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

Florence - Can you provide some links so that we can see for ourselves?

Sambora - Point taken but I'm not sure where a poll about the Webwise option page fits in to a confidential security discussion. Is there any particular info you want to share with us or are you just talking about online discussions in general?

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

The potential income from phorming for BT was estimated to be around £85 million per year, on the original opt-out model. That is only about £20 per opted-in customer per year, less than £2 per month.

Nebuad has real data to assertain its true income and apparently produces more detailed profiling than Phorm currently proposes, including higher value data such as zip codes and IP addresses, but ISPs expect to earn as little as $2.50 per opted-in customer per month ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NebuAd ).

I dare say over the longer term if the furor dies down the income could be increased by expanding the information they collect and offering value added services - quite possibly a phorm search engine (using peoples browsing to index pages instead of bots), maybe even the shopping cart "hijack" service I suggested in an earlier post.

Certainly a lot of people always go for the cheapest deal no matter what and would go with a phorming ISP for a £2 saving per month, but an awful lot already pay a premium ISP for a better quality service. Personally I think my privacy is worth far more than £2 and these ISPs propose to sell-out their customers trust far too cheaply.

If Phorm think the revenue they generate is enough to convince the majority of ISP customers, then why haven't they rolled out webwise as a proxy service without the participation of ISPs - cut out the ISPs and pay the end-users direct?


This is something we will need to challenge, by spreading the word and hopefully the recently introduced Unfair Trading regulations can be used against ISPs if they try to mislead http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra...110811574_en_1

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

I was making a point about it being inappropriate for security issues being discussed in the open. To me that is not "strange".

If I understand Florence's post, the poll was on ISPreview, and some other forum had linked to it.

I assume the quote in her post is from ISPreview.

Agreed some links would clarify.

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

Peter N it was on ISPrevire the Poll was good all thjought it was BT not a third party and none realised it was spying on clicks from the BT inform consent page released in the FOI pack.

here I can't post links to this forums the ADmin has got funny hat on at me posting links to other forums so I do all by PM now. :D

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

What security issues and are they related to Phorm?

It is totally strange for issues relating to lawful internet usage to be discussed by normal internet users behind closed doors so I have no idea what you are trying to say. Such matters are only ever closed-off for a good reason or if they are on a company's own intranet website.

Do you mean that there is a forum that you know of that is discussing Webwise security in general that is not transparent or are you telling us that there is closed forum that you know of that is discussing how to circumvent Phorm's security?

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

Another week about to start and still no sign of the BT Webwise trial.

The Downing St petition is rapidly approach the 16,000 mark. That's amazing considering how long this has been going on and it shows that this issue is not fading from people's minds despite the best efforts of Phorm and the ISPs to wait it out.

Despite the silent-running technique, Phorm is getting more coverage than ever - all of it bad - thanks to the American press. News articles regarding the DPI scandals in America frequently cover the similarities between the likes of NebuAd and Phorm. Typing Phorm into a Google News search tonight recorded over 400 hits from the past few days. This level of coverage makes it even less believable that anyone in authority or working for BT could possibly not be familiar with the issues raised.

What is good about the American coverage is that every article describes the opposition to the system and many mentioned the protest at the AGM. It's pretty sad though that the British press is still refusing to cover the story.

Expect to see Phorm's shares plummet again on their failure to deliver the trials - they may even set a new all-time low. If there are any shareholder hanging around the forum, this might be your last chance to walk away before you lose the whole lot.

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

That's probably because 'most' of the British press are, perhaps, intending to sign up to the OIX but would rather not admit to it.

(With noted exceptions - The Guardian)

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

Maybe, we should all try even harder to educate them about Phorm\WebWise and the issues involved.

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

No it was £84M over 4 years not per year.

Just popping my head in folks, I have been keeping up with the thread. I had an email from someone at the BBC the other day asking me for some info on the next set trials, so it could be we will see more BBC coverage in the near future.

Alexander Hanff

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

Not according to the New York Times.

"Analysts at Investec Securities said the Open Internet Exchange could generate £85 million, or $167 million. in annual revenue for BT alone by 2009."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/te...=1&oref=slogin

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

If you believe Gavin Patterson CEO BT Retail, its all kicking off this week.

He told me at the AGM, trials were a couple of weeks away, and here we are, a couple of weeks later. AGM was 16 July, that would make 30 July the day BT commits suicide.

He also said he would publish the Market Research for shareholders... but I haven't seen any evidence of that materialising either.

Incidentally I did ask him if he authorised trials of Phorm, but I'm afraid his yes or no answer was drowned by the deafening silence of shareholders around me.

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

So... Any one heard anything from their police service or the City of London Police station in Wood Street where Alexander handed in a case file?

I know it's been 10 days and that's not so long I guess:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-6,00.htm

Still waiting here
Hank

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

No sign of any invitation pages at my house, but if there was EVERYONE would know about it here. I would go absolutely ballistic. We're a small but vocal minority they say. Vocal would not be the word!!!

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

back from hols now, to see that the protestations continue, but seem somewhat muted.
BT pressing ahead in search of the massive revenues that Phorm will bring.
The AGM protest apparently attracted a huge turnout.........
The protesters now squabbling amongst themselves.

And the Phorm share price is nicely higher than when I went away.

Smashing ;-)

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

no Hank been looking myself would say that all is still on target more are becoming aware of this and more are noticing the phishing is a smoke screen so it would be interesting to see what happens next. Still holding onto my shares for now if only to make BT AGMs a pain in the rear end for them since they worth nothing now anyway certainly hit bottom fast when phorm moved in.

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

New search engine "Cuil" (www.cuil.com) is apparently NOT going to store private info on your search history. Cuil is pronounced "cool" and is the creation of some ex-Googlers.

I searched for Phorm and got nothing, but this was better:
http://www.cuil.com/search?q=phorm%20121media&sl=long

BBC story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7528503.stm

Hank

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

Nice info Hank would seem google hasd been working in the background for the day if it ever happens I had an email and all gmail emails will go end to end encription soon that will improve that side a lot. Already removed my websites for now will rebuild and add in the anti phorm tweaks that are listed on dephormation to stop phormed people viewing the pages. When I built my first site you had to request to be added for google bot so I will still be allowing that bot.

Just noticed the share prices for phorm
Today's High 860.00
Today's Low 800.00
so still going down at present wonder what magical mystery can be inveneted to try and bolster the prices again must be running out of excuses..

Will read the BBC story now Hank thanks for the link.

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

was on digg and looked at this article on self made webspiders

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/li...der/index.html

I can only hope the below will come around and bite spamphorm on the ass.. bt included.

Jtech

(taken from the site)

Legal issues

There have been lawsuits for data mining on the Internet using Web spiders, and they've not gone well. Farechase, Inc. was recently sued by American Airlines for screen scraping (done in real-time). The lawsuit first claimed that gathering the data violated American Airlines' users' agreement (found under Terms and Conditions). When that wasn't successful, American Airlines claimed a form of trespass, which was successful. Other lawsuits claim that the bandwidth taken by the spiders and scrapers detracts from legitimate users. All are valid claims and make politeness policies all the more important. See the Resources section for more information.

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

What did you think of Gavin Pattersons performance at the AGM? I thought he was a bit bumbling. He didn't seem keen to talk about his role in Phorm or Webwise. And Mr. Livingston was jolly quiet. Sir Mick looked a bit nervous too.

I'm sure I heard Gavin P say to shareholders he would release the market research, but perhaps he forgot. And the trials of Phorm, he told shareholders they were due to start this week.

I wondered if you might have been there? Did you have a good view? Near the front? I did. It was a bit like watching the Muppet show.

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

FR? - more tracking scripts than BT and the national/international banks together. First they sent me an email to point out how all the services are now free. Logging in gives more cookies that a WI summer sale. I was worried just canceling my account because the scripts would be tracking so much information about me before I could delete it all.

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

Of course it is. It is the responsibility of every individual and every corporate body to ensure they act within the law. Ignorance of said laws is no defence but we individuals, just like companies are not assigned our own personal policemen to make sure we obay the laws, it is what freedom and a democratic society is about.

Has anyone else here read Ben Eltons Blind Faith
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...ll-399527.html

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

Sorry to be a bit clearer the advert on TV.

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

I wasn't at the AGM - no shares in BT, no axe to grind, and on holiday anyway !

I prefer to judge a company on the accounts, not on the performances of Directors at an AGM. They're not TV presenters.

AGM for a company that size is just a charade anyway - the large investors get proper one-on-one sessions with the CEO where he answers the real questions.

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

Surely you're not suggesting that BT would be less than transparent or that they would conduct such business in secret?

Witholding relevent information from shareholders is a serious matter and secret discussions with selected shareholders could constitue an criminal offence especially as BT is a listed company.

Can you provide some proof or links to support your allegations?

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

All companies have private meetings with their major shareholders.
Quite normal, not illegal at all.
If there is anything they ought to tell the world, then of course they tell the shareholders too.
They also speak to analysts, and help them in the right direction with their searnings forecast.


Do you guys have to turn EVERYTHING into a major conspiracy theory ???

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

You last posted on the 8th July and Phorm's shares opened that day at 907 but they opened today at 850 which is quite a bit lower.

Are you sure that you are on the right forum? This is a place for grown-ups to talk about a spyware company called Phorm.

I think that you should tell your mummy that you are on the wrong Webwise site - she'll find you the right one at the BBC.

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

Isn't it lucky for all of us, given how complicated an issue that this obviously is, that a discussion of BT's treatment of its shareholders (major or otherwise, the information that may or may not be disclosed to them, and the legalities or otherwise of said disclosure) is completely off topic within this thread - so we won't have to worry about a complicated and lengthy discussion of it ;)

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

Not in the middle of a shareholders' meeting they don't - try and concentrate.

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

There is a useful post over on BT Beta just now, with a helpful analysis of where on BT customer feels we have got to so far. I thought it was worth mentioning here, to keep us focussed, and to break any baiting/troll feeding sessions.

Did anyone else read the profile of Baroness Vadera (DBERR) in the Guardian on Saturday? Mentioned the filesharing discussion but not the Webwise/Phorm issue. Letters?

I've also just received today, the first acknowledgement of my snail mail ICO complaint. So at least it's in the system.

And I've just received (after a reminder) a pdf response from BT Retail Legal Counsel, so if someone can pm me and tell me how to get a pdf copied up to the forum I'll post it. I generally find that copy/paste from PDF is a bit messy. It seems this pdf was made from a graphic file originally so there is no selectable text.

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

Slightly OT. Found whilst reading this news item

Here's a French outfit called Qosmos which has invented the 'ixDPI' and is expanding into the U.S. this year. It says its data could be used to extrapolate a user's demographic profile.

"Technology Overview
Your network is information

The data traveling over IP networks provides a wealth of information ready to be exploited in a great variety of ways. The strength of the Qosmos technology lies in its unrivalled ability to extract all application data contained in IP flows and to make this information relevant to your business needs."

Lovely choice of words...'extract and exploited'!

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

Phorm diagram update:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5396/phormumlnm7.jpg

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

My old Dad (in his 70's) wrote to BT to complain about Phorm.

He got a call from BT in the past few days, anxiously defending Webwise, claiming it was a privacy enhancing technology, and drawing comparisons with Google.

Continuous surveillance is not privacy enhancing. And Phorm is nothing what-so-ever like Google. Mainly because it isn't a search engine.

And BT can't tell the truth.

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

Privacy enhancing, ROFL.

How on earth does having your browsing monitored so that your ISP & Phorm can make money off your usage "enhance your privacy".

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

Irony Alert!

Was the call being monitored for Training Purposes as in "Training the Profiler"!

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

Apologies if this is to any degree considered off-topic.

BT claim that because my content is available on the web, and not http authenticated, and because I haven't expressly asked for my site to be blacklisted, and it is referenced by Google, it's OK to make a copy.

So Google "iplayer Top Gear", get an iplayer downloader, and put the 2 together. It's linked via Google, it doesn't require authentication and the BBC haven't expressly asked me to blacklist their site from my content copier (iplayer downloader). Therefore it must be legal for me to make a copy (potentially even to use that copy for commercial gain).

Now if there was a similar downloader available for deezer.com I guess people would be able to safely ignore the letters BT et al will be sending out and refer them to the er ... leg-er-l advice BT sought.

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

Emma has been repeatedly asked about that very point - we've got no straight answers from here.

Goes to show that it's a significant problem for them if even an experienced PR <ahem>-artist can't come out with any sort of line on the matter - credible or otherwise.

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

It goes to show how low they will stoop with their claims. (Horizontally lying across the floor I guess)

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

have anyone read this
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...try-targets-uk
explains alot i think

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

Ernst & Young audit overlooks Phorm’s violation of its own privacy policy

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/hrobert...rivacy-policy/

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

Fabulous, enlightening and yet somehow not unexpected. :(

Great link - thanks

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

Ah, but he didn't say enhance your privacy... Perhaps Kent plans on spending some of his hoped for ill gotten gains from monitoring our usage on a nice secluded mansion somewhere :D

I'm surprised BT aren't more careful about the claims they make about phorm as they might fall foul of the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

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

One of my favourite Phorm claims.

If it was a replacement for the services that do store data against IP addresses then it may have some value but what we actually get is all the things that Kent tells us are bad PLUS Webwise.

That's like having smallpox and being told that you should be happy because you've also got the flu.

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

You can thank VforVendetta on Badphorm for that. ;)

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Wow. Here is said document:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/dra..._en_2#pt2-l1g5

Looks like we have lots of room to complain, not least of all the recently mentioned violation of Phorm's own privacy policy.

Does anyone know if we need to personally suffer damages in order to file a complaint?

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

Priceless! ;) Of course, you got it the wrong way around...should be "having the flu (all the small-scale tracking that goes on on the internet already) and being told you also have smallpox (Phorm - MUCH more harmful)"

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

BT Retail legal guys say they are aware of that, and of course the Webwise invitation (when it comes....) will be compliant. Maybe they're still working on it.

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

Copyright theft isn't the most valuable thing that Phorm are trying to take.

What they really value is not the copy of the content (they discard that after they've extracted the keywords)... its the marketing intelligence they glean by linking a user to the sites and ecommerce businesses they are interacting with.

That's why the Home Office advice (that you could imply consent of web site operators for interception) is so completely wrong.

Its one thing to make content publicly accessible.

Its quite another to make the transmission of that content to a customer open to interception.

And that's what the Home Office's ridiculous advice document suggests is somehow legal. Sorry to the staff of the Office of Security, Counter Terrorism and Internet Advertising but it is plain stupidity on your part.

In effect it licences mass industrial espionage. The fact that our Government, particularly Shriti Vadera in BERR, are seemingly content to stand by and watch this happen is just staggering (to me).

It means that, perhaps within as little as 2 years or so, a large proportion of your interactions with UK web sites will likely be encrypted. IT consultants like me will be recommending SSL to our clients, because you can't trust UK ISPs not to steal your content and sell marketing intelligence to your competition.

Can you imagine the Post Office doing that? Opening all your letters. Making a note of the content, and selling all that data to the highest bidder? Its obscene.

And when that happens? When its all encrypted? Phorms 'targeted' adverts will be more or less useless, because they can't target on the basis of something they can't decrypt. And the Office of Security, Counter Terrorism and Internet Advertising will face the task of decoding masses of 128bit encoded SSL data in real time.

Genius :doh:

Pete.

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

have BT legal not heard the expression when considering the invitation page

"you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear"

it is used to suggest that some improvement projects of different kinds are doomed to failure.

peter

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

Does that include the Webwise FAQ pages and any other 'additional information' that the invitation page will send / lead people to?

One additional question with the invitation which I have not seen answered anywhere:
what happens to cookies and interception between being offered the webwise invite and selecting the yes or no button? - or are all the BT / Webwise / OIX sites on the blacklist? (after all, no need for double tracking on these sites)

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

Absolutely agree.

Knowing that your local shop sells condoms is not the same as knowing who buys them.

Knowing that the person who buys them has recently been looking for a divorce lawyer is extremely sensitive information.

None of this information is excluded from pofiling by Phorm.

In fact, Phorm's list of non-advertised subjects or profiled does not include legal advice or contact with the police which is about as personal as it gets and should be protected by law.

While I think about it, looking for advice regarding spousal abuse will also be profiled and adverts will be served which could result in some extremely serious consequences.

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

I seem to remember in the distant past in this thread (at least I think it was here) a poster putting forward TOR- Anonymity online as one way of escaping being profiled. I think also it was debunked.

Can someone confirm whether or not TOR would work and if possible an explanation why (if true) it wouldn't.

I am trying to raise awareness on an airline based message board which obviously has many aircrew members- good people to have onside I think. Being IT useless I need some help!

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

Here is the reply I got today from BT Retail Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer) - they gave permission to publish - they are on my BT Openworld webspace.

Page 1 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5bwerh
Page 2 of letter http://tinyurl.com/6lsjgg
Page 3 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5tta4t

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

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ds_https_only/

So, google are to start encrypting their webmail pages from start to finish, eh? Presumably they want to ensure that they are the only ones who are going to be able to profit from profiling the contents of their customers' e-mails.

Didn't someone here predict that the effect Phorm would have would be to drive more and more sites to switch to https? Looks like Google are setting the trend...

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

TOR would work, in so far as your communications cannot be traced back to you. However, at some point, there needs to be what's called an 'exit node', which means that at some point, an unencrypted request to a website needs to be made. If Phorm has its spyware software on the ISP on which this request is made, then it can be intercepted.

However, I don't see how that would be profitable for Phorm or any OIX partner: lots of different requests from many different people will come from the same exit node, therefore the targeted ads will be completely useless.

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

The easiest way to avoid Phorm is simply moving to a Phorm free ISP. Personal recommendations are Aquiss and UKFSN (having discussed Phorm with their owners, I'm certain they will not touch Phorm with a bargepole). Other quality ISPs include the Anti Phorm League.

BadPhorm has got tips for leaving BT & Virgin.

TOR would fox Phorm, but it also exposes you to risks...

If you run a TOR exit node, you would not know who was using your ISP account to surf the net (yet you would be held responsible for their traffic).

And you would not know where your own web traffic was ultimately emerging.

Pete.

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

If you have a Google account, and use iGoogle, you get a search form. I thought this would be a way to do Google encrypted searches (apart from using Scroogle at: https://ssl.scroogle.org/).

However, when I try to enter a search term, the term is dropped, and I'm redirected to normal, vanilla, google.co.uk.

Can someone else please confirm this behaviour?

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

Yep, same here

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

I don't know about this forum but I posted the following on the BT Forum on 12th May.

It is entirely because the internet is so new and growing so quickly that we need our government to draw the lines now before it's too late. The internet is not going to come to a halt because one money-making scheme fails but it is at serious risk if people are afraid to use it.

The alternative - one which I predict will be with us very soon if this goes ahead - will be the encoding all data between users and between users and websites using private keys such that Phorm style systems can not read the data. If Phorm want to read your data or access data transferred from your website, they would have to be granted a key and pay for it if so required. As the data - including the website's content would only be decrypted after it reaches the end-user's computer, it would not be available in any usable format for the ISP and the whole Webwise idea falls to pieces.

Even the use of a simple encryption key on the data would require an illegal act on the part of BT or Phorm (or any other similar system) as unauthorised decryption is prohibited under existing law without a warrant and it is extremely unlikely that any such warrant would ever be issued on the basis of "we want to make a profit". Even the police and security services sometimes get refused such warrants and such intervention has always been taken very seriously in the UK.

If you combine encryption with data compression you have a doubly useful tool given as the volume of data carried could be reduced making better use of bandwidth. Imagine that everything you send or receive travels along the internet as an password protected zip file with a non-commercial use condition applied not to the data itself but to the key. It kills Phorm's argument that information on the web is freely available and makes it immediataley and irrefutably illegal to access the data. Newer PCs with multicore processors will not even see a marked slowdown as the data is transferred - it could still be packeted - and decrypted on the fly at the PC. Older PC's may be slower at the encryption/decryption but this is a short term problem which reduces as PCs are replaced.

Governments have always tried to oppose such an idea as it could be used to prevent monitoring by official bodies such as anti-terrorism or anti-childporn investigators. The US government has often tried to and sometimes succeeded in preventing new encryption techniques from being made available to the public for similar reasons. The public in America are more worried about government monitoring than about commercial datra usage but even they seem to be getting hot under the collar about this issue now that they've been informed that various ISPs have been intercepting their data over the last year or so.

It may be that faced with such a system coming into being purely to avoid ISP level profiling for profit, governments may decide that allowing such action by data carriers is not quite as trivial as they seem to believe it is at present.

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

The Home Office advice does not say that you can imply consent of ALL web site operators for interception. The whole document is about intercepting consenting user data streams with UIDs and scripts hosted on web sites to deliver the adverts. The advert delivery script is downloaded by the user's computer and is not part of the original page intercepted. The implied consent comes in the delivery of the page which enables the ad delivery script to be called.

Nowhere does it say anything about non-RIPA interceptions relating to web sites which are not part of providing the advertising services to consenting users being exempt from RIPA. The document is silent on this other than to confirm that 2(2) and (8) are confirmed as an interception within the meaning of RIPA (viewable by a human or recorded on a proxy where it is technically possible for a person to view the content).

The more I read the HO document, the more I see that the answer related to one very specific question: the interception of the user to enable the advert delivery script to deliver the advert. See para.2

Read para.7 (a closed system - not a DPI provided data stream) and consider the conclusion in para.8

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

Thnaks.

How stupid.

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

If the exit node you are using was on a phormed ISP connection, or if phorm were to run their own exit nodes, then the Phorm Webwise UID would be unique for each person's browser, so each person would be tracked individually.

Providing a Tor exit node, or running a public proxy would be a good way to test phorm - in fact the leaking javascript in Phorm's 2006 tests contained a variable which indicated the ISP that was running the test, and one of the values was "I.PUBLICPROXY".

I guess you could monitor your traffic for webwise.net redirects and Nebuad faireagle.com requests and blacklist exit nodes that exhibit those symptoms, however you'll have no guarantee that the owner of the exit node isn't monitoring your activity - TOR aims to provide anonymity not privacy - Also if you intend to use a proxy such as tor it is wise to delete all your cookies first because a dodgy exit node could use man-in-the-middle type exploits to trick your browser into sending cookies for any site they are interested in so that it can capture them.

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

I read this as meaning ALL web sites

However, it does say downloaded and not intercepted :)

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

So, they are transparent in telling web site owners that they have to block googlebot if they don't want to be phormed. I don't really know who is being blackmailed the most here. Do BT really think that they can tell sites to stop trading with google: are they trying to put google out of business, or is it the sites that rely on their business partnership with the search engine to stay in business that they are trying to stop from trading?

If BT are so transparent about their requirement, where are the newspaper articles or full page adverts circulating around the world to publicize the need to block googlebot?

IF BT are so transparent, why have they failed to reply to emails requesting technical information relating to how blocking googlebot will block the phorm script from intercepting the site?
With googlebot, the webmaster can see googlebot requesting the robots.txt file and the logs will show that googlebot has honoured the robots.txt file by not visiting any pages. What audit trail is left by the phorm script?

Oh dear, Revenue Science and Tacoda use scripts and cookies, hosted on partner sites, which all web savvy people block, so BT can use scripts which don't require any partner sites and which no one can block. That is good logic

And the UID is safe because there won't be a coordinated market for harvesting the data. Oh, the innocence.

Can anybody find a s.28A in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act? The only reference I can find is as follows, and relates to an amendment to the Patents Act 1977 where section 28 relates to the restoration of lapsed patents.
and I see nothing in any of that text that nullifies infringement nor decreases the rights of the patent owner.

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

• TECHNOLOGY. Ricchetti Incorporated is lobbying for Phorm on online privacy issues. Steve Ricchetti, former deputy chief of staff under the Clinton administration, and Luke Albee, former chief of staff to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), will be lobbying for Phorm.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/b...008-07-28.html

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

Totally agree with your post Peter, the problem as I see it is that we currently have decisions being made by powers that be who seem to have the technical know-how to only plan as far ahead as the next move on a chessboard. The end of their nose seems to be as far as they can see.

I suspect a lot of them may also have been Phormwashed by Kent. A subtle 'Phorm' of Hypnotism.

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

Read the question above para.3 - it is about targeted online advertising services. It is not about general browsing that is not partnered with delivering targeted advertising services. (Sorry about the double negative.)

Keep reading. English is a wonderful language and each word has a unique meaning, with the context within a sentence, paragraph or section helping to confirm that unique meaning. Take an English word out of context and it can mean whatever you like.

Even para.9 talks of filtering and deleting. It does not talk about filtering, making a record and then deleting. The filtering and deleting could reference the anti-phishing warning or the detection of the advertising partner - most probably, as it then analyses whether or not the script delivering the script is an interception, and decides that it is not, in para.11. (Displays a lack of understanding of DPI, but ignore that as DPI is not under discussion here, although interception by proxy is considered in para.10 for delivery of web page and targeted advertising content.)

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

At the risk of repeating myself (I've asked this before but it's still relevent and still unanswered)

If ISPs want to profile their customers' data and they are so sure that customers are happy to allow this in return for targetted adverts, why not release Webwise as a browser add-on and allow people to download it.

All of the profiling would be done on the user's PC saving BT and Phorm the cost of installing and maintaining dedicated equipment. There would be no need to fake cookies as the application would send the profile data when they open the webpage and there would be no need for an extra copies to be made of the data so all information would remain entirely on the customer's PC. Add to that the fact that Phorm already have such software ready made from their previous spyware toolbar add-ons and you have to wonder what is going on.

This is a cheaper, safer and more effective solution than Phorm's DPI based one so you have to ask the simple question:-

Why are the ISPs so fired up about using DPI to get information that can be obtained much more cost effectively and with no legal problems through existing methods?

Could it be because the system I suggest can only be used to deliver adverts and can't be subverted into other uses such as surveillance or personal profiling?

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

Section 17 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
I like 2 & 6 especially.

I agree with others who have said that the copyright aspect is only one small aspect of what Phorm wish to do, however, I have my suspicions about how they intend to claim that what they do is legal (interception-wise).

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

You are forgetting that what a user downloads will be copied from their browser cache and used for commercial purposes without the permission of the copyright owner. This makes the person downloading the content liable for infringement, jointly liable with the person supplying the method of making the copy. Do you think anyone will be happy when the web site owner contacts their ISP with a letter demanding payment for copyright infringement? - with music and videos they are complaining enough about warning letters.

There are already many much easier solutions. Sites where you can register your interests and be rewarded with seeing adverts for related products, including discount codes so that you can even save some money in exchange with sharing your interests. No browsing is intercepted, and you don't have to even visit related sites to be shown the ads you are interested in. Everything is coded and scripted on just one site.

Look at how popular the existing discount code sites are and they don't even ask for any information about your interests.

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

Yes I thought that Phorms (121Media) PeopleOnPage browser add-on did basically the same thing when linked with their contextPlus Engine. (Nasty Spyware though (can you see much difference?) )

I think the post Rob Jones referenced this evening on BT beta Here #12828 definitely throws up some very interesting points that are very much in-line with some of my thoughts (and perhaps yours) and excellently put across in the comment referenced.

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

I'm not forgetting it.

I'm just pointing out that everything that Webwise can do can already be done using far cheaper and far less dangerous methods and thereby raising the basic question of why is this system necessary and why are the ISPs willing to spend money and alienate their customers to bring it in.

The copyright issues are not directly to the reasons why the ISP are so focused on the use of DPI which is what I was dealing with.

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

Webwise DPI at ISP level = 100% coverage. That is a lot of data that can be sold again and again, not to mention analysed in many different ways.

Nowhere has the opt out ever been an opt out of the DPI route. It has only ever been an opt out of the phorm/webwise/oix controlled advert system.

DPI is not the rouge here. Using DPI for the interception of all the data packets is the problem. It is the fine tuning of the demographics that earns the money.

Isn't it interesting that the few independent and financially secure ISPs in UK are not even thinking about using DPI for anything other than traffic monitoring and service enhancement for all their users. They don't need to collect any user data to sell on to 3rd parties because they use any data collected to improve the service they offer the customers and earn additional revenue by providing a premium service.
Because the non-phorming ISPs offer value for money, they don't have to tie their customers into anything more than 1 month contracts, they don't have to spend a fortune on customer retention, and they don't need expensive help desks answering questions about poor services and the problems that causes.

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

I've been saying it for a long time. I posted this way back on 17th April on the BT forum:

The government wants to force ISP's to police their own networks - something which the ISP's don't want to do. The ISP's claim that they are "mere conduits" and are not able to monitor network traffic. If the government penalises the ISP's for interception without consent or warrant as a result of the trials then the ISP's would be in a stronger position to continue to refuse.

The time that it has taken to make this decision and the "hands-off" approach taken by No 10 suggests to me that the governement and BT have settled this over drinks in some London club. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Patricia Hewitt - former Trade and Industry minister - has recently been appointed as a non-voting Director at BT with a salary of £60,000 p.a. for which she has to attend 9 meetings a year.

I've posted several times on the subject of the government's involvment with Phorm including this from 12th June:

Our government doesn't want ISPs to remain as "mere conduits". They have been pressuring the ISPs to allow interception for surveillance purposes related - at least according to the government - to security and serious crime.

The ISP have repeatedly refused claiming that they are both unwilling and unable to do this due to their position as "mere conduits". This is not entirely altruistic - big surprise - but relates to the fact that if an ISP is aware of the content being carried then they could be held legally responsible for it. Taken to it's extreme, it would mean that ISPs could be convicted of distributing illegal material.

If the government legislates to outlaw DPI and any other type on interception by ISPs then they will effectively have closed the door on their own scheme. In fact, by encouraging the use of systems like Webwise, the government are allowing the ISPs to paint themselves into a corner.

I would not be in the least bit surprised to discover that this government has already done a deal with BT guaranteeing them immunity from prosecution over the 2006/2007 trials in return for access to the data available to BT through the use of Webwise.

and this from the 18th June:

If the UK authorities don't act soon and do so in a open manner then there are going to be some very difficult questions for them to answer in the near future. At the very least, we need to know how it came about that the Home Ofifce held a meeting with Phorm in the first place.

What possibe reason would there be for the Home Office to be involved at any level with an internet advertising company? The Home Office themselves have stated that the business of Webwise falls outside of its remit. Is there some connection to homeland security - the Home Office's area of business?

The only obvious connection between the Home Office and Phorm is via BT as the Home Office is the body that has been trying to get ISPs to monitor web-traffic for their own purposes, something that ISPs have repeatedly refused to do stating that they are "mere conduits" and even claiming that such technology didn't exist.

It looks to me as though this government cut a deal with BT and that is why there has been no action taken over the illegal trials.

The whole thing stinks and anyone who still thinks that this is just about targetted advertising is deluded.

---------- Post added at 02:16 ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 ----------

BT have stated in their revised FAQs that opted out customers are completely removed from the profiling system.

I only include for the sake of accuracy and make no comment on the validity of the statement.

53. What happens when I switch off BT Webwise?

When BT Webwise is off you won't receive warnings before reaching fraudulent websites. BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit to see if there are better adverts to show you; no data, in fact, will be analysed, stored or passed to Phorm or any other partner if you are switched off. You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.

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

got a question on this
You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.
Seams to me you still going through the system but not getting direct ads but indirect from the same ad serving system is that right?

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

A website owner creates a webpage with a space for an advert and then signs up to allow Phorm to provide adverts on their website. This space normally shows a normal untargetted from one of Phorm's customers. Targetted ads are only displayed if an opted-in customer with an existing profile visits that website in which case a specific ad in shown instead. (In theory at least as it's not clear what advert you'll see if Phorm don't have a contract with a source that suits your internet usage - how many antique dealers or dog grooming parlours will sign up, for example)

Basically non-opted in customers see the website in exactly the same way as customers from non-Phorm using ISPs. No profiling is used or required.

It helps to separate the profiling and the ad-serving in your mind then you'll see that the webpages will have to work for all internet users regardless of whether or not they are profiled by Phorm.

The profiling and ad-serving systems are totally separate. In fact they are physically separate as the profiling is done by equipment within the ISPs hardware while the ad-serving is dealt with externally.

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

so say adblocker plus will block the ad if not in

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

Adblock will prevent an advert from being displayed whether you opt in or out though it's worth pointing out that advertisers are always looking for ways around such tools.

It makes no difference to any such application whether or not the advertisment is targetted. As far as the browser and therefore any such tools are concerned the advert is the same as any other and all tools will be unaffected. (This assumes that Phorm are being honest about their system and that they don't use any trick Java code to "pull" the ads)

---------- Post added at 03:33 ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 ----------

A fantastic story in the Register that is relevent to Phorm because of what it doesn't say.

BT commisioned and are about to publish a report called 21st Century Life Index which is a very detailed examination of the relationship between people in the UK and the development of the internet into the 21st century.

The report is based on interviews with 2,000 people and includes reams of figures based on an analysis of those peoples preferences and requirments for the future use of the internet. It is then compared with the last such report which was produced exactly 10 years ago.

How does this relate to the Phorm discussions?

"Fewer irrelevent adverts" is not mentioned anywhere in the report.

Not one of the 2,000 persons interviewed stated at any point that they were even remotely concerned about untargetted advertising.

In other words a huge, flagship report produced specifically to find out what people really want from the internet and their ISP proves that BT are either lying or stupid when they claim to be implementing Webwise in response to customer requests.

If BT still refuse to provide the earlier referenced data then we are justified in using the only available official BT report which appears to prove that they lied.

You can link directly to the BT Study website though none of the links to the original document are working at the moment.

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

Hi Madslug, I just can't read it the same way :) I've tried, very hard.

The HO document deals with at least two scenarios.

Para 6 talks about interception in general.

Para 10 talks about use of a proxy.

Para 11 deals with a specific scenario whereby a script is downloaded near simultaneously. How that would work without intercepting the page to insert the Javascript is a different question.. PageSense injected Javascript into the page by interception.

Dealing with the proxy scenario in para 10...

Where the proxy scenario completely falls apart is para 13. To determine if interception is lawful, it quotes section 3(1) of RIPA saying "person has reasonable grounds for believing is both a) a communication sent by a person who has consented to the interception; and b) a communication the intended recipient of which has so consented".

When you consider how damaging interception of communication is versus simply making unauthorised copies of content... And how the content is used by an advertiser to market competitive services without Copyright licence... HO couldn't seriously assume a web site owner would consent.

Yet para 15 goes on to state a "It made be argued that section 3(1)(b) is satisfied in such a case because the host or publisher who makes a page available for download from a server impliedly consents to those pages being downloaded".

Making content available to people who request it is not the same as authorising interception. Phorm doesn't request content, it copies it on the fly, before it has reached its intended recipient.

Para 21 concludes the insanity by suggesting "The implied consent of a web page host (as indicated in para 15 above) may stand in the absence of any specific express consent".

That's a complete inversion of RIPA and Copyright. If you accept the differentiation between making content available (where available would necessitate an identifiable request), and tolerating interception of communication... Para 21 of the HO document licences interception simply because you publish a document online.

I reckon they have got that completely wrong. And they should withdraw that advice immediately. Because I'm certain the HO won't like the consequences that will necessarily follow.

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

as you say peter it is what they don't say.

they do say "BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit", but they do not say "your traffic will take a route to the net direct without passing through the profiler", leaving it open to them to amend the service or FAQ later to say "agregated search terms and other information may be harvested to be sold off at a premium to help us make money by increasing the price of more often searched for keywords"

peter

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

You should note the 'pp' before the signature - this letter has been compiled by a member of the Admin Staff, and NOT Greg Hughes. This is a practice commonly used by Admin Teams to act as signatory for their Department Heads.

Bottom Line is, this letter may have been drafted, with no understanding whatsoever, by a Temp who had walked into the Office 20 minutes earlier, in his/her first ever role within an Office Environment. Obviously this is a cut and paste, with a few ammendments, from a script.

IMHO, you should maybe write to them again, and ask for a response from an individual with knowledge about the Law.

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

Well supposedly, today's the day we will be told.

If Gavin Patterson isn't misleading his Chairman, shareholders and customers... then 'a couple of weeks' from the AGM is tomorrow... And what little notice BT are prepared to give is expected today.

Or could this be yet another date when Ian, Gavin, Emma and Kent fail to deliver?

Or perhaps BT will get it right first time, do something good for the UK, good for customers, also good for shareholders.

Stop Phorm.

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

Here is a copy of my original letter to BT Retail counsel, to go with the reply.
http://tinyurl.com/6yzh5b

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

Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was added in 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2498 as follows:

From here: http://tinyurl.com/58cwyw

I leave the interpretation to the reader :angel:

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

:erm:Is that the one they quoted in the letter:dozey:

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

So what they are really saying then is that for Webwise to comply with that section that it has no economic signifance. Why then are they spending money on it?

Jeez, if they were any more stupid they'd have to be put away to stop them from hurting themselves.

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

It would appear so.

I see two pertinent parts:
It doesn't apply if the copyrighted work in question is a computer program. How many web pages do you think contain computer programs? <cough>javascript<cough>

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

Can't fault any of the other excellent deconstructions on this section of the Copyright... but here's another one glaring at BT.

The sole purpose of which is to enable transmission between third parties.

If a purpose of taking a copy is to allow offline filtering for keywords, that's not the sole purpose of the copy.

So then it remains to answer, is it a lawful use of the work to intercept and copy it? It would be lawful if they had a copyright licence, or a warrant. Otherwise it obviously isn't lawful.

If that's the best they can do... BT are going to pour their coffers into the pockets of web site creators if this is switched on.

To the point where investment in next generation infrastructure is going to be the very least of their problems.

Pete.

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

I think its safe to say they must be relying on the "lawful use of the work" option. I'm not sure that being in breach of the rest of the copyright act would prevent the use of this exception (I'm getting out of my depth there though). However, if the use is not lawful under say RIPA, then yes 28A becomes void.

So 3 reasons why Section 28A will not save them.

Also, here is the problem with the implied licence argument:

( From http://tinyurl.com/yr5bkc )

Plenty of websites have explicit copyright licences and therefore an implied licence cannot exist.

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

Instead of installing a Webwise proxy in an ISP (and paying the ISP), they could simply set up a webwise proxy server on the internet, register a suitable domain name eg "MoreRelevantAdverts.com" and inform customers how to set up a proxy in the browsers they (claim) to support - port 666 might be a good choice ;)

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

Even if there is no detailed copyright licence, or even no copyright notice at all (because copyright is assumed to exist by default), is it reasonable to assume that copyright holders will welcome their content being used to promote their competitors, enrich Kent Erdfsfd, and enrich Internet Service Providers?

I doubt it.

I'm glad I'm not paying BT's lawyers. I'd want all my money back. (Solicitors Complaints Bureau might be able to help BT).

Pete

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Brilliant. Given BT's Market Research its a surefire winner.

I'm starting to think Kent's a genius (bet you never thought I'd say that! for avoidance of any doubt it is indeed sarcasm). No doubt it gets quoted on their blog in 15 mins "'Kent's a genius' says harshest critic".

He's got BT to pay for his Market Research and product development/testing, yet all he has to do is advertise some proxy settings, and there will be a stampede of customers who want relevant ads.

Then he can cut BT adrift.

And there was I thinking it was BT who'd want to cut Phorm adrift. :doh:

No wonder Ian Livingston was so heistant to discuss Phorm. He must be very worried about Phorm cutting him out of the action.

Is it too late to buy Phorm shares?

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

As our friend HamsterWheel would remind you, it's never too late to buy Phorm shares :P

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

What that does not specifically state, is whether the data still passes through the intercept, provided by Phorm and sited in BT's racks. As Phorm 'gift' the hardware to BT(Retail), they can quite truthfully say that the data is not 'passed to Phorm or any other partner'. I can't see how they can manage to bypass the intercept without the facility to allocate IPs and reroute subscribers who don't opt-in, based on their IP address, but I'm not an IT expert or a BT executive.:confused:

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

I've converted the Phorm Flyer into text, which can be used to cut and paste into Forums, etc.

Admin Edit (Chris T): Link removed at poster's request


I've posted it around a couple of Forums already which didn't seem to have a webwise topic...

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

The smart money would be buying shares in ISPs and SSL certification authorities, because if phorming isn't outlawed, the only way e-commerce sites will be able to protect their business interests is to go https only or buy an ISP. In fact, if it is OK for an ISP to tamper with and profile their customer's communications then owning an ISP would give a suitable business a huge edge over their competitors.

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

And up they go :D

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

Oh yeah, shooting up. After all, 875 is much much more than 3580 :P

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've seen quite a few different versions of this BT statement, and never yet seen a form of words that unambiguously indicates that a not-opted-in customer who wants nothing to do with Webwise, will have their traffic completely ignored by the newly installed DPI kit, and neither intercepted, nor inspected by the newly installed DPI kit.

In otherwords- for their traffic to be simply "conducted" by the conduit of BT Retail, to it's destination with no other interference whatsover except what is required for the purpose of technically managing the service (and NOT selling adverts).

Nor have I seen any explanation of how their cookie free system will work.

As always - its what they don't say that counts.

Once I've had the time to read it through properly and do the necessary copying, cutting and pasting when the hard copy arrives, Ill give an account of what the BT Retail legal counsel's letter to me DIDN'T say.

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

Apologies, Rob - I think I missed the decision to not discuss the share prices in the many many posts since I went away.
I've added him to my ignore list now.

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

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16528

Trouble in Canada for Phorm too.

Alexander Hanff

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

Interesting that a "computer program" is treated differently. You may need to establish what that two word phrase actually covers as it's arguable that HTML is a high-level computer language and therefore any webpage is a computer program.

On that basis, Phorm's arguments about textual content being freely available are meaningless as the source-code has to be disassembled in order to access the text. I believe that this is illegal without resorting to copyright law and civil courts.

How does the law differ if that is the case and should you be looking at the problem from a different angle - e.g. program hacking rather than a copyright breach based purely on the textual content of the webpage?

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

First cut Wide Open West htaccess block directives on BadPhorm.

If anyone is willing/able to spot holes I'd be most grateful.