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

I'm just using this quote as an example, nothing personal implied to the quoted poster.

I don't believe that remarks like this are going to help the cause against Webwise and the like. This campaign should I think be fought on reason and facts and not innuendo.

When someone of influence blogs/ politician/ article writer/ etc. incorrectly states facts about Phorm then we should concentrate on reasonable correction rather than vilifying them. We want to get people on our side not antagonise them and end up fighting the wrong battle.

If I remember correctly Baroness Miller was given incorrect facts by K E and when the true story was pointed out to her she came over to our side and has helped publicise the true story about Phorm.

I know from personal experience that ranting on about Phorm to my relatives and friends just turned them off about the issue. I have had more success in slightly understating things. For example, asking them if they would like their mail opened in order to be targetted with "relevant ads" was much more effective strategy in getting them interested in Webwise and what it really stood for.

I don't understand most of the technology behind Webwise but nor do I suggest the majority of the public which is why the analogy about opening mail seemed to work for me.

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

Phorm PR at work, no doubt.

Remember, they can't control or stop people on the net from blogging or posting negative opinions about Phorm. That is their weakness. Their strength is that they are adept at influencing 'official' opinion. The press is eager for official opinion. They have the money and connections to influence government, press, and other companies.

Speaking of which, were people aware that Phorm had/has hired (not sure if they are still with Phorm) the 'Burson-Marsteller' PR agency?

"Hi — Phorm Comms Team here. Just wanted to bring some clarity to your spirited piece. We actually have three agencies on board: Freud, Citigate Dewe Rogerson and Burson-Marsteller (why where they ignored?! Could the PR Week article that inspired your blog http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/articl...fightback/have got its facts wonky?) also we work with John Stonborough, as you say. Marvellous chap. "

http://tinyurl.com/strictembargo

Try googling:

"Burson Marsteller" Suharto

"Burson Marsteller" Argentina disappeared

"Burson Marsteller" "Union Carbide"

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

Not that surprising when Burson-Marsteller are strategic partners of 80/20 thinking.

http://www.8020thinking.com/about-us.html

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

I have been providing free content since I started writing web sites. Yes, the content promotes commercial products. But, each of those products has been chosen and tested by me.

Free content IS the advertising expense to promote the product. Free content does not need to be spammed by additional advertising in order to survive. Free content does not need DPI to survive.

It is because the free content I provide is the advertising for products that I complain so much about someone else using that content, which I have paid for, to promote their product at no cost to themselves - it is industrial theft.

The web is just one big advertisement - no one is complaining about the advertising.

Simple economics says that if the advertising costs more than the revenue, then you stop advertising. You don't start to use someone else's advert for your product.

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

The greedy advertising industry want their cake and to eat it. The two realistic revenue models for the internet are subscription and advertising. We already pay the subscription (VM XL broadband: £37.00 per month) so why the hell should we accept the other model on top of that? If VM cannot break even on my 20Mb line by charging me £37 a month, then write to me explaining this, together with a realistic quote of what it would actually cost to provide that connection, and I'll consider whether I'm willing to pay it or not. What I am absolutely NOT willing to do is submit to being Phormed.
No doubt the prat who wrote the original article also believes that the BBC's content is "free", therefore we should all pay the licence fee AND be forced to watch adverts on BBC channels. What an idiot.

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

In Six Months I have not heard any proper explanation as to why I should share my private & personal data with this system & in doing so "aid & abet" the collection of data from another Source which I regard as also Private & Confidential.

"Phorm get over it, It's my Data & I have Legal Protections & Copyright so I choose who to Share it with!"

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

Entity-Relationship diagram update:

http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?i...hormumlny8.jpg

<sigh>

How depressing.

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

Now that is timely. The article focusses on the DBERR, formerly the Department of Twiddling and Inaction/Trade and Industry. Our friends that are coming under fire from their noble Lords, the Baroness Miller and Lord Northesk. Let's hit them from the citizenry end too with FOI requests.

Good to see a ruling from the Tribunal forcing them to come clean about who lobbies them and how, and who they talk to and when etc. That is very good news for us. If Phorm is just about commercial advantage, then the DBERR can't really refuse to divulge any lobbying or conversations about the system. So the only grounds for refusal to divulge contacts between DBERR and Phorm will have to be more substantial. Which will tell us a lot.

The FOI focus needs now to focus on DBERR and what they did and didn't know about Phorm, and who they did and didn't talk to about Phorm and when.

With this ruling in the bag, the FOI requests should be fairly straightforward to get answers to.

Remember that these systems like ICO and FOI are effectively risk free for the citizen, and enforced without us worrying about legal fees/court cases. So we USE it.

And for once - the Tribunal appears to have put it's teeth in after getting out of bed.

So - what questions should we be asking of the DBERR? I imagine that we could take the Lord's questions as a guide.

I'm certainly willing to put in the FOI requests if people can advise on content and if anyone who has done FOI before can advise me on how to do it and about the fee etc..

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

I think Pat Hewitt is on the Board of BT Group, rather than BT Retail.

BT also own Brightview (Madasafish ISP)

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

Would anyone consider hosting a landing page for webmasters to give information regarding Phorm / Webwise? What I'm thinking of is a standard page that gives some balanced information about the system, for and against that a webmaster can direct a user to if they detect the user is from a BT address range (or whoever is appropriate). For any of you who use asp.net, the code is simple:

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

I subscribe to PC Pro also and although I have yet to receive the October edition, I have just done likewise and emailed them as well as writing to them for a full refund for unsent copies, which you have to do for a refund. I have also done likewise with a sister magazine Custom PC. You have to whatever is necessary to STOP PHORM and you can only do this by voting with your feet as I did with BT also.

Colin

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

You might want to withold judgement of PC Pro until you have read the article for yourselves.

Read this by the same Davey Winder dated 6th August 2008.

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

also DREAMHARVEST.ORG
I-PrintForYou.com
KayLens.com
MannaFoRu.com
and lots more

look at http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=uk

not all track back to kristos group

very strange for a religous outfit, mp3 downloads etc ???
peter

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

I was literally about to quote the same thing! :)

This article, published only a few days ago, is much closer to the truth as I understand it.

Actually, its a very succinct summary of the current status quo. I particularly liked these paragraphs...
So I would guess the Pc Pro article has been heavily edited, or is very out of date copy.

Davey Winder's thinking does seem to be in the right place.

Pete.

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

Just to clarify, in my post #13602, where I say:

>Phorm PR at work, no doubt.

I was referring to the PC pro magazine article, not the poster whose post precedes mine.

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

Too late already cancelled. I was unhappy with PC PRO anyway especially the cover DVD which I have NEVER EVER found anything useful on it and usually binned them, so it will not be missed. But I think it still gets the message out, that if a business supports PHORM then they will lose customers.

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

have a look at http://beastorbuddha.com/dsn/tech/ about half way down you will find some details of phorm

seems to point to the adserver and antiphishing db in china!!

peter

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

I am quite bemused. How odd that a magazine with that title should clerky miss the mark by such a huge margin. And if they think they can suggest my beliefs are totally about privacy advocacy they're miles off track. Yes there are some who see ship as part of a bigger issue and fair play to them but my concerns are very focussed on this. How stupid can ao IT mag be to print such tosh?.

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

Anyone sent a copy of the diagram to PrivateEye?

PHil

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

David Crawford (Kristos.org), with or without moustache;

- Profile on Plaxo.com
- Profile on Seomoz.org

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

I've sent one

Philj

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

https://89.145.112.52/

??

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

Please don't post random links without saying what they are!

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

Wherever that link was to Bluecar it tripped PeerGuardian and is showing as a Phorm IP

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

sorry, it is a beta oix site i came across

peter

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

Oh the Irony!

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

At least it is UK hosted

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

yep i know, an oix website with a phorm ssl cert but no attached dns tag so not sure where it sits in the grand plan, but probably something to do with advertisers login or channel partners

peter

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

RE: https://89.145.112.52/

I can't connect to it at all. Can anyone else still access it? Is it my hosts file blocking it, perhaps, or have they stopped accepting connections?

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

yep I get the security cert. warning


Phil

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

Sorry, Phormwatch I can't confirm either way. I refused to accept the dodgy cert and left it at that. It is run by Gyron in London I believe, resolves to a very odd hostname of as29107.net. The dodgy cert claims it is Phorm owned so I suppose there is the possibility of it being a channel server for OIX. If you hosts file is blocking it it's probably for the best.

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

you get a page with a banner saying OIX and a little beta tag if you accept the dodgy cert.

the reason you get the cert error is accessing the site via ip not dns name, but the site is clearly OIX yet has a phorm cert, issued by godaddy

yet another example of good safe practices by phorm :nono:

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

Bump - anyone interested in giving me info for this? I'll do the donkey work and send it in. Sooner the better, hit them while they're reeling from the Tribunal ruling.

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

Do we know if anyone met them from Phorm to attempt to slip in without legal prosicution.

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

as the tribunal ruling was relating to lobbying

i would assume the best way forward is ask for details of any meeting with the three pr agencies and dberr relating to phorm or webwise

and poss a second one relating to details of any meeting with the phorm or BT and dberr relating to webwise

then home in on anything interesting you get in response

peter

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

I'd recommend the usual, keep to things they can photocopy initially and see where it takes you...

- Dates and content of all correspondence between BERR and BT/Virgin/Phorm since 2006
- Dates of meetings, and agendas, minutes, attendees
- Date BERR first became aware of the secret trials
- Dates Ministers (in particular John Hutton, Gareth Thomas, Shriti Vadera) were first advised that secret trials had been conducted
- Any instruction or advice to ICO concerning complaints

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

out of interest, is there anyway I can find out if my connection is being phormed ? or does anyone know of phorm being tested in the cambridge area ?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

How come all these aquiss folk on here, what have they got to do with Virgin? There's aquiss staff members pumping out this stuff, very odd. Why are they posting the same stuff here as on the BT forum under different names?
Take it only reason they aren't on the Talktalk members forum is they aint members.
Also seem to tie up with third rate "review" site ispreview which is also full of this gunk.
You lot should stop polishing your tinfoil helmets and get a life.
P.S. Absolutely nobody else is interested in this twaddle. See Government petitions, anti phorm 16000 votes, jeremy clarkson for p.m. 40000+, no mainstream media coverage of anti-phorm protest at BT AGM, no widespread outrage, just you lot.

---------- Post added at 01:24 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

It's adverts mate, nothing more, nothing less

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

I left VM because of Phorm I still have some family stuck in contract with VM once phorm goes live on VM they get out free.
Oh by the way hi, as for it being just adverts if it was just adverts then phorm/webwise wouldn't need to DPI my conection, intercept my browsers and pretend to be the website I am wanting. Then harvest keywords to deliver an advert for something I would have already bought...Making it irrelvent adverts like the ones now that are blocked until I am loking for something then I will unblock for the search to reblock same day by this time I have made my decision and either bought or decided it wasnt what I wanted...

I alos dislike having someone who was in the spyware business while trialing for BT who has left a footprint all over the internet with false leads leaving those trying to investigate his illegal practise with dead ends..

I control my own privacy I give out as much or as little as I want not have someone gathering what they want that I have no control over...
Best laugh ever just adverts sir you are either insane, Phrom PR or kent? Also with that on your information page why did you bother joining us unless you needed to learn about phorm.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts - Bags me a kingsize tinfoil helmet
 

I don't know what you're on about. Seems to me I'd rather have adverts for stuff I wanted than stuff I didn't.
Still, at least you've got a hobby eh?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

I dont go along with this forums paranoia anyway. All I want to find out is if anyone knows if they are testing in cambridge :confused:

-Chris

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts - Bags me a kingsize tinfoil helmet
 

Read the thread. Some people object to the whole thing (ads and everything). Some people (like myself) merely object to the fact that Phorm will be storing a profile on everyone, and even though they are supposedly anonymising the data , there is some evidence to suggest it can be de-anonymised. They also object to the fact that if earlier reports are correct, the system routinely stores the details of *every* page visited by an opted-in customer, then at some point reduces this data to profile a user. Until this happens, even assuming Phorm are totally trustworthy , then your data is a potential target for hackers. Hackers wouldn't be interested in a lot of the stuff people look at, but they might be interested in, say, credit card and bank account details. Both of which could theoretically be stored by Phorm.

So, no, the debate isn't just about targetted advertising.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

Dephormation pete has something that will stop you visiting his or any other website it is installed on if you go via Phorms system.

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

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts - Not allowed an opinion of me own, slinks off
 

Facts mate, facts not theories, not "some evidence to suggest" nor any of the other maybes etc..

I take it like other forums where this stuff festers, to even disagree with this witch hunt you get stamped on quick.
Got the drift, shan't bother you again - carry on...

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

:erm: What is your problem, exactly ?Thanks. Their checker didn't find any evidance of it. :tu:

-Chris

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

Good to hear Chris the check was clean :)

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

Most of this is already in hand at WhatdoTheyKnow
Responses are due around the end of August and early September.

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

Hi - well forgive me because I've already seen 3 types of pro-phorm posters on here. Some work for Phorm, some are playing devil's advocate and are actually anti-phorm, and some actually do support Phorm and can't see what all the fuss is about.

I don't know which of the above you are, so maybe you can first of all clarify what you think "just adverts mate" means?

From my perspective I object to being profiled by my ISP, and I also object to having my connection hampered by up to 3 unecessary redirects because Phorm and BT want to track my internet use.

I pay premium price for a premium connection, adverts don't enter into the equation for me.

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

hello phormisfab.. er I mean morphisafb

If you wish to inject pro-phorm discussion then fair enough. If your presence here is simply to bait then you will most likely be ignored.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts - Bags me a kingsize tinfoil helmet
 

Ahhh Phorm PR teams have switched to the language of the "common" man to try and disrupt things now eh?

It won't work mucker, we are all too smart to fall for your silly colloquialisms.

Alexander Hanff

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

morphisafb

This forum has a single thread on the subject of Webwise and Phorm. There are hundreds of other threads covering a wide range of subjects which you may also wish to peruse.

If you have an interest in the subject being discussed in this thread then please feel free to join in the debate but if it is not to your liking I'm sure that you will find plenty to occupy you by visiting the forum home page and reading through the list of other topics or even join in the fun and start your own thread on a subject that does interest you.

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

thanks - let me know if you want any more done. Thought it was worth pointing out the relevance of the tribunal ruling though as you can quote it back at them if they try and delaying/avoiding tactics.

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]
 

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

Hi Chris,

couple of points to add.

The Dephormation add on will opt you out of Phorm, but it doesn't give you any security/privacy protection. It simply sets a cookie which begs Phorm to ignore your surfing.

My Dephormation site has a number of tests for Phorm, but because Phorm control the network between you and Dephormation, it is possible that Dephormation will be black listed (to limit the ability to capture information about Phormed web users). So don't rely on the results of tests run from that site.

The only way to ensure the security, privacy, and integrity of your data comms is to move to a Phorm free ISP.

If you're on cable there are tips here for moving away from cable economically and painlessly.

If you haven't sent Virgin a DPA section 11 notice, you can print one off here. You should do so immediately, and keep a copy (should you discover you have been a trial victim you can take legal action).

You should also write to your MP. Again, there is a wizard you can use to generate a letter here. Print, sign, and post.

If you're involved in internet publishing/ecommerce in any way you should be aware that Phorm takes copies of you creative work, and use marketing intelligence gleaned from your interactions with customers to promote your competitors. If you need more info, just ask.

Pete.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

It's not just adverts, its intrusive bloody spying on peoples browsing habits and not a lot of people want that which is what this thread is all about.

We do not want these these so called adverts-end of story. When ISPs realise this together with Phorm, the better.

So there is my view, nothing more, nothing less. if I see you attack me like you have others, because attacking others is the only way to get attention and yourself noticed, (I've always maintained this type of poster is a weak person) I will take the appropriate action.

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

To any posters who think "It's adverts mate, nothing more, nothing less"

It's not actually NOT if you read up on the subject but in answer to that particular statement.

Regarding adverts, so is a lot of Spam, So are a lot of Trojans, so are a lot of Browser Helper Objects (BHO's) that take over your surfing and take you to sites you don't wish to visit. A lot of these are recognised by anti-virus companies as particularly dangerous.

If it was just only about adverts, it wouldn't mean it is particularly safe anyhow so the argument is flawed.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts Is Tinfoil hat territory
 

I think there's more at stake here than many people realise.

A web request travels over a point to point connection, it is not a broadcast transmission open to anyone who cares to receive it*.

And all data on the wire is simply 1s and 0s, web traffic included.

So, if the Government tolerate interception of web traffic without consent of both parties... there is no coherent or logical argument against interception of VOIP, email, SMS, even standard telephony (which is also digital once it reaches an exchange). Indeed, it is clear parasitic 'cross channel' marketing is something Phorm aspire to.

Your right to private data communication is at stake.

Phorm must be stopped



* as was pointed out earlier in the thread, even some forms of 'broadcast' are private, BT were keen to ensure the local loop broadcast of their AGM remained 'private'.

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

Seems there has been a litle news over the delayed trials from BT more a good time to get a little more info out there since the news on ISPreview auto links to a thread for comments.

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

interesting

"trials not expected to begin until after a respone to the EU request"

seems to blow out the water the option of a start during the olympics

ho hum

mean while phorm are burning up the cash with PR firms and trying to retrofit there spyware / adware to make it compliant with legal requirements

peter

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

clickz.com: B.T. Still Stalling Phorm Trials in UK

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3630476

Quotes Adam Liversage, BT.

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

And nobody has actually answered you question...

As far as we can tell, Phorm is not being trialled ANYWHERE in the UK at the moment. You will see from the latest postings that the 'imminent' BT trials seem to be delayed yet again - and if it they are depending on a response from the Government that probably means not until Christmas now. Virgin and TalkTalk seem to be keeping a low profile waiting for BT to act first, if they had started trials then this is the first place you would hear about it... Meanwhile Phorm continues to brag about its 'technology' but there is no firm evidence that even that exists....

Keep up the good work chaps. With any luck my BT contract will have completed (next March) before anything happens.

Dave

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

Hi, The Virgin Media marketing head has quit. here -

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/?p=6633

I wonder if anybody has any ideas that his replacement would like to use to make Virgin Media more attractive to customers!

Dave.

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

Come on guys, it's a big enough thread without it going off-topic, posts about head of marketing quitting is nothing to do with Phorm unless someone confirms that he quit because of Phorm.

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

It is interesting, in context. He joined July 2006. You'd expect a guy in marketing to know about Phorm.

Similarly the previous CEO, Steve Burch, resigned suddenly in August 2007 citing "family and personal reasons"... and returning to the USA. Again, someone who would have been famliar with Phorm.

Also, CFO Jacques Kerrest left in April 2008. You'd expect him to know about a new source of income.

And 'Managing Director of Customer Care' Steve Stewart in new year 2008.

And Ernie Cormier 'Head of Strategy' at the same time. He returned to the USA. Wasn't Phorm announced as a strategic partnership with Virgin Media?

So lots of movement in the stratosphere at Virgin since August 2007.

Should point out, there is nothing to link these events directly to Phorm.

Yet, many of the people who would have known about or authorised Phorm have seemingly been purged from the organisation. And the Americans have left the country.

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

See the Reg has another snooping hit this time journalists tryoing to raise public awearness to snooping.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...ck_hat_snoops/

What is interesting is the mention of openVPN could be another way to secure our surfing from phorms affair.

I am on monthly package peak cap 45 gig offpeak 300gig if you are out most of the day then there are lower peak time allowences. Phorm phree since entanet will not accept the snooping. I also find there are no restrictions on the ports my 5meg connection hasn't dropped below 4meg at peak times.

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

As a person who has set up and used OpenVPN I can vouch it is a very good package (for free), but it is unfortunately point to point. It gives a little privacy for connections from home to the office network, but does not answer the general browsing /Phorming / snooping problem for connections that are reliant on the ISP.

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

what about web proxys ?

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

It could be done for one end of the connection and you could get a little more privacy if the proxy was beyond the ISP.

This is not the solution though, the solution is to prevent Phorm in the first place snooping on our Web Data.

Website owners will not have worldwide copyright protection as not everybody will have a solution in place.

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

Register;
Phorm papers reveal BT's backwards approach to wiretap law

Exclusive BT's long-held claim that legal advice said its Phorm trials did not breach wiretapping laws came under renewed scrutiny today, as documents revealed the firm approached government experts after it had secretly co-opted 18,000 broadband customers into the advertising targeting system.

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

Hi, Penguins now being used to explain behavioural targeting! Have Phorm thought of that one?

http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/39127/...targeting.html

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...-with-article/

Dave.

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

Interesting to see they are now reverting to that wonderfully vague word "soon" instead of Gavin Patterson's AGM promise of a couple of weeks, (nearly four weeks ago) or earlier "three weeks" or "before the end of the month" or "BT plans technical trials of BT Webwise in April 2008" (the current public advice on the BT Webwise FAQ - and yes -I have pointed that out to them regularly, but they just don't care - and anyway they don't listen to a mere customer, even if he is pointing out embarrassing mistakes on their own web pages - or the earlier support statements "trials have already started (March 2008).

The incompetence of this organisation is truly staggering. To make one careless announcement, may be considered unfortunate, to make a whole series through an entire calendar year can only be regarded as corporate incompetence of the highest order. (Apologies to Lady Bracknell)

Presumably someone has management responisibility for this two and a half year ongoing foul-up, yet there are very basic things still embarrassingly WRONG.

How many BT executives does it take to change a light bulb?
"The light bulb has been fully tested, and presents no difficulties, it is inserted into the socket, and we do not feel that it is necessary to replace it. Extensive tests have been done to ensure that the light bulb is fully inserted in the socket, and that it is the correct light bulb for the fitting in question. We have sought, er, obtained, necessary electrical adv... er opinion, and are planning to replace the lightbulb soon. According to our helpdesk the lightbulb has already been replaced, but according to our press officer the light bulb will be replaced soon. Our Director, Value Added Lightbulbs, is available for lightbulb replacement media interviews, and our Lightbulb FAQ (updated 2/04/2008) gives up to date information on current lightbulb changing parameters. Actually we prefer the dark, as many of our activities do not look good when the lights are on. Extensive unpublished research conducted amongst our customers, indicate that many of them spend at least 8 hours a day in the dark, and prefer to sleep with their eyes shut, and therefore we feel that leaving the lightbulb as it is, will give them an enhanced obscurity and darkness experience. Thank you for letting us intercept your connection."

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

If that report is true, if I am not mistaken more porkies have been spoken by BT.
Legal advice taken? As much as you can get on the back of a postage stamp prior to the trials it seems.

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

Good article. I hope it appears on the front page soon- oops, just checked... there it is.

From the article:

>Meanwhile Register sources said there is "significant tension" within BT over the ongoing Phorm fracas, particularly between its Global Services and Retail divisions.

>It's understood that elements within Global Services, which on par with Retail generates about 40 per cent of the group's revenues, perceive their international reputation for competence on network security is being damaged by association. A spokesman for the group denied any split. He said: "I don't think that's true... I suppose I am refuting the suggestion."

Let's drive that wedge through. ;)

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

Perhaps not all the organisation is that incompetent, just the Retail Services.

I await the reports of the political infighting when the fan is truly mucked up by further disclosures !

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

agreed!

The Register:
"It's understood that elements within Global Services, which on par with Retail generates about 40 per cent of the group's revenues, perceive their international reputation for competence on network security is being damaged by association."

Its is being damaged IMHO
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._bt_foi_dates/

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

Who put in the FOI request that the El reg article refers to ?

on what grounds was this info withheld ?

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

Here is an another investor site which I found. It is based in the UK and has forums:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/

For those of you who are on iii.co.uk, you might also want to check this out.

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

Perhaps guilt at not having legal advice?

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

I like the bit at the end
I take that it means that everyone is doing a great job of spreading the word and getting ready for the trails and BT are scared as to what will happen when the trails do start.
BT, just don't and make everyones life easier.

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

Good point. Exempted material can always be challenged through the Information Commission. I can't believe I just said that. Doh!

The phrase "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" is literally growing into itself...

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

It may well have been someone at The Register (Chris Williams himself maybe). It is quite common for journalists to use FOI requests to fish for stories.

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

Probably just exempted for commercial reasons - patented technology etc - but the reason really ought to stated.

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

From the article:

"The content of the correspondence are being kept secret by officials, who cite confidentiality exemptions under FOIA."

So they are saying that the contents of those communications cannot be revealed because they are confidential. Hypocritical, no? If it is challenged then they may well release them with certain bits (such as peoples names) blacked out.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Sorry to nitpick but patents are public. There could be other commercial reasons though.

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

The reg article talks about divisions between different arms of BT. Maybe one of the insiders can confirm this but I heard there were divisions within BT retail, like a large number of engineering being unhappy about Phorm - take at face value, rumour and hearsay...

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

With the info from this latest FOIA request I hope that the ICO can see they've been misled or that both BT and Phorm "have been economical with the truth" I also hope that the documents from this finds it's way to the desk of Viviene Reding.

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

I like the bit at the end
Quote:
Today BT's spokesman said invitations would be issued "soon". He refused to elaborate, citing fears the project would become a "hostage to fortune"


I take that it means that everyone is doing a great job of spreading the word and getting ready for the trails and BT are scared as to what will happen when the trails do start.
BT, just don't and make everyones life easier.


They wouldn't have to worry about being Hostages to Fortune, if they had a decent Business & Commercial Product would they?

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

Well we may well find out. The Tribunal for appealing such things has been behaving in a fairly robust manner recently, and may not be prepared to allow the exemption.

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

Anyone spoken to Chris @ the reg. to get the FOI request and the response documents ?

Would be good to put the info in one place like the other FOI bundles.

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

I'll upload the doc to Dephormation this evening.

Pete.

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

Ahh it was you all along Pete, fancied giving the Reg a "SCLUSIVE" did you :-)

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

"Commercially confidential", though given the details of Phorm are now well known, the details of the trials are public knowledge, its hard to see what possible justification there could be for withholding that correspondance.

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

Phorm's overall technology is currently Patent Pending though is does make use of some that are already patented. A level of protection is offered whilst the patent is being considered as long as it is registered and this would almost certainly include an FOI act exemption otherwise the act would be wide open to abuse by rival companies.

Also bear in mind that patents only describe the uses and applications of the new technology in broad terms in order to qualify as an invention under the terms of the relevant acts.

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

Argh. OK, I'm going to try and finish the open letter to business. Can someone please find me an official quote where a BT spokesman says they can freely copy stuff off the web because consent is implied?

Also, the cookie forgery is a violation of the Computer Misuse Act, correct? Which specific part?

Here is the blog:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

Please suggest any additions.

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

Emma Sanderson is quoted as saying;
Principal counter arguments being, Phorm don't obtain a licence to copy or use (because they don't make a separate identifiable request for the document which the author can accept or reject), and the use of the copy without licence is not fair or reasonable (because it damages the author).

s.28A won't help them. It specifically excludes computer programs, and databases, and applies to the sole purpose of onward transmission and lawful use without economic significance.

Whereas an HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) +Javascript web page is effectively a computer program for a browser, it may contain data from an ecommerce system or content management system to which 'database rights' would apply, no onward transmission between third parties occurs (the web site is not aware of and does not send the web page to Phorm), and the results of processing the copy are sold (so there is evidence of economic significance).

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

Let's not get hung up on the patents and confidentiality thing. We are both on the same side after all. The fact is they think there is something that qualifies for exemption under the FOIA due to it being "Commercially confidential". That is just an excuse. There is certainly some information that could released without impinging on Phorms rights to commercial confidentiality. We've already seen FOIA responses that had names blacked out.

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

...and Section 28A doesn't apply where the copyrighted work is a database or computer program (such as embedded javascript).

...and an implied licence cannot exist where an explicit licence is in place (which may explicitly withhold the right to use for advertising or commercial purposes).

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

Here's an update:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

Unless anyone wants to add another parapraph, I think we should finish it off with a 'What you can do' section...

Any volunteers?

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

Check with Rob Jones regarding the copying of websites - I'm sure that he got this in writing from BT.

Regarding the CMA, this was my interpretation of the act and it's application to Phorm's cookies. I wrote this on the BT Forum in early April so feel free to comment on it or pick any holes you find. I asked for feedback at the time but no-one seemed interested - I'd be interested to know what people think now especially as Andrew Liversage has now stated that the next trial could go ahead using opt-in/out cookies.

Have a read of the Computer Misuse Act . I don't see how this can't be applied to BT's secret trials.

In essence, it is an offence to "secure access to any program or data held in any computer" without authorisation when the miscreant knows that they are not authorised. It then states that the type of data is not a factor.

In other words, simply accessing a cookie or reading the contents of the PCs memory (which must contain the data of the current webpage) without authorisation from the computer's owner is a criminal offence.

Even better, Section 2 of the act makes it a further offence to commit the Section 1 with the intention of making it possible or easier to commit other such offences.

In other words, even planting an unauthorised cookie or inserting any daya or code into the webpage (which is also held in the PC's cache and memory) with the intention of reading or writing to it later is an offence in it's own right.

Section 3 makes it an offence to perform "any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer" if the accused deliberately set out to do so and knew that it was not authorised by the computer's owner. It also specifically states that it is irrelevent whether the modification is permenant or temporary.

In other words, altering the contents of any cookie or any webpage (which are also held in the PC's cache and memory) without the authority of the computer's owner is an offence.

There doesn't appear to be any requirement on the part of the complainant to have any personal involvment under the act so it would appear that BT existing admissions and statements should allow any of us to make a complaint to the Met as BT are Lodon based.

Can anyone see anything here or in the act itself that could prevent a criminal charge being brought against BT under the terms of this act or prevent such a complaint from being accepted and investigated?

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

My FoI request had this statement attached:

The document referred to is BT letter to ICO 9/5/08
It is unclear what the two deleted pages actually referred to but the BT letter revolves around BT and Phorm's legal advice that was 'sought' prior to both trials and references to complaints from the public. I would infer the deletions were in some way connected to the complainants.

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

Guys... I'm trying to keep the Open Letter To Business crazy simple. Our 'target' audience aren't techies.

If you all think that the information already contained within is sound and factually correct, then I think we should finish off with a 'What you can do' paragraph.

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

I can't help thinking that an awful lot of businesses on receipt of that letter will not be following the thought patterns that you want them to.
Instead they will be thinking "That sounds a very effective way for ME to target customers, must get my ad agency onto that and sign up quick".

Being helpful, I'd suggest that you run that through a decent firm of solicitors before you start to circulate just in case anything you state could be construed as defamatory.