. HTH

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

There is a "copy" of that FT article here:

Copy of FT Article

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

Alex. This should be a win-win situation.

If the CoL perform a thorough investigation (and have a favourable conclusion) then great.

If they don't do that then this gives Viviane Reding's team a bigger stick to hit the government with.

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

Funny how multiple failures by authorities or wide-ranging incompetency can appear indistinguishable to an outsider from a conspiracy or cover-up.

I suspect what is happening is that very few people in government have bothered to look past the spin and whispers of support from old chums but to us it seems like we are being stonewalled by a conspiracy...

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

Thanks, I see it on that site. As per Oblonsky's explanation, I didn't get the article shown to me at all via the ft.com link.
"... FT.com has also talked to Phorm and, to round things off, Mr Ertugrul’s sister is an FT journalist. ..."

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

I suspect that what Alex will tell us about the City of London police is something like this :
They've confirmed they've got it, but have far too many cases of international fraud involving substantial amounts of money being stolen etc to devote any meaningful resources to a case where no-one appears to have lost any money or suffered any real harm.
They are stretched, I had dealings with the Serious Fraud Office about 10 years ago and at that point they could not allocate any personnel to crimes where less than £1m had been purloined. I suspect things have not improved in that time and that your case will be just chucked on a pile and left to gather dust.
Personally i think that is the approach they should take. I know I will be in the minority here !
Far happier for the police who's salaries I pay through my taxes to concentrate on real crime.
Phorm should be left to get on with its business and make sure that whatever it rolls out finally is compliant with whatever laws it thinks it needs to comply with, and with the tacit agreement of the authorities.

---------- Post added at 13:25 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

PS on the Mr Ertugrul's sister thing. This was discussed on another site months ago and I believe it was established that she was a journo, but not at the FT. So rather ungentlemanly to have a pop (however disguised) at her.

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

And as usual, your presumptions/suspicians would be incorrect.

Alexander Hanff

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

This correct?:

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

It was confirmed in an article that has been posted here recently that "Mr Ertugrul’s sister is an FT journalist". This was written by another FT journalist on an FT website so is about as credible as you can get.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

It's correct apart from the fact that the letter has been published in full by The Register.

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

lol

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

I stand corrected. Still not sure what relevance that has to anything though.

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

Taken in conjuction with the fact that the FT has discussed using phorm's services and that the FT reports on phorm's activities, it represents a potential conflict of interests.

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

How dare you try to put a monetary value on civil rights like privacy.

Article 2: Right to Life

What price would you put on my life? Does that mean we shouldn't investigate murders if people of 'insignificant value' are killed?

Article 3: Inhuman treatment

Do you suppose we should ignore inhuman treatment because its not cost effective to prosecute people who commit inhuman acts?

Article 4: Slavery

Self evidently, slaves lives are worthless people. Lets ignore slavery too.

Article 5: Right to Liberty

Perhaps we don't deserve liberty, we can't afford it. Perhaps you should have to buy your liberty. Call it 'liberty tax', pay to stay out of jail. That makes liberty economically viable.

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

A fair trial would be so nice, but its simply unaffordable in Hamsterwheels utopia.

Article 7: Retrospective crimes

Suppose we could criminalise the people who we don't like, then arrest them for past 'offences', and put them in prison. Might save money on public services if they were all in a prison camp?

Article 8: Right to privacy

Either I buy my privacy back from Kent Ertugrul, or I get Phormed. So I wrote my own browser plug in, and switched ISP instead.

Article 9: Freedom of conscience

etc etc

You can't put an economic value on your human rights, and people who take them off you without consent are taking something truly priceless.

BT Directors must be prosecuted.

And Phorm must be stoppped.

Pete.

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

>Taken in conjuction with the fact that the FT has discussed using phorm's services and that the FT reports on phorm's activities, it represents a potential conflict of interests.

He know's that. He just a troll. Ignore him.

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

If this was so palatable to the British Public then why all the Parliamentary lobbying by Media Advertising Agencies they couldn't possibly have a vested interest "could they"?

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

Let's spend the rest of the afternoon arguing with hammy instead of working on the campaign. That's the most productive use of our time, clearly.

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

Dephormation - I have not put any monetary value on privacy.
All I have said is that if our stretched police forces have to decide what resources to devote to investigating crimes including such as a historic privacy infringement and a multi-million pound cheque fraud, I know which one I'd prefer them to concentrate on, and I suspect the majority would agree with me.

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

And again, your suspicians would be wrong (at least in my case). Banks have insurance to deal with fraud, I would rather the Police are protecting our inalienable human rights than protecting corporate financial interests and I am pretty much certain -most- people would agree with me.

Alexander hanff

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

Which majority, more Market Speak, Sorry Guys made my point back on Topic.

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

I'm unexcitedly watching this space :)

Does that mean:

a) The investigation is going to take a long time yet
b) The investigation is nearly complete but they aren't likely to take any further action
c) Something else?

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

And who do you think pays for that insurance and all the losses ?
Ordinary customers like you and me with higher interest rates and bank charges.
Just like all other types of fraud, and people who don't pay their loans back.

And to extend the argument - would you rather Plod devoted their resources to investigating Phorm or to catching a rapist ? With limited resources they should concentrate on the important crimes.

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

I have given the officer in charge until 4pm to re-clarify their position before I publish his initial reaction on the phone earlier today. Given his reaction it would really be prudent of him to get back to me because if I was him I would not want my name on an audio recording saying what he said given the attention this issue has received from the EU Commission. Let's just say his initial reaction was very poor and actually very rude; so he has a chance to redeem himself before I go to press.

Alexander Hanff

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

Well, let's hope he takes up your generous offer of a second chance.

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

Alex - has it crossed your mind that it might be an idea to try and develop a decent relationship with the officer rather than straightaway putting time limits on him to respond ? You do seem to "go off on one" rather quickly.
I'm sure the poor chap is very busy dealing with matters that he probably sees (and is told to see) as more important. Boiler room scams for instance.

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

I have made every attempt to do just that. I have gone out of my way to do exactly as the CoL Police have asked me and provided them with all the information they have requested and I have now given him another opportunity to clarify their position. There is nothing more I can do and I am certainly not going to withhold important information from the public with regards to what the Police are doing with regards the criminal complaint I made on 16th July.

I have also just re-added you to ignore.

Alexander Hanff

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

Thank $deity for that. I hope others will do the same.

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

Not sure why you think that the police have a duty to reply to you Alex ?
Surely once you have provided the "evidence", it is up to them to decide how to proceed with it, and in what timespan ?

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

Phormwatch - have you anything to contribute to the thread other than calling for me to be ignored ? It is getting rather repetitive.

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

Who's being Repetitive?

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

Let's not go round and round. Phorm, Webwise, Adverts I think is the topic.

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

Once again a bad news day for Phorm

Once again this forum is distracted with the same old, same old rubbish.

I do not mind honest debate but frankly this round and round is getting silly.

The topic is Phorm not the agenda of a hamster in his wheel

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

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

Phorm Worked With U.S. ISPs, Too
And it's likely few consumers ever consented or knew...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/P...68?nocomment=1

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

So will that mean them coming under Congressional scrutiny and being asked to answer questions from Congress publicly?
That could be interesting.

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

I think that Phorm has been spending more money on there advertising on Google, Phorm is number one on Google.

I wonder how much money it is costing them to stay at number one on Google?

[Edit]

Spelling :(

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

As I understand it, google don't accept payment for better placing in the actual search results. The sponsored links section on the right is obviously paid for though.

They could have used the services of a third party company to try and get themselves moved up the listing by using various tricks (or they could have done that themselves). alternatively it could be a natural change. One factor that affects ranking on google is links pointing to your website from other 'good' sites. I've seen a couple of news articles recently that had links to pages on the phorm domain.

EDIT:

For some background reading on the topic of search engine rankings I'd recommend this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization

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

True - Google don't offer this service.

Phorm restructured their website a month or so ago. This can sometimes lead to a temporary dip in page rank, which quickly recovers after all the pages on the site have been crawled.

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

Dong!

4:00pm has passed...

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

Put that dong away - this is a public forum.

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

Any news, Alex?

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

Can we not use provocative images please - The topic is Phorm. Anything else will be deleted.

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

Any news yet, Alex?

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

I apologise - (but it was funny and I found it by accident)

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

Bank fraud insurance is a low cost policy what with all the checks and balances in place.
Now people who don't pay their loans back are not neccessarily defrauding the company fraud and an inability to pay or poor credit assessment are two different things.

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

Did you inform the officer that you were recording the call? If you didn't and make the information avaliable you are breaking the RIPA act 2000 there are exceptions to the act but would you really be willing to run the risk especially as the whole basis of your agrument is based on privacy, does he deserve none then?

Of course I could be wrong and you informed him he was being taped and the officer concerned is just very dim.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

I don't think he was and even if he were, how dare you compare people knowing your browsing habits with slavery and murder, a little perspective might be in order imo

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

Actually it is nothing to do with RIPA as RIPA covers interception. the regulations which cover recording phone calls are DPA not RIPA and DPA does not include organisations/companies or public authorities, only individuals. I did my home work on this before recording the call.

Any individual may record a conversation with a company/organisation or public authority without needing to inform them, the other way round though (company, public authority or organisation recording the call, needs consent).

Alexander Hanff

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

Individuals may record private phone calls so long as the phone call is not made available to a third party.

Now, assuming Alex made the notes by hand and kept the recording as evidence in case he should want to check his notes, I'm not sure what the legal position would be, but investigative journalists and even general reporters would have a problem. If I can't say I spoke to X about Y and he said ... then we would have a serious problem!


Check the Ofcom website:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...qs/prvfaq3.htm

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

Just to clarify, the reason you get messages saying calls will recorded for training purposes when you phone various companies is because of DPA not RIPA as when you call a company they always require verification by asking you for personally identifiable data.

As has already been established (there is an article about this on Consumer Action Group's web site) individuals do not need consent to record a call with a company/organisation or public authority. The Information Commissioner's Office recently confirmed this when they told Steven Mainwaring that companies and organisations are not covered by DPA.

Furthermore, I am 99% certain that public authorities are afforded zero protection under either Act as they are public authorities (same reason defamation does not exist for public authorities). If the officer had wished to keep his conversation with me confidential, he should not have had the conversation in the first place as all information given out by public authorities should (iirc) be classed as being in the public domain.

Alexander Hanff

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

The legal position is he/jurnos can't use them, he can legitimately say he was recording for research purposes only, they cannot publish quotes or the gist of the conversation. As I said there are exceptions to this rule, you could agrue it's in the public interest for instance however given the nature of the campaign imo it's morally suspect to put one group of peoples right to privacy above anothers.

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

I have to go to work now but I will update the NoDPI web site tomorrow with the details of the call.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Actually he gave his informed consent for me to quote him. And this is not about "one group of people's right to privacy" the police have no right to privacy they are a public authority and everything they do is open to public inquiry (which is why Freedom of Information Act exists). if it had been a private conversation about something not related to a public matter (such as how his holiday was or how his kids are) that would be afforded a right to privacy, but not something he says as part of his official role as a police officer.

Oh and furthermore, I made it very clear to him during the conversation that the reason for my call was because the press/media and public have been asking for an update on the case, so frankly he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There is a huge difference.

Alexander Hanff

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

:rolleyes: Why not just say that at the start, I put enough question marks in the first post

Not as I stated in terms of your campaign there isn't imo, not that it's relevant anymore, considering he gave his permission

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

You and I have rights guaranteed by the European Conventions on Human Rights.

They aren't covered by an economic threshold, and states are obliged to investigate complaints.

The point you missed was this. Our fluffy rodent friend attempted to argue that privacy does not merit law enforcement, because there will always be more economically significant crimes for the police to investigate.

I disagree. All my human rights are priceless. And the Police are obliged to enforce them.

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

Has anyone queried Virgin media's terms and conditions yet on vm if not i will do just since the virgin media name rebranding in feb of 2007 they slipped this in.

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...ble/terms.html

Section G

# You must give us promptly and accurately all the information which may be needed so that we and Virgin Media Payments can perform our respective obligations under this agreement. You must also tell us immediately if any of your details change.
# By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions.

Anyone here from virgin media who can expalin what the handling of profiling your usage and purchasing preferences relates too.
Specificaly why do virgin media want to know what i buy online and why and who deals with it?, i hope its not phorm because there not part of vm group.

(I think this is on topic and might be slipped in for phorm trials of 2007 feel fee to move it to a sepearte post if this is too offtopic mods - Profiling is such a key word for phorm in everything they try to do).

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

Ignoring Peoples "Right to Privacy" is a form of Slavery & carried to the extreme can even be worse than Slavery!

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

With me been Dyslexic I don't tend to read T&C's I can not stand to listen to my Text Reader for 1.5 hours.

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

Just watched something on Channel 4 news about 19:30, regarding the government is to launch an initiative at the Labour party conference. Think I caught the gist of it, it wants 1 million children who are in poverty to receive a laptop, part of this is to give them broadband access. They have been in talks with Microsoft and BT.

Hmmmmm another reason for the government to bury their heads in the sand?

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

All the more reason for us not to, we don't want the next generation saddled with this..

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

Yeah, that will work. Maybe 1% of them will start up internet businesses.

They couldn't just, you know, like give them tax relief, could they?

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

Spent the day at court and inphormed my barrister she said she will have a look at all the links when she gets back to chambers.

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

Nice.

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

PR team seem to be back at work.

"Privacy drive 'could slow down the internet'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2559...-internet.html
"It is predicted that more and more of us will try to stop our habits being followed, by turning off the "cookies" which remember which internet pages we have visited.
However, experts warn that this could cause delays in how we use many websites."

I think those same 'experts' should be looking at basic web standards. If they and the people who wrote the specs for website designs were more expert in those standards, there would not be so many cookies.

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

slighty off topic but relevant i think

i had a phonecall from business link today asking if i would participate in a survey, on asking for more details they said i was invited to partcipate in the survey as i had clicked a link on a email relating to an article.

i informed them i dislike being tracked in this way, the person seemed bemused by the comment and then just carried on with the script, i repeated i did not like my browsing being tracked , unphased i was asked if i still wanted to continue, i said it was not relevant as i immediately closed the page without reading more than the first line of the article, i got, "thankyou for your time 'click' "

wonder how that went down

peter

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

I'm sure you are right. Nothing surprises me any more.

BT & Microsoft + HMG, what a combination of ... I just find it too depressing.

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

Kate Devlin, from the Torygraph article, doesn't say who these 'experts' are, and I can't see any reason why Phorm should be questioned about this matter over someone more qualified.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------

Shall we ask her?

http://www.journalisted.com/kate-devlin

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

Indeed I was about to add, privacy is more than just having someone looking over your shoulder.

Its about the ability to conduct business in private, such as buying or selling, negotiating.

And its about democracy & freedom of speech too, the ability to discuss opinion and debate in private, without being forced to share that communication with a third party.

Don't underestimate the importance of privacy.

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

WOW - Spied on, blue screens and lost cd's - Inspires me loads to order for my kids

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

Ofcom's consumer advice indicates it is covered by RIPA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...qs/prvfaq3.htm

Here's a quote about Ian Blair's recordings from http://www.out-law.com/page-6730

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...l1g2-l1p1-l2p8


Anyway, I note according to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/about-ripa/ RIPA also covers "access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords" - Presumably one good reason why Phorm will not be profiling sites using HTTP Basic access authentication.

EDIT: Ah, having just glanced though the ACT I see it is only regards compelling the disclosure of Passwords. :(

Yet here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2559...-internet.html a Phorm spokesman is quoted as saying

"There are many things that consumers take for granted that rely on cookies, for example passwords to enter certain sites, or even that when you go to Amazon you don't have to sign in and that the site remembers your address.

"Turning cookies off makes using the internet a more frustrating experience."

So Phorm clearly understand that many password protected sites use cookies rather than http basic authentication - but they're yet to explain how they will avoid profiling such content...

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

I notice we have about 45 guests on-line. Welcome to any new viewers.

If anybody wants a quick FAQ about webwise and Phorm and the dangers of, check out http://www.inphormationdesk.org/welcome.htm for some easy to digest information and some more interesting links.

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

Guests - if you are against Phorm spying on your internet connection, please don't forget to sign the 10 Downing Street Petition here:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ispphorm/

20 signatures to go before we reach 17,000.

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

I know I have

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

tdadyslexia, have you checked this out yet?
http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Theoretically it should solve your problem.

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

Perhaps her attention could be drawn to the Terms and Conditions of the Telegraph Website

Section 4 "Use of the Site" is particularly relevant should a Webwise linked visitor use the Telegraph site. It is very comprehensive and seems to ban just about anything that Webwise would be doing during a visit to that site, as well as defining the intellectual content, controlling the extent of copying, and making it clear that there are a variety of "agents" or means of access in the mind of the author of the paragraphs.

Of course she also needs to remember that according to BT's Ms Sanderson, the Telegraph website Terms and Conditions aren't worth the pixels they are written on as Webwise won't be paying any attention to them - it's "unreasonable" to expect them to do so. Probably because it's too difficult - like it's too difficult to explain to thick people like me, how a small scale technical trial illegally intercepting my data might work.

Sorry - getting in a rant there. Slapped own wrist. Ouch! That's better. I love everyone again.

Website Terms and Conditions are rapidly becoming a hobby of mine.

Edit update

Took my own advice and sent her an email about the things she left out, discussing the site T&C's and also asking about any relationship between Telegraph and OIX. Also included links to the Register article about Phorm and Congress, and the BBC one about EU

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

I'm still here lurking, but post under the same name over on the BT forums.

Every day in every way it keeps getting better, unless you have shares in phorm.:)

Keep up the good work, thanks

Dave

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

This part need querying as well:
---
A spokesman for Phorm, which analyses data sent from internet providers, said:
---

The ISP profiler is only supposed to present the Phorm System with anonymized keyword data for presenting Adverts?

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

OMG what a pile of doo doo!! Perhaps if they only thought a bit about the articles they publish (or perhaps if it was not in their interests to support the advertising industry of course)... perhaps they might say "If the public block cookies and slow down/damage the internet service they receive for specific websites, it might be necessary for those websites to think about re-engineering the way they work, so that people are happy to accept their cookies." I have to say it again (sorry)... pile of doo doo!!

The use of DPI and Phorm certainly has the capacity to disrupt much of the basis of the internet :(

:dunce:

Hank

---------- Post added at 22:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

@ SimonHickling

I can't see ANY reason why Kate would suddenly be interested in this stream of journalism either. None of her previous work seems to link with this field. Yes it smacks of "paid for" - IMHO ONLY - willing to hear from her to the contrary but actions speak louder than words and she should consider a broader piece to cover the real issues in full for a quality paper...

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

Kate seems to be the medical correspondent, strange she should write about Phorm.

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

Hilariously vacuous.

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

Unless of course she is an old friend of Kent's sister. She [Ms Ertugrul] would not want, or may not be able, to write pro Phormy pieces too easily, and it would attract attention to her personally which she might not be willing to do (even for her beloved brother)... So what better than to call in a favour from a friend on another paper?

Of course I could be wildly off the pace and she might just be completely open to payment for a random story or she might just have been writing stories about the web etc for years and finally got one past the editor. Maybe she will surprise us and do a better more researched piece which gets into the paper later? Baroness Miller was originally unaware of the reality behind the PR spin, so we could forgive Kate :D

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

Don't forget, Hugo Drayton, CEO of Phorm was the former managing director of both the Telegraph Group and Advertising.com.

I'm sure he has quite a few connections...

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

I suspect when the muck finally hits the fan (which cannot be too far off IMHO) the connections will possibly self destruct. (Every man for himself ... the calling cry!).

I also detect a little movement in the big anti-phorm flywheel? difficult to start but harder to stop! I firmly believe Phorm UK's days are numbered.

IMHO it is a no win situation for any Phorm webwise ISP's. The only question they (ISP's) should answer to themselves is: how much business and good PR are they prepared to lose?

Surely whatever point any ISP's public rating starts at, there must be only one way it can go with WebWise and I firmly believe that is down down down. Not good at all!

How can any ISP put any positive spin on WebWise if my assumption is correct?

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

did any users begin to compile a list of executives and their teams trail that were directly involved in actioning and installing the trials at the time(s)?

such a list of people and their involvement in it might be very useful in the next set of actions such as a mass of small claims for various activitys these BT employees actioned etc.

it appears many of these BT people are personaly looking at big fines and other serious options surely....depending on the court ordered discovery facts and actions already known,and the sitting judge at the time (if people see fit and chose to make the time to bring these N1 [small claims court form]proceedings)OC.

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

I am recalling how, in the early days, many posters were saying that Webwise would be OK if it could be shown to met all legal requirements. Basically that means that a few 'things' need to be disclosed and managed differently. If those things are changed, then there could be positive spin.

I imagine that there are a few investors / shareholders who are putting a lot of pressure onto the Board of Directors / Senior Management of ALL companies concerned to ensure legality and protection of data, communications and computer systems before any trial is initiated. Will the earlier calls (and welcomed by Phorm) to open up the scripts to independent quality control and verification by qualified independent experts happen before the trial commences?

For new readers, the minimum that needs to be changed from the webwise system that was analysed in May this year:
* opt-in system [verification that minors do not opt-in without adult consent?]
* no forged cookies
* no leaking of cookies to 3rd parties
* no fraudulent 307 redirects
* opt-in system for 2nd party content to be intercepted, as per RIPA requirements
* licence fee system for websites and other content providers [audit trail open to independent verification, and royalty payments including provisions for copyright infringement]
* webwise useragent [making use of a new Allow protocol, not to be confused with the robots.txt Disallow protocol]
* privacy policy which discloses the loss of privacy and confidentiality of communications and provides a layman's explanation of behavioural targeting by 3rd parties, etc per informed consent requirements.
* etc [only the main items listed]

The only 2 items that have been mentioned in press releases are the opt-in and removal of reliance on cookies, with no timescale on when these changes will be implemented.
Updates on the other items are eagerly awaited.

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

I will do next week wen I get some more ink for my printer.

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

I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.

Legal milestone for open source

I think it may have a bearing on the Emma Sanderson "If it's on the internet there is an implied consent to copy" argument.

It relates to the licencing and commercial exploitation of open source software, and material in the public domaiin. It's a US case but that is still significant to Webwise issues in relation to Websites.

I rather like this quote: (my emphasis with bolds)
The ruling has implications for the Creative Commons licence which offers ways for work to go into the public domain and still be protected. These licenses are widely used by academic organisations like MIT for distributing coursework, scientific groups, artists, movie makers and Wikipedia among others.

Creative Commons filed an amicus or friends brief on behalf of Mr Jacobsen. Its general counsel Diane Peters told BBC News "The federal court recognised that even though licensors give up some rights it doesn't mean they have any less rights to access the remedies our law provides.

"This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn't change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy."

It seems to me that my website content may be freely available but if Kent Ertugrul or Emma Sanderson want to make copies of it, make derivative works based on it, and gain commercially from it, they need my active, explicit informed consent. And if I have put a copyright notice on my site, they are bound by it, EVEN IF THE WORK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

They have previously denied this point. Does anyone think this US ruling may dent their confidence?

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

Hmm, I suspect that the original business model Phorm presented to a few ISP's may have a few flaws :D

I still stand by my point about PR. Even if ALL the things you mention (and a few you may have missed) are 'fixed'. If ISP's adopt Phorms's WebWise interception, their standing and PR IMHO wil only go one way and that is down down down. Is it worth that risk?

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

i think it confirms what we have been saying all along, but like everything else with the BT webwise gravytrain will just carry on regardless until there is an almighty crash when it hits the buffers at full speed because no-one at BT checked the track was clear and safe

all they can see is £££££ £Â£Â£ not the real world

peter

el reg have picked it up as well

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...cense_victory/

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

Good spot, and the only right result.

"In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licences set conditions on the use of copyrighted work. When you violate the condition, the licence disappears, meaning you're simply a copyright infringer. "

:drunk:


.

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

just found this on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7559731.stm

it seems someone has worked that one out, shame BT and Phorm have not

also the service requires a opt-in every 45 days

phorm and BT could take a look at this and gets some ideas how things should be done "transparently" with a good "opt-in" and "no cookies"

peter

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

In relation to the recent press and phorm comments about turning off cookies:

Phorm seem to have a very simplistic view of cookie permissions. Yes you can turn cookies off. Yes you can allow all cookies. However, there are many shades of grey between these two extremes. You can set permissions based on 1st/3rd party, session/persistent, expiration time and domain (with either a white list or black list). Every browser I know allows some settings between on and off. There are also add ons for many of them to improve this functionality.

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

The Probable reason Phorm is complaining cookies need to be allowed by the Browser by default (even if the user maintains a White Blacklist etc), or the Phorm system cannot inject its forged cookies into the Browser.

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

well I for one block cookies.

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

seen this yet??

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...o_beacon_sued/

Facebook is being sued for breaking privacy and wire-tapping laws by introducing Facebook Beacon - the ad service which tracked what you did on other websites.

interesting

peter

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

There is a subtle difference in how you block all cookies, some Browsers will allow you to block all cookies by default & then set permission to allow only specific Websites, if a plug-in is used to control cookies the web browser may allow the injected forged cookie in some cases. (Application Coding priorities)

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

I would argue that the opt-in period of 45 days not that good, although the principle of a none continuous opt-in is not a bad principle.

I do think though that Fire Eagle is another erosion of our privacy. Imagine going down the high street and you are suddenly accosted by the insurance salesman who has tracked you down! Or worse still... your secret stalker.

Anyhow slightly off topic I guess..

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

a wee popup asks me yes or no on all cookies.

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

My point was that cookies are a lot more complicated than the on or off suggested by phorm recently.


There argument (if you can even call it that) seems to be:

Cookies have good uses
Therefore people will want to enable all cookies
Therefore they will be tracked
Therefore phorm isn't so bad

There are several serious flaws in their logic.

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

I have received a response to my FoI request for details of BT's legal advice that was disclosed to the ICO.
The request was denied under section 41.
ICO letter to BT 25th April 08 requesting details of legal advice
BT Letter 9th May 08

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

Just recording for posterity/future reference/interest

Searching BT for Webwise used to result in a link which took you to

http://www.bt.com/webwise (which in turn redirected to webwise.bt.com, the Phorm operated server). The redirection is still operational.

But now, searching BT.com for Webwise results in a link which takes you to

http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/index.html (which in turn redirects to webwise.bt.com, the Phorm operated server).

Curious. 302 temporary redirect.

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Update, looks like there's more to that BT linkage than first thought.

This URL

http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail...t-warning2.gif
(www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/images/fraudulent-warning2.gif)

results in a familiar graphic being displayed.

What this firmly suggests is that BT are holding a copy of the webwise.bt.com site on www2.bt.com, yet redirecting visitors to the Phorm owned server for some reason.

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

If I recall, earlier there was some webwise content on BT - back in the days when they hosted a link from the home page and it was within a webwise subdirectory as well as the webwise subdomain. Duplicate content (unlikely) or server domain management. With the external hosting still having the same content over multiple domains it is likely that this has always been their domain hosting method.

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

If you ever have a look at one of the image libraries available you will see there how many allow free use for personal / educational use or non published use and a different licence for commercial use - even having different licences depending on the number of copies to be used. Third party use gets even more complicated. So much so that when I use one of these libraries for web design and can't work out whether the language says I can then sell the derivative design to a client or not, I use the 'free' licence during the design phase and then arrange for the client to obtain the commercial licence and use the images they buy for the final design. The last thing I want is to produce a design and then have a copyright lawyer chasing them for using the images without them being able to show that they obtained a licence.

Copyright law and licences could make some lawyers very rich.
If you are into 'funny pictures' you will know many sites that host images and usually try to cover themselves with something along the lines of requesting people not to submit images if they are not the copyright owner, that images are published in good faith, are covered by copyright, etv. And if someone who owns the copyright sees their image hosted without permission to contact the webmaster so that the material can be removed.
In the real world, once you have seen the image on one site you are likely to see it on many other sites in the not too distant future. (Feel sorry for the celebs and [often drunk] students trying to get their 'unofficial' images removed.)