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

If, as some are suggesting, targeted advertising is 'inevitable' then I would like to offer my own simple solution. Let me manage what ads I see. I'll willingly tell VM what sectors I wish to receive ads from. Supply me with a page on the selfcare pages with a load of tick-boxes that I can enable ads for cars, holidays, insurance etc. Over time, I'll change these as different things become more relevant to me. The big advantage with this is that I, the user, have been engaged, informed, given control and have not had my browsing redirected and my habits profiled.

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

I don't disagree with any of that Alex. Although I think on the provision only area there are not so many doing as well as you might think. ( my wife is a senior finance director with ties to D&T and I see more reports than are made public )

Having said that I have not argued for the ISPs to be able to avoid any regulatory statutes or even be allowed to circumnavigate guidelines.

I'm totally with and behind you in this camp. I just think that some people need to accept that with our ISP ( NTL in the most part on this forum ) they have a huge debt, they are providing a service that is as of yet not a utility and that they can be expected to turn a profit. I'm all for making money, it's my reason for being. I'm all for others making money. I'm just not happy that companies like Phorm want to use me to make money when there are better options for me and the people I have contracts with that don't include a former spyware company that came so late to this market that they have had to jump into the poorer UK market because they are already squeezed out of the US market.

bottom line. Your response implied I thought that it was ok for companies to invade our privacy to make money and I'd like to make it clear that nowhere, in any of my replies, have you seen anything that hints to me believing that.

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------


I'm with you on that. Give me choice to be involved either fully or allow manageable ways to be involved partially but also give me the option to be fully uninvolved if this is my wish. Find a solution that does not mean you break UK law to use my data to achieve these ends then I'll just carry on as I do, seeing no adverts and not worrying that my data is being profiled for profit ( I don't care if it's profiled for security. I really don't and it annoys me that some people do for no other reason than they like the sound of their own complaining )

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

The really big money is waiting to be able to deliver ads to your mobile phone targeted on your location -- tracked either by gps or by mast triangulation!
(I suspect this is why Google are investing heavily in developing and promoting the Android mobile OS -- the worldwide mobile ad market is expected to dwarf even tv advertising in coming years.)

If this gets packaged properly so that it's useful for the user (try searching for pizza on Google Maps, for instance, or train station) and helps the mobile telco to keep prices falling, then that's fine by me.

But selling my number and frequent visited locations to the highest bidder (like Phorm) would be unacceptable and I'd transfer my mobile to avoid it.

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

No of course not, that wasn't the intent of my reply at all, it was a merely a point of reference relevant to the discussion.

The problem the large ISPs have is in their acquisitions. By constantly swallowing the competition in order to try and take more market share and take advantage of economies of scale but failing to invest significantly in their infrastructure, they have been their own worst enemy.

Many ISPs offer BT Wholesale and LLU products at a competing price range and even those who are a little more expensive have very loyal followings. Customer churn is far more common in big name ISPs than it is in the smaller more client orientated ISPs such as Zen and ENTA Resellers. They don't engage in price wars, they sell an honest product at an honest price that people are prepared to pay and as a result they do ok.

The whole sewer system debate which is ongoing at the moment could be a huge step towards bringing this country up to speed with Europe and Scandinavia on broadband delivery and at a comparable price. Also 4G is in the wings and 3G is already looking like a popular alternative to traditional wired broadband especially with new pricing models which have become available in the last couple of months.

Competition breeds innovation so hopefully ISPs and the public have good prospects for the future.

Alexander Hanff

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

Isp's are making a profit belive it or not, and i never said for one moment isp's shouldnt make a profit, if an isp thinks they need a better profit as with many they increase prices yes? not throw some illegal data mining operation with features of Targeted (lol) advertising and bigger lol phising.

If i supplied you a budget for a house and you built the house with inferior materials to do it and between certain hours of the day i'd have to redesign your house by pulling the odd wall down for a period of hours a day or leave you with no bathroom till the end of the month (as in aup but thats another subject) would this be a fair reflection on the price you paid for the house? or could you just stay honest and increase your budget to pay for this instead of mis-selling.

Im off to the retarded paranoia school again for a while to chat to like minded people and leave the more well informed and more educated people to spin how advertising rocks and forget about the real issue.

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

Indeed. There is already a company ( forgive my vagueness, I'll look it up after I type ) who are offering UK students free mobile phones and free minutes in exchange for nothing more than accepting texts from advertisers.
That again is acceptable to me, there is a clear benefit for all parties and there is choice. ( take it or leave it )

I'm with O2 and I get a few texts from them regarding 02Active content that I have no interest in. ( if they had any kind of profiling they would realise that I'm 42 years old and use an XDA exec and might think why on earth I would want ringtone downloads of the latest snoop diggity dong and wallpapers of rough girls younger than my daughter and then discontinue that spam) but to be honest I see less than 3 a month.

Advertising can't be fought, it is the reason we have so much product and choice these days. Regulation is the only way to keep advertisers in line and we have to maintain pressure to see that advertisers stay on side.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------


That's just silly and a poorly aimed personal attack.

If you have financial reports for the ISPs showing the profit then please show me that in the single area of direct service provision NTL are making a profit. I know they are not and it is this company i'm talking of.

And again, you imply that because I accept advertising as inevitable that I also accept that malpractice is acceptable. That again is insulting.

I'm not getting into the house analogy now because it strays too much from the debate and what you have said actually has no relevance to my original comment.

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

Slightly off subject but..

Although I am not a BT lover, in a small defence, years ago BT (When they had a hat of respectability on) were for years prevented into going into the optical cable / TV business by Oftel to actively promote other competition (competition never really came).

During those years BT had wads of money to spend and had they been allowed to go into the cable business, we would all be on a full Optical cable connection now and we could have had a 1st world telecommunications / TV system now.

I blame Maggie T. for that one. We should have let them invest in the infrastructure and then perhaps unbundle, but that would have left less money for the investors. Oftel then was controlled then by the politicians of the day, just like their successor OFCOM, which I agree with you, makes a mess of everything.

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

I agree completely I class OFCOM and OFTEL as one in the same which is why I said the problems in the broadband industry in the UK are primarily regulatory based.

Alexander Hanff

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

Advertising on TV is not targeting to you it is targeted to a demographic that fits the channel, just like current web advertising targets the demographic that visits the site not you personally.

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

Well yes but it is still targeted. and I think that is all I said.
It is a growing market and as more of us use digital TV it will be easier to compile viewing habits to better provide adverts targeted at programme breaks but more specifically at the viewer of those programmes.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/80...ad-break-peak/

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

Indeed... when it is TV on demand they will know you are watching a load of DIY or House Makeover programmes... they will show more relevant ads at your home. Same as this Phorm/Webwise really?

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

Totally agree and if the advertising annoys me I can switch channels to another demographic. With targeted advertising like Phorm (even if it was legal), the demographic adverts would hound me regardless of which channel (or website) I switch to and other users of my PC could get my demographic fit.

So in reality target advertising claims are a bit misleading and to also infer that they are somehow 'better' for you is also misleading?

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

claims that anything, in this case targeted advertising, is better than something else as always reverts to nothing more than a personal opinion unless backed up by a spot of science or at least some acceptable collected data.

It can only be misleading if you, as the recipient of these opinions choose to accept it as fact rather than collect information in that area yourself so as to evaluate as much data as possible and form your own opinion. Which again, is only your opinion but given some diligence on your part it could at least be called an informed opinion.

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

This is true but since I moved to my new ISP I pay less for my BB but have to add the line rental in. This is worth every penny to be free of phorm.

Well to take this the right way NTL did start to make a profit then the bean counters took chare large bonuses were paid to high fat cats and staff laid off where they were needed instead of laying of a fat cat or two,



The students have something for allowing this unlike what is on the table here plus unlike the internet the person is not being searched, profiled etc.

Advertising can be fought when it will be at the expense of freedom to see all advertising. The adverts you would get would be only the ones on their platform these might not be the best deals on the internet and no doubt phorm will block your access to see the best deal if it wasn't in their portfolio.

I block all adverts unless I am actually looking for something then I am willing to look, I do not pay for internet access to be treated like TV and forced to watch adverts to fund my connection. ITV showmore adverts than most channels but to watch the programs on ITV are free.

Will I get free internet to allow them to profile me for adverts?

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

Yeah, you can NOW, but TV will be a data stream like web and it will be to your house and you will be profiled by the programmes watched in your house and your ads will be targeted more specifically to you, not just on the channel. Therefore the channel will not sell the space (or they might... but your provider could inject their adverts instead... sounding familiar?)

Maybe not yet, but it'll come unless (and I think Alexander said this) - unless the Government get their act together now and deal with the privacy issues now and for the future.

Hank

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

The answer to that is no.

As for your comments to my previous remarks I just think you are agreeing with me. Even if you are not I am certainly agreeing with you.

I think I'm in danger of annoying the regulars again just because I try to have a reasonable point of view.

Again, please don't think I welcome Phorm, please don't think I'll accept it and please don't think I am not behind people here. I merely try to have a more factual based discussion on any of the issues raised in this thread than I prefer to just allow people to spout nonsense because they can.

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

I dont annoy easy :) jumping between two challenges on two different forums life could get hectic from here for me.

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

As I dislike all online advertising, whether adverts are targeted or not, I dislike them all and will never respond to them. How relevant they are is actually immaterial to me. That is fact.

Getting back on subject, Phorm, under the guise of 121 Media infected PC's of friends of mine and also PC's of their children with their targeted adverts of the day via their hidden software bombs. It was a nightmare to fix and leads me to say factually, I will never trust them and I will never remain with an ISP who is 'in bed' with them illegally intercepting my data. I will knowingly never have any of their adverts on my PC screen whether targeted or not!

There .... back on track!

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

You've not been to dinner with me where I drink too much wine and when we get home I choose to crash out rather than fulfil those obligations you might have expected ;)
She tells me I can be annoying from time to time ;)

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

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

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

This is yesterday's out-law link. Is that what you are after Florence?
---
Sorry, I can see now it's the same.

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

That's the only one I have seen but it is interesting to see it has been updated and in the author's opinion the covert trials did breach RIPA.

I find it highly contentious that he merely lays this off to one side as an isolated breach though. I don't call 128000 people spread over 2 years isolated. Neither do I expect that if I went out and stole a car or mugged someone it would be ignored as an isolated incident. Or if I was to break into BT's HQ and steal some kit and documents, I doubt that would be ignored as an isolated incident either.

Using his argument is basically putting corporations above the law.


Alexander Hanff

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

I suspect the PR team is also in action on this thread, obfuscating the discussions.

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

sorry Alexander just quoted this by you on ISPr :D

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/show...90&postcount=7

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

Alexander, perhaps you need to break in 128000 times. :p:

Please note I am not inciting you to do this. :dunce:

Interestingly, Kent Ertugrul might say that even 128000 times would only be a handful, quite literally a handful only, of break ins. So between him and the legal experts on that site, I think you'd still be a free man :D

Hank

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

Anyone know how much I can shoplift from Tesco's before it becomes serious?

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

128,001 ?

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

Good grief you lot should get out more, it's Friday night. Oh wait, erm, hang on :dozey:

Anyhoo, all this morose pessimism about how advertising will make the net a worse experience (I have to use that word, sullied as it has recently become, since I can not bring myself to call a communications medium a 'place') is making me all misty eyed and nostalgic for the early nineties, a time frame which contained, amongst other harbingers of allegedly certain net.doom, the year september never ended (1993), the first banner ads (same year) which caused untold controvesy and Canter and Siegel's mass "Green Card" usenet spam (1994). Truly it was the dawn of mass adoption of the web, and of the web based advertising model that we know and love.

(the younger, or more recent netizens, amongst you may need to pause to look some of that up :D )

Wired raved about the "New Economy" (an economy of eyeballs, which is a pretty creepy kind of economy, eyyeew!), and used lots of great sounding phrases like "Paradigm shift". Wired's readers complained to their opticians about eyestrain headaches, and the internet's user communities filled emails, usenet postings, web pages and magazine articles by the thousands with their vocal cries of horror that the net would never be the same again, that it would be awful, would become useless and unusable. That it would be broken :( To them it seemed as though the sky was falling.

I know this, I was there, I was one of those voices, I remember it as though it were yesterday, possibly because I have spent so much of the intervening period in various states of intoxication :erm:

And you know what, the net is still here, the web is bigger, brighter, better, faster and far far more useful than it was.

We were right, the net was never the same (it was stupid of us to think that it would be, change is truly one of the only two really universal constants)

But we were wrong about the sky. ;)

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

I was with you for that period and I was there for much, much earlier in the advent of whet is now the web.
Of course it all changes and mostly it changes for the better if only the user can become educated to look after their browsers.

As for Friday night? My wife works in London Mon-Fri and we live 212 miles away from our London residence so I'm not allowed to go out on a Friday when she gets home to see our boy ( and one would hope, me ), I'm lucky to be allowed on the net after being allowed to make dinner ;)

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

it seems its more him being slippery when wet ;) and he does twist the truth (as we know it..., any updates on the Home Office letters BTW?)to try and take the mick,and misslead the readers...

"
UPDATE, 02/05/2008: Some readers have asked for my opinion on BT's trial of Phorm, a trial that ran without user consent.

Did it breach RIPA? Personally, I think that it probably did.

But I doubt the question will ever come before a court.

The Home Office has already indicated that it does not intend to take action.

I expect that is because it views the trial as an isolated incident.

It would only take action if it believed that Phorm would normally operate without consent.

Some have compared BT's trial to the actions that led to the conviction under RIPA of Demon and Redbus founder Cliff Stanford. I think a court would consider the circumstances quite different, though.

Three readers have also noted that Pinsent Masons is one of the firms on BT's legal panel and asked me to disclose that relationship on this page. The firm is on BT's legal panel though we didn't advise on Phorm. As a large commercial law firm we are on lots of companies' legal panels.
"
its a very interesting response once you read between the lines and , he's clearly trying to underplay the real facts....

he's saying in effect, although a crime took place, it only happened once, so thats ok, the courts wount get the chance to rule on a punishment (even if that were to amount to a mear fine and suspended imprisonment)as no ones willing to bring it to court.....

that theres clear case law ;) in the stanford case, but seeing as its BT and not a smaller firm with lower cashflow, and it involves far more than a single person's data being unlawfully intercepted then its fine...

just like for instance, other BIG business loan practices can slide and be written off,but you better not miss your morgage loan paymant or loose your house being small fry.....

you might get the impression he's under a lot of stress to try and deflect the real facts that the BT executive and involved employees are under real threat of criminal conviction ....

on the averages, as per the stanford RIPA case, its seems to be on the cards for next year or the year after, before we might see the people involved in the dock... perhaps. :angel:

is what your after Florence in this lot
http://www.google.co.uk/search?oe=ut...Search+the+Web

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

Simon,

Before you finish dotting the i's and crossing the t's on your report have you considered speaking to some of the BT whistle blowers that have since surfaced? I'm sure we could put you in touch with one or two of the BT staff that might throw some extra light on this Phormscumbag project.

regards

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

Hello BadPhormula

:welcome: to cableforum the more the merrier on the phorm fighting front..

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

Extended Web Interview on BBC Click???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/7380384.stm

Can someone tell me if that is less edited that the version in the show? Their flash break my browser.

Alexander Hanff

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

Welcome BadPhormula, and a very good suggestion. I'm sure any questions would be answered far more quickly than anything that may be outstanding with the ISP's.

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

Y'know, it's good to see this thread getting its edge again. Some good ol' plain talking is a great way to sharpen the wits for the real battle and that is in persuading our ISP that in this venture it has become a case of choosing sides between their very own paying subscribers and Phorm. Those big dollar easy money signs are clouding their judgement at the moment but I think they'll do the decent thing in the end.

Nice to hear from you again Simon (even if the message about the video is confusing :D) but you must have a wry smile when you read comments like "Simon is a pawn" and "Simon is being used" and "Simon is innocent" (sorry, I made the last one up) I mean, really, please.

Readers, Simon is a big boy; he knows full well what this commission is all about and that this is a money deal, there's no wrestling with conscience that goes with it. It is business. There are no morals in business.

I have a new weblies mantra: you can fool 80% of the people some of the time and you can fool 20% of the people all of the time but I'm Thinking that you can't fool all of the people all of the time :).

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

No Alex, that is not what I remember ( on a quick glance ) to have been in the original BBC click stream. The latter comments seemed new to me. ( yours especially )
I did attempt to grab the original video to put on youtube but I lost the audio for some reason.

edit:/ to be clear, there appears to be more content in your link.

I could be wrong, I've had a beer and will have to review both streams again

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

There's defo a difference Alexander. Like for example, on the BBC Click prog, when you discuss Anti-Phishing, you make the point about it being in IE7 and he says "Which is switched off by default" (19mins in) wheras on the news version there is a bit of a further quip from Kent about that being interesting. Comes over on the news that he's made a good point really but then you did come back with facts about parliamentary discussions.

After the Pony discussion, there's no reference to the handful of people which 12,000 petition signatures represents etc and it's a shame that it misses off the part where the interviewer suggests the temperature in the room was boiling hot :)

Hank

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

Good points if not the best way of addressing things ( I have a great aversion to the use of the word **** in any area )

I think you echo my sentiments that the PIA will have failed to comply with a few of the ICO recommendations regarding how a PIA should be performed and especially with respect to the people who should be spoken to regarding the issues. Specifically part II-2 relating to the stakeholder analysis.

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

Thank you Florence, I'm actually quite vocal over on BadPhorm. Why don't you come over to BadPhorm, we love to kick K*nt around like an old football. :p:

I do enjoy lurking on CF though ;)

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

Suspect you're thinking of Blyk who are just celebrating their 100,000th signup -- they offer 217 free texts and 43 free minutes (to any UK network) every month in return for receiving texts or MMSs for products and services reasonably well targeted at their exclusive 18-24 market.
(A Blyk user has been writing day-by-day accounts of his experience (and listing all the ads) for SMS Text News and it doesn't appear to be anywhere near as bad as I'd expected.)

But I'm thinking more of intelligent(?), 'contextual' targeted mobile advertising: imagine a menu item on your phone called "Nearest to me" which leads to a list of categories (eg. cashpoint, pub, pizza, bus stop, hospital, petrol), select one and not only does your phone give you the name, address and phone number but also a map showing your location, the 'target' location and directions to get there. In time, it could even know what kind of pub you like and which bus you're likely to be catching and offer you it's timetable...

Many businesses would pay a small fortune for those clicks -- not least the nearest florist to the hospital! -- and, I suspect most people would be happy for the assistance rather than feeling like a bucket for ad-fodder.

In my less than humble opinion, *that's* the area of advertising that'll succeed in the future.

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

Where does he get that gem from? The only thing I want turned on by default is Kylie Minogue. lol :D

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

Well I'm sorry you don't like my choice of expressing myself but Phormscum has that kind of effect everytime I think of them. They are total retches and it boils my blood that cheeky K*nt has managed to get as far as he has. However I'm sure the yin/yang will balance itself out when I see him skidding along Heathrow runway in his MiG trying to get off in a hurry, when Phorm finally fails. :)

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

That's an area of advertising that I feel I, and I suspect many people would find useful.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------


hehe, I don't want to censure your opinion and you are welcome to it my friend.

Given the mention of the MIG again can I just point out that in 2001 I went to Russia with Incredible adventures and flew in a MIG -25 Foxbat as part of their 'edge of space' offering.
This was the most fantastic experience of my life and I suspect will only be beaten if I go back as they now offer the experience in a MIG -31 Foxhound.
As an amateur pilot there could be no better thing for me and I have Kent to thank for that experience. He was of course long gone when I took up my option but without his entrepreneurial foresight in that area I'd never have had the chance.

As he has said, he is not the devil. He is however, in this poster's opinion, an idiot. ( IANAP) p=psychiatrist ;)

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

This is a different version. It doen't have all the Phorm fluff at the beginning and it has some of the fight scenes that were omitted from the sanitised TV version.

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

That made me chuckle thanks.

Alexander Hanff

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

This is really good: Charles Arthur grills K*nt http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...s.arthur.phorm

(Found on Badphorm, apologies if I missed it ref'd earlier)

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

Unfortunately it's March 11th. But it does go to show how far things have moved.

Not even Kent would try to swing that now. "RIPA is not designed for advertising".

HMG is reeling in the polls. The Home Secretary is in a marginal seat.

Kick 'em.

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

Yeah I spotted that, somehow it passed me by, must have been doing my day job. Good reminder though of some key stuff - his refusal to see the distinction between Simon D and PI, squirming over his spyware past, the dodgy stock dealings "all these important people wouldn't do anything unlawful" - never heard of Enron then? - and the fact that phorm is virtually a joint development with BT 'over several years'. Cracking stuff!

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

Hi guys, just popping on to have a little rant as Simon is back:

<rant>
Regarding the meeting video, when you let us know that we could bring cameras etc I thought fantastic, I dug out my old cam, hadn't been used in a year and wasn't working. I checked with a few friends, and no luck. Was going to send a message around on the work intranet requesting a camera when I saw Simons message:
"You may have seen that we're filming the whole event for the Web. Unedited."

Cool, I'll not bother then I thought.

Now you say that it wasn't 8020, it was Phorm who were responsible for the filming. I almost smashed my monitor when I saw that. No wonder the delay, there better be not a single cut from either camera when it is released.

I don't care if the audio is slightly out of sync or a bit crackly, I want 100% unedited footage from both cameras.

Everyone who couldn't make it deserves to see this in full unedited as promised.
</rant>

Sorry for popping on just to rant but this made me extremely angry.

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

I am Angry. Actually, I'm fuming. Not only have BT been telling lies, not only have Phorm been telling lies, now 80/20 Thinking have been telling us lies.

From the 80/20 website: And now the truth has come out:

Why did you tell us that you were arranging the recording? Why did you tell us that you would be recording the meeting? Why have you been telling us lies???

Why has Simon not apologised for lying to us? (he has apologised for his absence of late, so he does know how!)

Trust? Sorry Simon, but any trust I had in you has vanished.

What's this, Alexander believing that Phorm will do the right thing? Alexander having faith in Phorm?

Thanks for the update ????? Thank you Simon for telling us you lied? That makes it alright does it?

Does it heck!

Simon, you said that "the entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly". Well, we're still waiting. I couldn't care less who recorded it, or what your excuses are, I'm looking to you to fulfil your promise.

I'll leave the last word to Alexander:

:mad:

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

this made me extremely angry

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...008/05/121.jpg



Carm down serial! We know you're angry but threatening to kill Kent is a step too far dude :hyper:

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

You are joking of course.

Given the paragraph above I think I can save you the effort. I wouldn't bother if I were you. Put down your pen and walk away.

Your first report didn't even reference the Phorm DPA registration. DPA registration is not required if a firm does not process personal information. Phorms DPA registration purpose 2 "Advertising Marketing & Public Relations For Others" states that data subjects are "COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND CLIENTS END USERS" and data classes are "Personal Details, Financial Details, Goods or Services Provided" and recipients may include "Traders in personal data" transfers "Worldwide".

But you didn't refer to that in your first report.

You allowed Kent Ertugrul to claim an endorsement from PI for days without contradiction.

You arranged a PR event for Phorm and told the people attending you would publish the film.

You owe us an apology and an explanation.

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

I trust 80/20 to do a good job on the PIA, and I want to see the finished product. Hang in there Simon.

---------- Post added at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was yesterday at 23:52 ----------

Simon already pointed out in the interim privacy report that a proper PIA was not in fact possible, owing to the late stage at which he was asked to do it. He points out that he will be following a PIA methodology, but for a proper PIA he should have been in there at the beginning, not after the technology had all already been designed and set up. He then gives a list of all the bad things that result from leaving the PIA till late in the process. Most of those bad things have indeed happened including frantic retrophitting of the technology by BT and a massive loss of trust by the public.

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

I'm afraid I don't. Considering we don't have a single example of a consumer being contacted for their opinion on the effects of such a project on their internet experience.

I'd be very surprised if these criteria have been met and that's without me getting started on the responsibility of the people doing the PIA and their qualification for doing so.

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

Disagree.

The behavioural targetting model relies on the passive consent of the publishers.

If I don't want my content scanned by Phorm for keywords (why would I? I get no benefit from my readers being enticed away by keywords derived from my content) then I will act to prevent that.

I think it is possible the Government will eventually prohibit this technology. It might be legal elsewhere, but it certainly shouldn't be legal in this country without the consent of the content copyright owner being respected.

Otherwise its simply theft. It a disincentive to content creation and innovation. And that's not good for an economy.

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

So you admit then that any subsequent PIA is flawed by the nature of the fact it comes too late in the process?
I'd suggest then that the PIA whenever we see it is not worth the paper it is printed on and we as consumers have every right to ignore the findings.
There are strict guidelines for such important documents and if they are not met, either through impossibility or inadequacy then it results in nothing more than a statement of opinion.

---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

I think I'm being misunderstood. I stand by the belief that this is an area of marketing that can and will only grow. I reiterate the belief that it will not happen inside of the currently proposed technology which you go on to describe.

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

It's got more - it has your follow up to the "scaremongering" criticism with details about House of Lords etc. and the petition - a very nice use of the 12,000 statistic.

It has the discussion about Car and Fashion magazine adverts and Kent's claim that ISP's will get cheaper, and your rebuttal of there being no evidence of this.

Well done Alex!

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

.. and I forgot to mention the secret trials in 2006/7.

From your own ethics statement

"Any instance of deception or dishonesty by an 80/20 client during the course of our work will result in the termination of that relationship"

From your own privacy policy

"We strictly limit the processing of your personal information, and work only with other organizations who do the same."

Given you haven't terminated your relationship with Phorm, should we conclude they made you aware of those secret trials before your engagement commenced?

Or are you ignoring your own ethics statements and privacy policies?

If you were aware of those trials, or you ignore your own ethics... what value do you add to this?

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

Yes, that's made very clear in the interim report - page 4.

However, despite our positive findings regarding Phorm’s
approach to privacy protection we are disappointed that the
company has not benefited from an earlier implementation of a
PIA. While we are encouraged that Ernst & Young were engaged
to perform a privacy examination, the full scope and influence of
an “early intervention” PIA has not been possible. At this late stage
of product development it will not be possible to fully exploit the
value of a PIA.

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

The fact that this recording hasn't been posted for the public to see is enough proof that you cannot trust phorm managment to do the right thing.. Suppose they had one chance to gain some respect and they blew it..


:)

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

That is a very dangerous line to take!

Suppose the PIA pulls the rug out from under Kent's feet. You're giving Kent the perfect excuse to ignore it - "If those opposed to Phorm were prepared to ignore the PIA if they didn't agree with it's conclusions they must consider that it carries little weight, they can't have it both ways and now complain if we chose to ignore it".

I suggest we all stop speculating about what it will or will not say and wait until it is published.

---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

Have you any evidence that Phorm engaged in deception or dishonesty during the course of 80/20's work? That they did so during 2006 and 2007 I would suggest is irrelevant to the current relationship.

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

If 80/20 were aware of Phorms trials in 2006/7, their ethics/privacy statements suggest they would not work with Phorm.

If they were not made aware, then their ethics/privacy statements suggest they would terminate their relationship if that were revealed during the course of their engagement.

I can't reconcile the two.

The only satisfactory conclusion that leaves their ethics/privacy statements intact is 80/20 immediately walking away from Phorm. I can't see that happening on the basis of past performance. So I conclude 80/20 ethics/privacy statement isn't worth the pixels its written in.

If they aren't bound by their own ethics/privacy commitments, what value is their PIA?

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

Then we are in full agreement and whilst the information provided in the PIA may offer us, as concerned individuals, further incite into the proposals it will actually offer Phorm no defence of its product.
Should Phorm roll out PR based upon the upcoming PIA we can simply counter such arguments with the fact that the PIA has not complied with the guidelines set out by the ICO because it was never a possibility. That is a comfort to me.

I'm not for a monute saying we should dismiss the PIA out of hand but rather that we have a platform to counter Phorm should they try and use the final PIA and it's content as any kind of affirmation of their product.

I keep reading back what I say and it seems I'm playing devil's advocate which is not my intention. I'm just a concerned individual with possibly a little more than a layman's knowledge but having many years of dealing with areas of business that are considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the HO and MOD and given that I've spent the last 20 years dealing with the official secrets act pertaining to my contracts ( I'm also an ex serving NCO in the British army although that's not too relevant ) I just want to be sure that the things we say are factual and honest given the information we have at hand.

I'm 110% behind anything I believe is wrong and will fight to my own personal detriment. I just want to be sure that others in my team are fighting on the same principle and not just 'scaremongering' because if we allow ourselves to get into a slanging match based upon personal feeling then we will play right into the hands of Kent. I believe 'scaremongering' will be the basis of his defence against us and truth will be our counter.

Regards

Craig.

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

to steal from ferris - this thread moves pretty fast, if you stop and read a post once in a while you'll miss it... so that (and the time) is my excuse for the scattergun approach of this post. (I'm comforted by the fact that it'll be about 5 pages deep in a few hours anyway ;))

- Simon Davies - don't know the man but I believe his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good.

- The PIA - I think that a lot of people have had high hopes for this document and what it would mean for a while now and so it's somewhat uncomfortable to have to entertain the possibility that it may be (by Simon's own admittal) incomplete in the sense that has been noted above. As has also been noted I think this does call into question the value of the PIA. I would welcome input from wiser and more awake people than myself on this but it seems to me that anything which has any sort of wiggle room (apologies for the technical terms here - please try and keep up...) where Phorm are concerned is a potential liability. To try and clarify, lets say the PIA is damning - would anyone be surprised if Phorm made something of the fact that it wasn't a 'full' PIA regardles of who commissioned it and when...

- I'm not convinced by the notion that ISP's are not making enough money and therefore need to consider things like Phorm to top things up. I don't recall being responsible for setting the price at which my ISP sells me my connection - does anyone else? They are, as has been pointed out, in the business of making money - if they are incompetent enough to price themselves into the ground as it were then i fail to see why my personal data should have to bend over to bail them out. If someone offers you a service (whatever it may be) for a certain price - that is what you expect them to do - provide it - for that price. If they can't manage on the amount they're charging then to be entirely facile about it - charge more.

- I miss Bill Hicks on an irregular basis - this is one of those times - there was a passing reference to this quote (http://sennoma.net/main/edits/Hicks.html) about a hundred pages back or something like that. ***Warning - the opinions on that page are expressed using language that some people may consider extremely appropriate - others may be horrified***)

- I don't consider Kent to be the devil / prince of darkness either - he doesn't dress well enough, is not even remotely close to being cunning enough (I mean have you seen the click interview - he is extremely close to chinning Alexander imho - it's clearly getting to him. a lot.) and let's face it - if YOU were some sort of violently powerful demonic being, would THAT be the human form you chose to take? So at best I reckon he's an Imp - iirc they're pretty low down the demonic hierarchy. Right I'm terribly sorry - a decidedly low brow personal attack - I'm off to flagellate myself severely.

I knew I should have just gone to bed... ah well.

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

I'm afraid that we can't change the facts to suit our purpose. That would make us liars. As Kent is fond of having Simon trot out for him
"publish and be damned"
then we too have to accept the facts of the situation and if it works against our cause then so be it, change tack.
To be fair though arguing about the content of a PIA that is not valid will not suit anyone. It's not legally going to change anything so if it does not suit us we can dismiss it and go on. If it does not suit Phorm they can dismiss it. It will have no impact on the legality of the technology.

Remember a PIA is still only an opinion of people who feel they have the ability to make one under the terms of the ICO guidelines. I could make one myself given an invitation and cooperation.

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

As stated by others, yes, it's longer. I would have liked for that to have been the version that went out instead of the short version on the original show. It's important that people do get to hear that there is a petition, that MPs and MEP and Lords are asking, and being asked, questions about this.

Well done, Alexander, you did good, mate. :) (ps. Love the Sontaran look ;))

I find it interesting that Kent insists that his crap should be on by default, yet attacks Microsoft for having the phishing filter in IE7 off by default, thus giving the user the choice of whether to use the technology or not. Guy's a twit!

OB

btw. Another here who is still not 100% convinced by Simon Davies, moreso after tonights revelation. Sorry, Simon.

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

It's also a disgrace that BT sent a parliamentary briefing to all MPs dated 4th April that stated that 80/20 had carried out a PIA when it hadn't even been published. Had 8020 Thinking agreed to this briefing?

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

In an ideal world I would 110% agree with you. Unfortunately not everyone plays by your fine rules. You only have to look at the daily tabloids and the educational offerings.

Its what politics is about sadly and if you don't fight fire with fire, you can walk away with you head held high but with your tail between your defeated legs.

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

can I just selfishly lighten the thread a moment and ask you to look at my latest work.
I take commissions for no monetary gain.

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/4...89214/SPM2.jpg

sorry. I'm back on track now ;)

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

serial, that's not the only lie that BT has spun.

Emma Sanderson told me in an email (full version, with headers available, should anyone wish it):

As you can see, blatant lie! Simon Davies should not be working with anyone who lies like this IMHO.

OB

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

As a veteran of two tours Northern Ireland, two tours Bosnia and having the honour of being in the group that fired the first shots in the ground offence during the liberation of Kuwait you can trust me when I say that if my high moral stance fails I'm able to fight dirtier than them ;)

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

I Agree totally, and sadly my current thoughts on 80/20 are about 40/60, but I am truthfully hoping to be proved wrong as I quite like Simon on his past history and achievements. Sadly also I also felt very similar feelings for Mr T. Blair but he managed to get somehow lost in transit and it changed my viewpoint.

Alex hats off to you, the latest (longer click) video is a much better fly on the wall overall picture. My full respect to you.
As an aside, I knew my own haircut would catch on eventually to become a fashion statement :-)

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

oh pish. Some of us oldies have been sporting that look for years. ( mainly from design rather than choice) ;)
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

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

If anyone wants a copy of the scan of the 4th April BT MP briefing then PM me.

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

Better looking than I!

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

Don't really know of anyone who'd host it for me so I've gone for an upload to a file share storage... hope that's ok...

If anyone hasn't seen this -

It's the original BBC Newsplayer Click presentation Phorm Article complete with Alexander's interview with Kent

ripped to WMV format

http://rapidshare.de/files/39297328/...x9_bb.wmv.html


Have phun!


:D

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

LOL! Very funny! That's a picture of the Brixton Postoffice armed robber that appeared on Crime Watch UK the other week!

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

Aww, you wound me sir. That is a picture of me on Easter day celebrating my achievement of 10000 posts on another forum I am regular at.

You don't want to see the rest of the picture as apart from a strategically placed easter egg I am completely naked. Naked is the site's preference for pictures when celebrating a big round number.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/7380364.stm
Phorm boss talks targeted ads


By Spencer Kelly
Presenter, BBC Click

---------- Post added at 02:34 ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 ----------

need to hit that hard tomorrow people, its not in the top ten as yet...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...s/html/map.stm

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

Marlon Brando had an outstanding, every film he was in was regarded as a masterpiece, up till after Apocalypse Now! when he went into a downward spiral and his track record quickly deteriorated, anyone who's endured "Don Juan" will undoubtedly agree.

The same can be argued regarding Jack Nicolson, up till late hes had a decent career but recently things have begun to wane.

In both cases it seems a paycheque has more importance over personal integrity and the same can now be seen in Simons case.

Whilst im certain that when presented with these jobs none had the benifit of hindsight and im confident that when Phorm aproached 80/20 Thinking no one had any way of knowing how much of a debacle would ensue.

This being said however, before i sign a contract or take a job onboard i spend a significant portion of time researching just what im getting into, it doesnt seem as if 80/20 has done so in this case however.

Personaly i would have penned off as "Alan Smithee" on the interim PIA and subsequent documentation.

I dont proclaim to have any great knowledge or insight into how these contracts came about, im fairly new to PIA's and for all i know there could be just as much lying, lawbreaking and misdirection, this might very well be part of the process for all im aware. I certainly hope not however, because it seems to me that it would be a really nasty business to be in.

At the end of the day however someone had to do the privacy assessment. Lets just hope its worth more than the paper its printed on.

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

80/20 Thinking haven't made it completely clear that it was an interim report...
http://8020thinking.com/news/9.html?task=view

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

Gosh... well spotted Digbert. Many thanks for that. I've just amended the page to make clear that it's an interim report.

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

simon, you should have sorted that simple live webcam feed as requested and we would'nt be having this problem now, but i did warn you didnt i....

a simple and cheap divx realtime yakumo USB video encoder(£70 or less), a copy of VLC and any reasonable video cam pluged into it and the wireless/wired laptop would have been simple and yet effective to do after all.......

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

Kelly needs a better proof reader... "The tracking software SITES on hardware installed at your ISP". Aren't spell checkers great? LOL.

Hank

---------- Post added at 07:20 ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 ----------

Yeah right... does anyone think SImon would have (COULD have) done that? What would his client actually have to say about that? Given that we're still waiting to see the video which Simon's company did promise would shortly be available but which Simon's company did not state was within the control of his client at the time?

I was very much in the camp of supporting 80/20 but the longer this goes on the more I move away from that position.

It is possible that the video was originally within 80/20 Thinking's control (as suggested by their website detail about the event) but the client has since told them what they can do with it - i.e. not release it.

80/20 would then HAVE to declare it was always a Phorm responsibility and apologise for any misunderstanding due to the lack of clarity in their announcement. Phorm would agree to that statement because it works for them. I'm not saying this has definitely happened, but it could be the explanation in my view and unfortunately nobody can prove it one way or another. Apologies to Simon but it is no longer a question of trust as I see it.

Silence from Phorm on the video. No PIA from 80/20 and when it comes we're already seeing the questions about it's validity (fair enough, raised by 80/20 as a concern from the outset).

No trials happening (we trust!) No reply yet to the two new questions the Earl of Northesk has asked. No reply yet from my MP who is waiting for answers from the Dept for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

The only good news seems to be hearing from Kent, which is the best PR ever for any campaign for privacy ;)

Hank

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

:clap:

Please think of the implications of deriding the methodology of the 80/20 PIA and Simon's reputation for independence before posting.

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

Has anyone queried the methodology? Sorry if I missed that somewhere. I think the methodology set out is good.

The issue will be, have they followed it? The PIA will be assessed itself when it finally arrives (and better late than never in my view if that helps get a quality output - one which has followed the methodology a good PIA should follow)

What you maybe are meaning to say ceedee, is don't judge it before we've seen it? The problem is that speculation happens because there is a void until it arrives (not helped by the video fiasco)

Hank

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

Well i now have my BT line reactivated ready should i need to move.

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

No one's deriding the methodology. Its the wish to see that methodology applied by someone with the highest ethical/privacy standards that's causing concern.

Conversely please consider the implications of giving assurances about ethics/privacy policies before ignoring them, or promising open and transparent publication of an important public debate before denying it.

Thats not to say there isn't a ethical conclusion to this that is consistent with ethical/privacy statements... there is.

But there's only one outcome that leaves a shred of credibility. It needs someone with the balls to walk away from Phorm, and bin their cheque.

Yet, if a PIA is to be completed, it would seem a foregone conclusion. :(

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

Deriding (not just querying) and undermining the PIA (and it's authors) before it's published is unhelpful.

Speculation is pointless but understandable.
But just because my mouth is open (a void) it doesn't mean I have to stick my foot in it...
;)

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

I'm happy to accept that I'm critical of Simon Davis.

Simon invites us to trust him on the basis of his reputation (I don't know him, never met him).

To repeat myself a little, its my wish to see a PIA methodology applied by someone with the highest ethical/privacy standards.

If Simon meets his own published ethical/privacy standards, I'm happy. There is but one possible outcome.

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

What are the terms of reference for his PIA? Is it an analysis of the current Phorm system, or these types of systems in general and how they would have to be deployed/changed in order to not contravene privacy laws?

If it's the latter, then this goes along with Simons comments in an interview that indicated there could be a compromise solution. I'd expect the PIA to have a list of recommendations of changes Phorm would have to make in order to comply, Phorm spin then says the PIA puts them in the clear etc....

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

Check out Simon's background.
Drop him a PM if you have any doubts about his previous record.
Email him and ask for a chat (but recognise that he's kind of busy right now and probably won't want to discuss the PIA conclusions until they're published).

I'm confident that you'll find it extremely difficult to find a single candidate that you'd rather have conducting the PIA.

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Have a read of the interim report?

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

I have just watched a few minutes of this, and Alex how on earth could you bear to sit near that creap? k*nt really makes my skin crawl, that smarmy look on his face(man wouldn't I love to slap that look right off his face) he's clearly out of his mind, I cannot believe he is STILL compairing his crappy system to google (off topic, has anyone contacted the head(s) at google to see how they feel about this trash?) he is clearly dis-illusional to what his own 'creation' does and does not do!

Man my hat goes off to you Alex, for if I was sitting there I could not stand all that butting in, interrupting & his frankly lying answers!

My feelings on that "man" (and I DO use that term lightly) will never change, and I really do pitty him if I ever come face-to-face with such a disrespectful (insert choice words).

I hope I have not offended anybody (apart from k8nt) but I cannot stand the creep, simple:td:

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

As the BT Webwise/Phorm trials theoretically approach, (due by May 26th according to latest BT claims) and the likelihood of 10,000 BT customers having their browsing intercepted so that they can be given the invitation to join the trials, the issue of "inphormed choice" becomes rather urgent.

I am pressing BT to give me detailed arguments (and to give ALL their customers open access to such arguments when invited to join Webwise) as to how they think this system is LEGAL. Because the only detailed published opinions on the legality of Webwise so far, suggest it is illegal on multiple counts, BT are failing in their duty of inphorming customers, by not issuing detailed rebuttals of those criticisms of Webwise/Phorm made by FIPR, Richard Clayton, Alex Hanff, et al.

Their earlier claims about consultation with the Home Office have fallen apart with the recent HO notes.
The Ertugrul garbage about Pricacy International audits and his reliance on some irrelevant US auditing firm Ernst & Young (accountants who are no strangers to FTC punishments), don't cut the mustard either.
The ICO have toughened their stance, particularly on opt-IN and informed choice.
The FIPR analysis remains UNanswered by Phorm or BT.

As a BT customer I am still without detailed information from my ISP that tells me this system is legal. It is not enough for BT to simply "reassure" me, because any average rational BT customer who hasn't been asleep for the last twelve months, will take such BT management statements with about a ton of salt, because BT have a clear record of dissembling on the whole subject of Phorm, and have NO grounds for expecting me to trust them.

The government are also dragging their feet in refusing to answer written questions put to them in the House of Lords.

So BT - you say you have done due diligence.

Lots of people I DO trust say this Webwise/Phorm system is illegal.

YOU say it's legal but refuse to give me the details. How do you rebutt Nicholas Bohm from FIPR?
What is your answer to Alex Hanff?

Point by point please?

RIPA?
DPA?
Fraud Act?
PECR?
Civil liability to website owners?

If you won't do this, then you are refusing to inform me properly about Webwise. I can't make an informed choice. So you are breaking the law if you present me with an invitation to join Webwise, without giving me (and 10,000 other customers) a lot more legal infomation than you have currently supplied. It is NOT enough to say "we have carried out - er - um - sought extensive legal advice". The weight of published opinion on this subject is AGAINST Phorm/Webwise. You must redress the balance, if you can, and if you genuinely wish to offer your customers the opportunity to make inphormed consent.

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

Love the language RJ, "Theoretically" - LOL - Indeed!!! :handshake

I agree, I can't make an inphormed choice either - so they have to provide this detail for it to be 'informed'.

:clap:


Agreed - I did not see your derision of the methodology either (even in the quoted post). Ceedee seems to be saying we should not critique some specifics around the current output from Simon but I don't see why these should go unchallenged because this is a public forum and unless the challenge became personal or an invasion of privacy in some way, then I don't think it's wrong in a democracy.

It IS important that we await the PIA before making any final judgements on it, but I don't see the harm in debate or speculation now as long as it is properly read, considered and responded to in a reasoned manner when it does arrive.

Specualtion isn't pointless (IMO only) because in the absence of facts today it sparks debate and conversation about this whole sordid issue, which is why people come here to a forum to take part. Unfortunately for some of us tho, there is painting to be done and I will be shot by you know who if it is not finished today (or at least the ceiling!)

Got an unexpected letter from the Earl of Northesk today, but I'll share later.

Have phun :)

Hank

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

Just been reading the intrim report again and wel the final bit by Simon I can answer in MPO..

Start there with what has hapened recently plus the known history of Kent then this is the first stumbling block.
1. He already has history of maliciously attacking peoples computers putting rootkits on and spying on these people.
2. Seems strange the profesional video is in phorm hands and not released and the only known online copies of a private one gets hacked. ( I read on another forum where it was said that a large company was offering money!) Now I will leave this to be interpreted which ever way you like but it is strange the Videos where attacked to stop them being viewed.
3. The way he has shown contempt and disregard to the truth and had truth spun round to make his system look accepted gives me enough to say no thank you your system may be gret may do al you say but you are its biggest enemy you are who we distrust the most anything with you in the managment is not acceptable period.

The traffic can point to who this person is as the system works on scripts to track and cookies, this script only needs alteration and it will harvest anything they request. The only people with access to this side are the first bunch of people you wouldn't let near any of your details or PC's.
IP address is shown on a lot ot sites you visit now some show the resolve IP addresses which with the way form gathers would be harvested.

Going from the present audit this is another point to say trust is not there.
1. Each country has their own levels of privacy laws which has to be followed to the letter, on recent knowledge phorm and BT have already shown they are willing to flaunt this trust by illegal tests.
Security from working in an educational setting the security of the pupils were supposed to be paramount yet teaches overworked stressed etc could forget to do a few things then used the year before security checks to cover this up.. Known fact by me so what is going to be different for someone like Kent who has shown his disregard for peoples privacy, security in the past. We all kow many cut corners to get where they want he is willing to cut more than I am willing to accept. MPO from news, listening to his recording for the last few days the more I listen the more sure I am there is some other reason he is desperate to get hold of as many British PC's as possible.

I do hope that Simon re-reads his PIA also relistens and re-reads any contact with Kent notes the number of times Kent has either changed his stance failed to deliver what he promised or dropped you in deep dung before signing of the PIA.

I hope and pray that Simon is true to his reputation and re-visits areas of concern re-visits programs like cllick other recordings etc and then thinks about "malicious." Is this were Phorm is heading malicious use of 70% of the UK pcs, some websites take payment for putting trojens on UK pcs get £100 per pc. Ethics come into this Kent has none but his own which do not include public we are just a means to an end for him, ISP managers are his tool to manipulate to his way of thinking and Simon is his pawn he hopes will sway the phorm way.

With all this said I lost faith and trust in VM with their silence for so long so moved to safer place.
I hope for all those left that you are not forced into the devils lair which is the path of Phorm...

The only good thing phorm is supposed to do was most likely copied from some software out there since even the name and logo are almost copies of an older company..
I rest my case the jury is out what is your verdict Phorm guilty as charged with BT or innocent..

:angel:

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

I for one do not doubt Simon and 80/20 thinking's ability to handle the privacy angle.

My concern is that he is essentially auditing a rather intricate software system which is itself a rather complex and specialist task, and I don't see any visibility of who is involved with this task.

There is a need to consider not only what Phorm claim the system to do now, but what a software expert views the system to do now, and what the platform is capable in future (with software upgrade).

These risks then need to be mitigated by strict operational, development, validation and procurement procedures as they are e.g. in any mainstream communications equipment manufacturer.

There is a well-documented chasm in opinion between how executives in software companies view software development and the view of the software developers, designers and architects themselves (just one example in Watts S. Humphrey in Winning with Software: An Executive Strategy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Winning-Soft...dp/0201776391/)

This applies especially to how risks are viewed and mitigated. Whilst executives tend to believe risk (and with it software security) management is just another bolt-on layer that can be organised and paid for (i.e. bought in) as part of planning a programme of works, in reality this risk needs to be mitigated from the start of the project and by training everyone involved in the project, from developer to director, to spot and mitigate these risks.

The cyber security threat is very real, with documented cases:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...e_development/

TS Ameritrade showed last year what such practises can do when it admitted that a backdoor created by an outsourced programmer was to blame for the loss of 6.3 million customers' details

Note also that in allowing Phorm, the Home Office and ICO are implicitly opening up the intra-ISP profiling market to all. A green light, as The Register put it, to anyone who can pursuade an ISP to allow them access. Since big financial rewards are being touted, ISPs may be pursuaded. Don't also forget the many "micro-ISPs" e.g. operating hotspots in Hotel rooms.

My concern is over who will regulate this market, ensuring not only that the profilers do what they say, safeguard privacy and respect user’s choice, but also ensuring the software vendors adhere to the strictest standards and development procedures to minimise the increased security threat.

It was first suggested by Phorm that the ISPs themselves are more than capable and motivated to do this, however, as I have pointed out in numerous blogs, to the BBC, at the Town Hall and to Phorm in person (Radha) that the ISP has for the first time got a financial interest in ensuring the marketability of the data output from the profiler.

The “Cisco” argument put to me by Phorm (an ISP accepts software on trust from Cisco, so why not Phorm) falls over because neither Cisco nor an ISP stand to made direct financial gain based on the marketability of the output of its kit.

I have no direct experience of Cisco but I do of other manufacturers and I know first hand the procedures such companies have in place. Furthermore full source is provided where kit is to be installed in sensitive situations, and these same units are on general sale, to millions of customers worldwide. These customers gain much comfort in knowing these facts.

I simply don't see who is going to regulate this market.

The question of legality is a red herring of sorts. A practice is legal until the courts (or regulators) decide it's not. Furthermore Parliament may still decide to change the law to legalise a practice they see as beneficial (EU commitments duly noted).

Access to the courts is restricted by money or public interest, and at the moment Phorm is generally seen as a good thing for business, even by Don Foster, who wrote in a personal letter to me, "Having met [with Phorm] ... I am convinced that Phorm can provide a useful service with more than adequate security protection for each user."

The argument I am trying to put forward is that there is a public interest in this issue, and in the absence of a capable independent regulator for intra-ISP profiling I personally think RIPA should be enforced strictly because I feel there is a legitimate threat to cyber security once the market is open to all.

James Firth

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

Well I certainly wouldn't pick a fight with an ex NCO!
Seriously though - Phorm have played fast and loose with terms like due diligence, audit, and PIA. There is a long list of false or irrelevant claims that they have made in attempting to validate their system.

They claimed PI had done a PIA, then got very pernickety when it was pointed out that PI and 80/20 were not the same organisation, and had silly arguments about what "hats" Simon Davies was wearing (Charles Arthur interview, Guardian)
They claimed a PIA had been done, when in fact it was an interim privacy report. (Sadly the 80/20 site itself replicated this error on its front page, although not on the inside pages, until only a day or so ago)
Phorm quoted the privacy audit by Ernst & Young in discussions on the UK implementation of Webwise, when Ernst & Young did not look at the technical specifics of how the Webwise system would operate in the UK when/if adopted by the ISP's, and they did not consider the UK/EU legal environment. And they are a US outfit who have been in trouble with the US FTC themselves, so why should be believe a big US accounting firm anyway on issues of integrity?

So, I think we can expect that whatever the final report from 80/20 says, Ertugrul will be quoting selectively from it, and claiming much more for it than he is entitled to. That is simply the way he operates. We must make sure that the relevant journalists know the right questions to ask him, live, on air, and encourage them to give him plenty of exposure.

I think we need to keep our powder dry, read the interim privacy report from 80/20, read the final report when it comes out, remember to refer to those reports accurately, remember the caveats in the original interim report that said a full PIA was actually not possible because of the late start, and then see exactly what is said, and check very very carefully what use is made of the report by Ertugrul and the ISP's.

I think it would be unwise if anyone were to impugn the integrity of 80/20 at this stage, although I would understand that there might be some vigorous private correspondence between campaigners and 80/20 about outstanding issues like the video, the integrity issues around Phorm Inc (I'd like to hear from them about their logo for example - DID they steal it from the Sheffield design company called Phorm?). Kent Ertugrul has landed the ISP's in the manure by the way he has handled his PR, if he was my commercial partner, I'd be furious. I imagine he will happily attempt to exploit 80/20 for his own ends too. Whether he succeeds or not, we will have to wait and see. That 80/20 report needs publishing and very very soon - we don't want a long embarrassing delay like we have had with the Town Hall video.

And once it IS published, of course we need to check whether the system being adopted by the ISP's, is the SAME as that which was being discussed in the 80/20 report - it can't be, because BT at least, are retrophitting it as we speak, in an attempt to make it slightly less illegal (culpable homicide rather than 1st degree murder?).

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

The extended edition (woop I have an extended editition yay! Eat that Brad Pitt) is far better than the limited edit for the actual show. If you look closely you can see the stunt double at one point.

But seriously, nice that they released an edit where at least some of the important points I made were shown.

Alexander Hanff

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

Like hell I am!
All I've done is ask that people consider the implications of wildly (by which I mean, in an exaggerated, unwarranted or unreasonable manner) criticising the report, the methodology or the authors before publication because that will surely be used to denigrate it's conclusions.
(The quoted post suggested that the PIA would be of little or no value and that 80/20's ethics weren't "worth the pixels its written in" (that I presumed to be black humour) hence my description of it as derision.)

If I suggested that it's not a good idea to shoot the messenger or declare that the message has no value before you find out if it's good news, would it make more sense?