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

Thanks for pointing out the main flaw in your own arguement. Until this is put before a judge and both sides argued both sides are entitled to their opinions. BT and Phorm that it was legal and many others that it was not. At this point BT and Phorm have not supplied anything to counter the arguments put forward by the others, just stated that they sought legal advice.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

That and the debug logs that will be maintained for a short time to enable analysis of the servers and any problems. They will be looked at by people.

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

If they have any sense, there won't be any such logs in the final version. I seem to recall they did admit to having logs for the trials for debugging. One reason why testing a system on real users is a very bad idea.

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

Hi all

As a long time reader of the forum, I have finally come off the guest list.

Firstly I do not care if Phorm is legal or not. I pay VM for a connection to the internet. each month they send a bill that tells me I pay for Internet access only.

I do not pay for advert supported access
I do not pay for intercepted access
I do not pay for targeted advert access

It is not my fault that VM and others say they can not afford the costs of providing that access, and they need the revenue that adverts provide. Tough you set the costs of the access in the first place.

When I went shopping in Tesco this afternoon to get a pie for tea, I went to the checkout, was told the cost, and handed over the cash. The checkout person did not say, ...errrr sorry the price is too cheap we can not afford to sell you it, please read this page of adverts first.

The above example is exactly what BT, VM and others are doing regarding the Internet connection.

....sorry internet user, please look at targeted adverts first, we know you are interested in pies, please see a range of pie adverts first because we need extra revenue so you can use the internet.

And to cap it all the ISP's will steal our bandwidth that we pay for to profile us, then advertise to us, all in the interest of extra money for them.

I am not against advertising, however our ISP's have lied, possibly cheated and at least one has broken the law, and stolen intellectual property from the websites they profile. all in the intrest of making a little extra money.

What I want from my ISP

Good service
Good connection
Good communication when things go wrong

I do not want my data intercepted, in order to sell more junk.

Oh as for targeted adverts, I do my best to buy on brand products, and keep away from the brands that need to advertise that there product is the best on the market, keep you younger looking.

2 great inventions,
the FF button on a PVR, and adblock Plus.

Oh I would have loved to have been at the demo, unfortunately a 3 hour abdominal operation last Friday prevented me from travelling.

col

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

the suject of PII is a difficult one. Google me and re-read this thread. You can probably figure out what I look like, top two hobbies and my profession.

re notophorm

absolutely.

Lets empower the content creators and give them the ability to set their own price. Reduce to Phorms of this world to providing no economic benfit.

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

They are apparently refering to the Ethibel Investment Register. - which is why I didn't find it earlier. :dozey:


http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir.../Investors.pdf


BT is included in the Ethibel Investment Register.

The Investment Register is used as the basis for Socially Responsible
Investment (SRI) products for a growing number of European banks,
fund managers and institutional investors.


http://www.ethibel.org/subs_e/5_audit/main.html

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

What flaw in my argument ?

Yes, opinions, that's just what they are (on both sides), and until proven to be facts and judged to be so, that's all they ever will be.

D_A

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

Like it - Alex you are the most persuasive advocate we have give it a a go.

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

Targeted advertising or not, Web advertising is pointless

A good piece in new scientist this week.

...Online advertising is growing rapidly in importance, yet the vast majority of internet adverts fail to engage web surfers - 1000 web-advert exposures usually result in about three "click-throughs".....

http://technology.newscientist.com/c...campaigns.html

col

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

And the debug logs? Would that include raw unprocessed data alongside the exception it caused?

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

Welcome to the forum :)
I'm sure you are not alone in that view. However, if phorm is illegal then that can be used to stop it, whatever your motives.
Two of my favourite inventions too :)

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

I agree, opinions. But there are:

Four surveys published which say people don't want Phorm
VERSUS one survey unpublished which says they do

Several statements from key public figures which say that it may be unlawful along with a closely argued paper by an eminent lawyer
VERSUS BT's unpublished l-l-legal advice which they claim they sought (and they have not revealed what it said)

... and so on.

Get me BT's survey and their legal advice and then we can talk. Whatever you say, it's the anti-Phorm lobby who have put their arguments on the table. The problem isn't that it's all opinion - the problem is that the pro-Phorm lobby's arguments have been scant.

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

Only phorm know the answer to that question.

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

Which is also the creationist arguments against evolution.

I am sorry but what are you trying to prove. Covering the same ground over and over again will not change the facts of the whole sorry Phorm saga.

ISP's have lied, stolen (intellectual property) and mislead the users. Why? to get a bit of extra cash.

col

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

Well going back to this post http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post12119.html
You require proof. Not one persons legal opinion vs another. Until BT submit a test case or the Met and CPS decide to prosecute based upon Alex's submission and that wades through the myrad of cases and appeals into the house of lords you will never have proof just two opinions.

At the moment BT / PHorm had only said they sought legal guidance. They have never provided support on this and this may only be on aspects of the law. For example the system probably complies with the Data Protection Act (or could be argued to), thus, they have an opinion from a lawyer saying so. But do they have one for all the laws mentioned in this thread. Did they go to a law firm with the open question of if we do this is this legal or did they go to the firm with does this break the x law?

EDIT - Jeez - I'm not typing fast enough today - I'ts 9.30 shouldn't you all be down the pub?

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

The ultimate flaw in your argument also is that even a judgement by a judge is still only a legal opinion by that particular Judge or set of Judges!

By the way.
The only person I'm afraid of is myself so I'm looking at you, looking at me!




The One thing we don't say often enough is THANK YOU to the Moderators for looking after this Gigantic Thread!

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

@ D_Advocate

So despite your meal & possible nap, you'd rather respond to a later post than this one?

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

Absolutely however to compare the groups that support phorm to creationists is disingenuous. You can establish a solid causal chain of evidence for evolution at the macro and micro level.
Creationists are fanatics - first against the wall when the revolution comes but, then I am a fanatic

You cannot say the same for Phorm's investors, their assessment is they can screw you a bit harder and profit from the general public....

As far as I am concerned phorm goes too far. Lets destroy them on as many levels as possible.


This is not possible without everyone supporting!

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

Yes, Kevin .. I choose who and when I want to reply to them. I don't necessarily do things in the order that you might expect. I think that is my right ?

Some questions can be answered quickly, in which case I will do so. Other questions may involve some research, in which case I will be a little later in responding.

<removed>

D_A

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

As far as I know, the idea is still alive, but we can't do anything until phorm is running.

Your move Kent.

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

assumes the copyright legal position is sound -is it it?

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

The original link is the current day link only. I found this link which may be the permanent link.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

The debate starts at 11:15

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

my point about creationists, is they argue that evolution is a theory, and opinion and can not be proved.

Just like some of the discussion tonight says the same about Phorm.

I have over 20 years experience in IT (technical support in a university) and what Phorm and BT disgusts me.

I have removed far too many rootkits, spywear and viruses from students computers over the years. And now they want to do the spying at the ISP level.

Even worse is the lack of any action by the people who get a big chunk of tax money each month to protect the public from scams like this. Instead they sit on their hands and pass the buck.. Its not our job honest.

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

Just as a good night farewell to the Pro Phorm investors who may be watching this thread. If Phorm are found guilty of being breach of RIPA and CMA the statutory penalties for the 2006 trials would amount to somewhere around:

£36 000 000 000.00 (thats based on the minimum £1000 per offence for 36M violations).

Your investment capital will vanish into nothing if Phorm are found guilty.

Good night :)

Alexander Hanff

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

I've not looked into it in any detail but it seems a pretty straightforward case - at least with certain sites.

Take www.newscientist.com . Some of that content is only available to subscribers (no implied right to use) who are logged in (not using basic authentication so will be phormed). Every page has a copyright notice and there is an explicit licence:
http://www.newscientist.com/info.ns?id=in5
Phorm will be in breach of this licence.

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

Sadly that research also backs Phorm's argument for more "relevant" adverts.

I don't normally block ads as my brain is quite good at filtering them out. Even if I notice an advert for something I am looking for, I tend to ignore it as I'll assume it is probably not going to be the best value - Less relevant adverts are more likely to be of interest to me :)

I do intend to block phorm-verts if customers of non-phorming ISPs are shown them as I've no wish to contribute towards Phorm's income - I've already added some basic host/url blocking code to my extension and hope to create a specific Phorm advert filter. Should filtering out phormverts prove tricky, then I'll seriously consider installing adblock plus and blocking all adverts.

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

I look forward to your detailed reply in due course then.

I'm as impartial as you are...

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

The old link was I think to a "today's page" in Hansard which has new content each day. The link to the "archive" of the debate is
http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

Sorry - didn't realise others had answered likewise as I was ploughing through several pages.

But while I am here... welcome to any guests,
:welcome:
especially first timers new to the Phorm business. If you want some links to get you started on your learning curve, read this post here
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post11849.html

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

Alex - I sent you an email, please check and respond

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

:welcome: notophorm, A very relevant and down to earth point. Why do ISP's think we need more than the basic necessities of service. Speed, reliability, good backup when things go wrong and privacy. None of those Webwise can ever provide.

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

Thanks for the pointer to 6 pages of text. I had already looked at the 6 photos but missed the extra text as that was below the fold.

The comments from BT are most interesting.

"The protest against Phorm's technology, which BT will rebrand 'Webwise', would have no impact on BT's upcoming trial, said Morgan.

"There is a tiny but vocal minority who believe there is an issue here," said Morgan. "It is a very small protest. When we've spoken to customers, they've been interested and see the benefits. We don't get the impression it's a significant shareholder issue.""

And, Stephen Mainwaring's quote sums it all up for me "I have to comply with the Data Protection Act and, when this was going on, I had to assume the worst — that customer data had been compromised."

This next comment is not aimed at Stephen Mainwaring at all - just acknowledging the wisdom of that comment.

Not everyone uses ssh to communicate with their server. Most popular hosting does not offer control panels and database interfaces on https. Where the webmaster does not use https for the contact forms, do you think they will be more security conscious when it comes to looking at the content of the database that form has populated?
'You' may be careful and ensure that your internet connection is DPI free - what about the interception of the connection used by the Admin of the site you are sharing your data with?
We only have Phorm's word that they will not look at anything beyond a login.
It is very frightening to see browser logs showing, in the raw, the login and password for the control panel for each page within the control panel that I view for one of my hosting plans. (I don't want to frighten you, but this is one of the most popular cheap hosting control panels used by millions of site Admins to maintain their sites - and I am in the process of moving sites to more secure hosting - https login - for this very reason.)

[login urls: - do we just write all our URLs to look like logins so that the intercept script will ignore them? - so much easier than non-existent useragents for robots.txt and spending a lot of server resources doing reverse DNS look-ups to send phormed visitors to image only pages so that there is nothing for the profiler to harvest.]

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

Hi, Sam Knows -
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ne...clear-405.html

For some reason I keep thinking about a "Red Telephone" tonight! Some of you may know why!

Goodnight all, Dave.

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

I don't know if she has stopped replying, I only know that I am still waiting for an answer to my last mail which was dated 25th June. It was a rather technical query relating to how the sites put onto the blacklist would be excluded from the trial - "Is it possible for you to make public the process so that it can be given the same expert opinion and/or diagrammatic view as a comparison to that provided for the data stream/redirects followed re the opt in and opt out cookies process" - so it could be that someone is still working on an answer.

Do any squid users here know if there is available some logic along the lines of:
deny to [blacklist]
redirect 301 [dpi system hijack] [original URL request]

The problem is, if the blacklist goes anywhere near the DPI system, it is still an intercept - an intercept to tell you not to intercept. About as useful as intercepting to read an opt-out cookie so that the data stream is not intercepted.

I like to think that it is little technical problems like this that are the cause of the delay to the trial. Maybe Mr Morgan of BT was correct when he said that the protesters where not the cause of the delay. Compared with the technical problems, protests are just a little itch.

Where did I read (a marketing article?) that the whole PR stunt to date [early date] was to make the anti and tech community aware of the DPI process so that they would run out of stream and help to show up the vulnerabilities of the system. After this process, the DPI systems would be robust and free from any future criticism or weakness.

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

Happy days, last time I looked at their financials they had 36 million in cash. they are on the edge, lets push.

Dephormation, you are one of the resident coding geniuses . What is the chance of a apache addin, in some form that will record IP address and allow the owner of content to bill BT?

G' night

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

I can reveal exclusively on this forum who was on the end of the red telephone line. It was the same person who provided the extensive legal advice prior to the trials...


---------- Post added at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

I'd say the chances were quite high. ;)

In fact, better than quite high. More like, designed, coded, tested, ready to deploy.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/serve..._cdr/usage.php

The thing BT haven't yet grasped... there is an eternity of pain ahead when this launches. Endless, unending, utter misery ahead. Without even venturing into the realms of illegal hacking.

I'll spare the details. Pain agony endless suffering and more pain.

That's before anyone makes a DPA section 11 complaint, fraud complaint, computer misuse complaint etc.

Never mind the technical and operational issues of keeping this house of cards running long enough to say "thankyou for phoning the helpdesk - all our operators are busy".

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

Blocking cookies from www .webwise .net is just a 'con' - it just demonstrates a fall-over feature of the script, the same fall-over is used for the 'black box' being too busy: if it does not get a response from www. webwise. net it passes the data stream back to the original url request. However, it has still been intercepted - just passed down a different decision path. No mention of the effect on the forged domain cookies.

You forgot the most effective method - the hosts file!!!!! When that blocks, it is blocked.

Using the hosts file does speed up your surfing for so many reasons - the browser is not having to run its cookie decision routine and the server is not having to make requests to the internet for content that will be rejected by the browser.

For *nix users including Macs the hosts file is in the /etc directory. It is in different places on Windows machines - just search for a file called hosts [note: there is no dot and no extension]

Every host file comes with instructions, basically along these lines. Edit with a text editor (NotePad is ok - not WordPad). Save a backup before you start editing. Add the following:

Check that the saved file has not had .txt added as an extension by the text editor - rename as necessary, it must be hosts or it will not work.

This is the block which prevents any surfing on a phormed connection. The claim is that the final version will not cause surfing to be blocked by this method [that means that the final version will be using a 'trusted' domain for the 307 redirects] so a full technical analysis becomes very important, if this is the case. (Or, will the intercept be running its own 'traceroute' from your computer to detect hosts blocks?)

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

madslug is that list of domains complete with all that has been found so far reference webwise and oix domain names, or are there likely to be more presenting a shifting target for hosts.
Also does anyone know if a wildcard can be used in the hosts file, ie
*.webwise.*
*.oix.*

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

Wildcards do not work in the hosts file (well not on windows at least - not sure about linux)

other domains include
a.webwise.net
b.webwise.net
c.webwise.net

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

There is a mechanism for late trades, corrections and special instructions (such as limit-sell orders) to be introduced to the dealing record. This means the time recorded on the transaction record may not me the time the transaction completed , meaning the price may be above or below the current trading price because of the time lag.

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

Where have BT claimed that? I was still expecting blocking webwise.net to kill all browsing (unless you fake your own phorged cookies).

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

alt3rn1ty, hosts files cannot use wildcards

{Edit, beat me to it - (how come everybody's not in bed?) }

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

For those who are just casual web users try using Tcpview it will show all connections in and out and which programs.

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

The raw data is irrelevant in many respects. If the derivative could not be produced without access to the intercept data then it is intercept, clear and simple. IANAL but I know many good ones,

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

Thanks pseudonym, and warescouse :) , and apologies I should have done this first.... had a search and found the following

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog....s_illegal.html

About half way down appears to be quite a comprehensive list.
@ moderators - forgive if this is repeating anything earlier posted within this thread, I remember seeing it mentioned somewhere a few moons ago but thought it relevant for new visitors who will not have the time to read through 800 pages..... cue someone pointing to where it can easily be found :dunce:.

EDIT: Update, and @Dephormation you may already know all this but thought this blog might be of use to you .. http://pathogenrush.blogspot.com/

And heres my collected domains for hosts file so far:-

127.0.0.1 www.nebuad.com
127.0.0.1 a.faireagle.com
127.0.0.1 b.faireagle.com

127.0.0.1 oix.net
127.0.0.1 oix.com
127.0.0.1 phorm.com
127.0.0.1 webwise.net
127.0.0.1 webwise.com
127.0.0.1 sysip.net
127.0.0.1 qkilbdr.net
127.0.0.1 121media.com
127.0.0.1 openinternetalliance.com
127.0.0.1 openinternetalliance.net
127.0.0.1 youcanoptin.com
127.0.0.1 youcanoptin.net
127.0.0.1 youcanoptout.com
127.0.0.1 youcanoptout.net

127.0.0.1 a.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 b.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 c.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 bt.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 m01.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 m02.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 ns1.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 ns2.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 www.webwise.com
127.0.0.1 webwise.com

127.0.0.1 a.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 b.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 c.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 bt.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 m01.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 m02.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 ns1.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 ns2.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 www.webwise.net
127.0.0.1 webwise.net

127.0.0.1 a.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 b.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 c.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 bt.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 m01.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 m02.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 ns1.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 ns2.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 www.webwise.org
127.0.0.1 webwise.org

127.0.0.1 a.oix.net
127.0.0.1 b.oix.net
127.0.0.1 c.oix.net
127.0.0.1 m01.oix.net
127.0.0.1 m02.oix.net
127.0.0.1 ns1.oix.net
127.0.0.1 ns2.oix.net
127.0.0.1 www.oix.net
127.0.0.1 oix.net

127.0.0.1 a.oix.com
127.0.0.1 b.oix.com
127.0.0.1 c.oix.com
127.0.0.1 m01.oix.com
127.0.0.1 m02.oix.com
127.0.0.1 ns1.oix.com
127.0.0.1 ns2.oix.com
127.0.0.1 www.oix.com
127.0.0.1 oix.com


Time to shut down ReturNil and say nightnight I think.

Edit 2: Forgot to mention the above should ideally be added to the best hosts file imo found so far which is located here...
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

But have a good read first. Its updated occasionally.

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

I cannot tell you how happy this makes. I wiil be contacting all the blogs I frequent.

Alex - this campaign lives or dies on you -stay with us!

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

For those unsure of navigating Windows to locate your HOSTS file:

In Windows XP, an easy way to edit the HOSTS file is to go Start / Run and type into the run field:

An click the Ok button

To create a backup in Notepad go File \ Save As and use the drop down menu at the bottom of the save as dialogue box to select "All Files" and name the file HOSTS.bak - exit Notepad and run the above command to open the original HOSTS again for editing.


More here


:)

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

It's just a way for Kent to try and spin the publics disgust at what he's doing to MP's etc.

I think the perception that people promoting civil liberties are somehow fanatics is quite popular in government.

What these people need to realise is that the campaign to stop Phorm started before Alex got involved and will continue if he chooses to stop being involved (though unlikely).

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

Hmmm, almost a perfect facial match for someone else...



Would they really call their own AI bot?

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

The Wiki definition of a Devil's Advocate is "someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure". :D.

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

When I got involved with this issue I hadn't heard of Alex and I was active for some time before I became aware of his involvment. I don't regard him as a leader or even a spokesman - to me he is an individual who has a contribution to make that compliments the efforts made by all of us and that includes being able to communicate with many people that few of us could ever get close to.

Phorm and BT would like to present Alex as a one man show with a bunch of lesser, weak-minded disciples following in his wake because they can make this all seem like the only opposition to Webwise comes from one source.

No matter what anyone says about Alex he has my support and gratitude for everything that he has done in presenting this issue to a wider and often more influential audience.

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

... but I'm not a moderator - I don't need to be.

A_D

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

Hi Peter N good to see you again (Minky really has to get off the ale though :) )

I concur with Peters view here, my first introduction to Phorm and Webwise was not by any individual, more driven by my own concern and searches after viewing the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgZjeckpUXY

and the plight of Steven M.

I dont believe I have been seduced by anyone individual, and the only people who are producing anything like the truth are anti-phorm. Alex Hanff is by an unfortunate turn of events seemingly at the forefront of a group of people trying to represent the less informed and technically minded, which also unfortunately includes our government.

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

Exactly ... but with some embellishments.

D_A

---------- Post added at 03:44 ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 ----------

It's good to see all the troops rallying around the flag over the last 24 hours. Quite heartwarming.

D_A

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

If something is exact then it is complete and can not be embellished.

Exact (adj)
1. Strictly and completely in accord with fact; not deviating from truth or reality: an exact account; an exact replica; your exact words.
2. Characterized by accurate measurements or inferences with small margins of error; not approximate: an exact figure; an exact science.

:dunce:

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

Something can be exact (and at the time complete) at the time of definition or statement, but that does not prevent said definition from being modified at some future point in time, therefore producing a more exact (and more complete) and more accurate definition.

By virtue of your dictionary reference using the word 'Characterized', it can be presumed you are using an American, or Americanised dictionary. Perhaps you would be better using a UK English source for your look-ups.

:dunce: :dunce:

D_A

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

You can not make something "more exact" - you can only correct a mistake or misunderstanding in a previously accepted belief. Your statement was a ridiculous as the traditional footballer's promise of "giving 110%" - it's nonsense.

Check the Oxford English Dictionary before attempting to correct me on my spelling.

How about posting something of merit - maybe something with actual content and a cogent argument to support you position? It's plain to me that you have nothing to say that will add to these discussions and that your only reason for posting here is not because you are "Pro-Phorm" but because you are "Anti-Anti-Phorm".

If you can't post something useful or relevent to this thread then you should start a new one.

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]
 

I'm a Moderator, and I don't profess to be impartial on any issue other than moderating. My actions in moderating the forum have to be wholly in accord with the Terms of Use, but that doesn't mean that I'm not just as entitled to a personal opinion on Phorm (carefully keeping on topic) as any other poster here. My own personal opinion, based on the information that has been provided by both sides of the argument, is that I don't want to see Phorm (or any other such technology implemented) and I would be quite happy to see it just dissapear.

For those in any doubt as to how to differentiate between my two roles please feel free to read my signature ;)

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

Thank you to all who posted the link to the Lords questions session.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

Whilst it is good to see that the Lords are discussing the issues around the phorm technology thereby raising awareness in the upper realms of government. What is disturbing, however, is the continued lack of understanding.
Good questions are raised around the need to ensure the privacy of the public is protected, that any system that intercepts online communications should be explicit opt-in, that a test case is required in the courts to ascertain interception.
Then the whole debate is overshadowed by references to letters regarding downloading thereby confusing DPI profiling for profit with P2P monitoring for the prevention of illegal downloading.

The government and House of Lords really need to appoint technical and legal experts to fully scrutinise the technology and advise them before any further damage is done. All impending trials need to be officially and publicly stopped, now, and not allowed to happen (BT still insist that the 3rd trial will go ahead despite continued delays) until such experts are called and a test case is put before the courts.

In my opinion, this is what everyone should be pushing for otherwise kent will succeed in the path that he is obviously treading... playing on the fact that our 'leaders' are technically inept (by their own admissions) and baffling them with BS and spin.

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]
 

Parliamentary holidays time to get face to face with your MP I will with mine as he is one of the many that has confused DPI with illegal downloading any suggestions on where I can D/L and print a complete explanatory paper to hand to said MP for him to read with all the relevant sites etc maybe we can get them reading from the same book! Well one always hopes

Bob

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

And the ICO - don't forget the fatuous excuse used by them over their feeble rap on BT's knuckles that the evidence was "technical in nature"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/204711/b...missioner.html
despite BT's assertion that "The Information Commissioner has been kept fully informed about BT Webwise."
(http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/ann.jspa?annID=64)

gnilddif

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

Don't forget to keep writing the letters.

MP's must never get the idea we've forgotten about this cack.

If you haven't written to your MP yet, use this wizard to get started;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/letters/

And don't forget to send a Data Protection Act section 11 notice to your ISP;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Simply print, add envelope, stamp, and a post box. Cook on a gentle heat.

Pete.

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

As well as the problems in addressing the privacy issues, what many seem to be ignoring is the very real threat to the overall security of the internet with the Man in the Middle hardware. This, and the rather bizzare browser redirect process which will in itself break many things, seems to be being totally ignored. Unfortunately it is these technical aspects that the non-technical seem unable to appreciate, those are the key issues which must be stopped. I have already seen myself during the 2007 trials that the current proposed implementation is fundamentally flawed and if implemented network wide will probably mean the internet is unusable. I am not sure how to get these points through to people.

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

I haven't. Seven letters now to BT Retail legal department, and several to ..er..Ummer Sanderson and other BT execs, all copied routinely to my MP, who has sent me replies from Shriti Vadera and John Hutton (BERR) - I'll be enlightening those two with my own reality with BT and phorm such as the untruths that BT have dealt me. And two complaints to ICO about BT, one of which relates to sending PII to phorm.
Sorry that Alex was disappointed with the small (but perfectly phormed) turn out, and I'm sorry that I couldn't make it, but don't forget that there are many who are spending hours pushing away behind the scenes.
I'm very grateful to Alex, Def. Pete and all the others who provide such useful information and action here and elsewhere.
gnilddif

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

Dr Claytons analysis does go into the security risks (to the infrastructure) to some extent, but of course is not all that user friendly. I'm not a techie and I don't understand much of it. Maybe his blog might give you some useful quotes?

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

It is a very good point you make and one that needs to be addressed. Rather than talk about the redirects and the shenanigans that goes on perhaps we should use more often simplified pictures show what is happening.

Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...ie_diagram.png shown even more simplified (if possible) and compared side by side with a standard browser DNS request. The points can then be raised that these shenanigans can break HTTP applications, due to all the redirect requests and the cookie issues.

Compared side by side the original compared to the Phorm'ed connection would show a lot of extra overhead in the latter.

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

European Commission Response

Just wanted to update you with an important letter received from the European Commission which confirms;

They go on to mention that EU citizens have the right to submit a formal complaint to the EC if a member state fails to apply European Community Law.

A complaint form is available on the European Commission web site;

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/yo...s_forms_en.htm.

I'm going to write to my (Labour) MP momentarily to ask, if he considers all avenues with the ICO are exhausted, whether such a complaint is now necessary.

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

Can you just give us enough reference on that letter to enable me to reference it to my (LD) MP - the date sent and from what office etc.)and also any url for the EU correspondence so far? I couldn't see anything obvious on Dephormation.

Many thanks. and well done.

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

Sure, should have included;

It was dated 16/07/2008

Reference details are INFSO/B-2/MP/fd D(2008)930170 A(2008)525835

It came from the European Commission Information Society and Media Directorate-General (Paraskevi Michou, Head of Unit).

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

(Ditto Pete...)

Robert - I think Pete will confirm something like this...:

Brussels
INFSO/B-2/MP/fd D(2008)930170
A(2008)525835

Hank


EDIT: And my copy also "Date stamped" 16.07.2008 too. Same letter. Pen signature, same person.

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

Pete,

please can you explain how the CDR tool you created works?

In particular what data does it capture UID, IP etc

and what level of oversight does it give a website owner? Can it tell you only if your site has been visited by a phormed IP or can it tell you which pages within the website have been visited and number of unique visits by the phormed IP?

I have chased up my MP on Phorm - Kate Hoey. However I think the complaint to the EU has definitely got legs.

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

Pete, do you agree with this?

In the third paragraph of the letter from the EU Commission:

In particular Member States are to ensure the confidentiality of communications and related traffic data through national legislation. They are required to prohibit interception or surveillance of communications and the related traffic data by persons other than the users without the consent. Traffic data may only be processed for certain defined purposes (eg billing) and for a limited period. The subscriber must be informed about such processing. Additional processing requires anonymisation or prior consent of the subscriber or user.

Clearly this means that in the BT trial of the DPI kit/system from Phorm, the lack of BT to inform their customers was wrong, because it was not in the Ts & Cs given by BT beforehand.

Secondly, the internal paper leaked from BT showed "additional processing" was taking place (changing the web page content - the charity advert swap). So because the subscriber or user gave no prior consent, BT was wrong there too.

So, with regard to interception of customer internet data streams in 2006 and 2007:

"The commission will continue to follow this case and take approriate action, should the need arise, to ensure that the relevant EU law is effectively implemented by the UK authorities on this matter"

If the police don't investigate (which I think we have now solidly identifed is the requirement under the RIPA issue) then our next course of action is to use the EC formal complaint process to lodge against our member state's inaction.

Agreed?

Awaiting a response from our police service here. And awaiting a response to the report made by Alex to the police in London... Either of them actually doing something and passing their results to the CPS means we can hold off on the EC bit (as long as it goes into court - ref the points in the letter which state that the government here must have effective laws and must provide the resource to enforce them)

I've thought about progressing the EC complaint route now, but have decided in my case I will wait until I hear from the police (who have received my recorded delivery letter)

Hank
(PS - Thanks for typing/scanning your copy of the letter in!)

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

As can clearly be seen from the diagram, I'm no artist :D, but I did have a stab at a simplified version. I think what's really needed is an animation showing a web page request with and without phorming, however I still suspect a step could be missing in the information provided to Dr. Richard Clayton, so it may need updating.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/pathogenrush/SC...simplified.png

http://lh3.ggpht.com/pathogenrush/SC...00/request.png

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

Okay - MP informed. Thx.

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

Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...2L0058:EN:HTML

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

The question has to be asked if the BT legal bods looked into UK laws or if they considered the provisions as set out in EU law. maybe a swift nnnnotelet to EmEmEmma S may throw some light if she is answering of course .Hopefully the test case will be brought to court an those whom have failed to answer will have to under oath and I wonder if KE will have enough dosh to fuel the Mig.
Bob
thanks to Rob for the pm info

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

That's very helpful, thanks warescouse.
Can someone explain how such shenanigans can break HTTP apps please? And why HTTP is particularly significant. Not just for me, a techno-semi-literate, but it would be useful detail to add in my enlightening letters to John Hutton and Shriti Vadera at BERR and my MP, and I don't wish to misinform, or only partially inform.
Is it possible to put clear links to, or the actual technical information of this nature, on a webpage that is easily accessed? Useful links on this thread easily get lost because it moves fast.
gnilddif

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

I'll release it as open source immediately once the trials start, but until then, I see no reason to give BT a head start... If it were a question of privacy protection of course I'd publish it instantly, without a moments hesitation.

The code produces accurate billing files for each ISP, subdivided according to the level of confidence that a given user was Phormed, and recording as much evidence as possible about IP address/host/UID cookies etc.

Because Copyright damages are civil, the standard of proof is balance of probability. If you have 10,000 hits/month from BT subscribers, and BT announce to advertisers that 75% of users are opted in to Phorm... that's 7,500 billable hits. Invoice them for 5,000 and they can't really object.

Bear in mind too BT are effectively actively attempting to conceal the Phorm UID, and evidence of copyright infringement. That won't do them any favours.

There is a criminal dimension to Copyright infringement, but that's a different topic.

Pete

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Oh rats, ink cartridge exhausted, ammunition depleted. Click, click, reload.

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

I did - hence my correction.

You mean like your post to me ?

Exactly - I thought I'd made that point clear.

I shall give your advice my most earnest consideration Peter - thank you.

D_A

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

Has anyone got an answer to this legal matter. Maybe it's been asked already, but I've not seen it.
As Chief Technical Officer in our family, I configure our systems to allow and deny access to sites, I expect to have the freedom to make my own decisions about any measures I wish to take, and I do not propose to use BT software. If I include certain Webwise/phorm/oix entries in the hosts file such that, because of the nature of the Webwise intercepts, all browsing is killed, as BT have warned might happen, do I have any legal redress against BT, because they are refusing me direct access to w3.directsiteaccessofmychoiceDITcom, something that I assume they are obliged to do as my ISP?
gnilddif

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

One notable issue was discovered by a poster on Badphorm. It was pointed out that because phorm's system redirects the browser to a third party domain (webwise.net), the webwise.net cookie is in fact a third party cookie (see rfc2965).

Now Safari, Internet Explorer and Firefox do not treat such cookies as third party.

Opera however will block (neither send not accept) all cookies after a redirect to a third party domain occurs if the "accept only cookies from the site I visit" option has been enabled by the user. It will continue to block cookies until a user action occurs where the user can verify the domain requested - such as clicking on a link on the page (even if subsequently redirected back to the original URL).

This will result in the genuine website not being sent its cookies after a Phorm redirect, which will cause problems for users of Opera who block third party cookies. As Phorm's system would not be able to set its cookie it would blacklist such users for 30 minutes after each webwise redirect, but this would only serve to make the problem intermittent.


Another potential issue with some websites:-

Phorm will strip its forged cookies from http requests, but where a site also uses https it will receive these forged cookies. While this usually won't cause a problem, it would not be unreasonable for a web developer to expect only cookies set by his site to be present and write his code accordingly, so it is likely that some sites will not function correctly.

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

Dear Kate Hoey,

I have written to you previously on the subject of the company Phorm and behavioral advertising more generally.

With a few notable exceptions (the Earl of Northesk, Don Foster MP) the apathy and inability to act decisively on this matter, demonstrated by the legislative and executive bodies of the UK government, is pathetic.

You will be aware that Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner with competence in this area, has expressed concerns over the failures of UK government to act.

Prior to pursuing a complaint against the UK government at a European level I would appreciate it if you could confirm the following for me.

1. Whether the file of evidence presented to the metropolitan police is under active investigation and the likelihood of a prosecution under RIPA.

2. If the UK government intends to address the failure of the ICO to act as an effective regulator? Information revealed through FOI requests clearly demonstrates that the office of the ICO has neither the technical aptitude nor the intention to be an effective regulator in this area. for the source material please refer to www.dephormation.org.uk

3. What reforms are intended to prevent the bureaucratic pass the parcel that the Police forces, ICO and the Home Office engaged in over this matter from reoccurring?



Yours sincerely,

Stuart

CC

Earl of Northesk
Don Foster MP
Sir John Stanley MP

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

City of London Police not Metropolitan Police. Also CC Baroness Miller.

Alexander Hanff

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

Thanks Alex, will do.

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]
 

Very good question!!
I'll try to reply - I apologise for any sarcasm or apparent ridicule - it is not directed at you, but at the companies responsible for this Phorm/Webwise business.

Two different types of answers needed, (what privacy campaigners maintain is the legal situation - and what BT think is the legal situation) and in respect of two different real-world situations (the trial and then the final rollout of Webwise)

I can tell you what BT have said. I will leave others with better legal understanding to tell you what their interpretation of the relevant laws is (when not looked at through the BT spectacles!)

First - for the trial. Which we are currently informed is a cookie-based trial. May change, but cookie-based is the current info.

BT have certainly told us as account holders that WE must oversee our accounts and WE must oversee the use of Webwise by all users of our network. Somehow. They don't explain to me how I can oversee my adult daughter's use of her laptop and BT sub account on my home wireless network sharing my IP address when she visits from London, but never mind - it is my responsibility to do that according to BT. I'll probably have to beat her up or tie her up or something - (joke!)

So you DO have to do something. BT told you to.
So it would be reasonable for you to want to exercise the control, they are on record as telling you, that you must exercise.

They are also on record as saying that if you want to be permanently opted-out, and don't want to keep getting Webwise invitations coming up on all the browsers of all the machines in use on your network (you had to walk in with a Webwise invitation to mine - play it again Sam - sorry - Humphrey Bogart moment there) - you could/should block the domain webwise.net in terms of cookies on eachmachine if ou can get hold of them - and BT say you must! (I am NOT referring to blocking in a hosts file - They did mention blocking the domain in firewall/hosts earlier but I think they have moved on from that - although not with any great clarity) - so I think the BT answer to someone blocking webwise.net in their hosts file/firewall and suffering broken browsing would be that BT said - don't do it. (although they said DO do it earlier in the year).

Confused yet? They (BT) certainly are.

They have not made it clear how you are supposed to block cookies (and keep them blocked) from webwise.net on the separate machines of adult users of your network, sharing your IP but presumably you have to demand access to their machines and make the necessary changes, and then I suppose check those adult's or children's machines before and after each time they use them to make sure they haven't opted in to Webwise against your wishes by unblocking the cookies and responding to a Webwise invitation.

If anyone DOES opt in, just once, to the Webwise trial, (even a minor) using your home network and IP address, without your knowledge then you are automatically and irrevocably given new T&C's. The action of this other person is interpreted by BT as YOU agreeing to a change in T&C's which implies YOUR consent to Webwise. You have now suffered a material change in your T&C's and BT think that they can enforce that in law.

The current published information is that the Webwise invitation will be presented during a "browsing session" so the person using your network and IP address does not even have to be logged in as a BT ISP user - merely using your network (as far as I can see, reading the BT runes on the subject)

The final rollout - that's simple. We know virtually nothing about the final rollout so it is mostly speculation. I don't think anyone can comment with any degree of confidence about what will or will not be done. I certainly won't.

As you can see, the trial situation, based on questions already asked of BT and information already published is a legal nonsense in terms of shared use of a home network. BT have said nothing more than these two things:

Sorting it is YOUR problem
If anyone signs into Webwise trial on your IP address/network then your T&C's are deemed changed. This has consequences for you. Tough!

They maintain that is all legally quite straightforward.

IMHO they live in cloud cuckoo land.

If you find the above ridiculous and infuriating, then you are in good company!

Hope that was helpful.
If I've got any of this wrong please do correct me.

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

The next Big protest we should try to attend:

Alexander Hanff

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

@Bob
Try looking on, http://www.inphormationdesk.org


I think this one is very good:
http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Phorm_Flyer.pdf

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

And we still havent had any indication by BT as to how all of our British forces personnel Army, Airforce, Navy, frequently away for months on end, are supposed to manage their home accounts on behalf of their families if they are by default opted in whilst on tour of duty.
Edit: Falling under the official secrets act, all of these people may now feel that personal communication with home may be compromised, and what little information they can convey to their family about current circumstance will have to be witheld.
EDIT2: :) Did somebody pass wind?, seems to be a bit of a pregnant pause in responses here.

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

Thanks Robert. I think it's time for another letter to BT Retail's legal chap.
gnilddif

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

I'd suggest "signed for" delivery and enclose an SAE - they never replied to my letter, nor to the follow up.

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

With respect, I think this should go in a separate thread.

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

To be honest I think its at home here - Phorm is part of the bigger picture.

I agree Alex, it will be much easier for a lot of folk to protest in their own Capitals. I will get in contact with the Local Student Unions over once the Colleges/Unis are back in Session, they will be more than interested - and will promote the Anti-Phorm Debate when I start in August.

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

The anti-Phorm campaign is about the abuse of ISP's positions to intercept our private surfing for commercial gain. Whilst not entirely un-related, the debate about the 'surveillance society' and privacy vs security is a separate, though worthwhile, debate, and should not (IMHO) be allowed to dilute this thread.

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

I am not going to argue the point, I didn't post the information to cause an argument, merely because I thought it would be of interest to people following this thread. I will say no more on it if people think it is irrelevant.

Alexander Hanff

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

I agree with John Horb. One practical comment - Thursday's Lord's questions were characterised by some blurring of boundaries between:

• DPI/Behaviourally targeted advertising/Phorm/Webwise (Miller/Northes)
  
• File sharing, music and game copyrights and monitoring/prosecution and release of names and addresses by ISP's/google to copyright holders of said music/games
  
• The government's plans for new "super database".

This whole area is complicated enough for our technophobe legislators, and I'd like to keep the NO DPI/NO PHORM/NO WEBWISE question in clear blue water away from the other two - even though there IS overlap. At the moment it is clarity and understanding that we are looking for - and mixing the different things in this thread won't help. I'm not against the other things - I just don't want to have to constantly try and differentiate them here and in contacts with legislators and opinion formers.

The task once again

Find the UNinphormed
and the DEphormed
and get them INphormed
so that they become REphormed


and once again - hello to any guests. For background reading to give you quick opportunity to learn about Webwise see a few user/newbie friendly links here
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post11849.html

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

I have a tendancy to agree.

I posted here about how the lords and gov't seem to fudge the issues by confusing DPI profiling for profit with P2P monitoring for the prevention of illegal downloading.

Whilst the privacy and surveilance debate is loosely tied and certainly NOT irrelevant, I think there is a need to keep clear boundaries.

Just my opinion.

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

A good point regarding the admin of home accounts, although with respect to the official secrets angle, I'd like to think that the people on the ground in theatre are already diligent enough to not write anything in a blog/e-mail home to loved ones which could compromise operations in any way. (Note: I'm only talking about the professionals who actually carry out the business of our Armed Forces, not those idiots in Whitehall who leave laptops on trains and have lost 140 MOD memory sticks in the last 18 months)

<sarcasm>
Hey, maybe there's a new product category right there for Phorm-

Category:Family of overseas military personnel
Advertising potential: sell to Al Quaida in order to target those families with adverts containing anti-British forces propoganda (a la "Lord Haw-Haw" Radio in WWII)

I wouldn't put it past Kent - after all, business is business...
</sarcasm>

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

i can see a down side to it all if you surf the net and use your first language which is not English, suppose that be one way round the system :)
heres just one example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/welsh/default.stm

now how does it work with the different speaking, reading people of our land?

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

It might afford some degree of protection from intrusion, at least until Phorm decide they're not making enough money out of the English-speakers.
But then, how many Welsh-language sites are there out there? Apart from the beeb and google, do any other major (non-government) organizations produce a Welsh language version of their sites? Amazon? eBay? And doesn't google cymraeg return results in English, which will be profiled anyway?