[3x2]

If a customer who is invited to participate in the trial adds www.webwise.net to their local HOSTS file with the resolved address of 127.0.0.1, they will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC for the period of the trial. This is because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status of the user during the trial. Instead, and as per the advice on the www.bt.com/webwise site, the recommended approach for excluding a PC from the Webwise service if the user regularly deletes cookies is to add www.webwise.net to the browser's blocked cookie list. As previously stated, in parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received."

RE : redesigning it as they go

Sounds to me as though nothing much has changed from the Reg article way back when. Those lucky enough to be invited are wire-tapped in or out. How does this differ from the original proposal? Genuine opt-out is not an option here "because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status". We must tap your connection in order to determine your status. Any real attempt to circumvent the set-up and the user "will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC"

RE : "BT don't know some of the answers that they NEED to know before starting their trial."

Being naturally cynical, I think BT know exactly what they are doing. They have had at least two years to go through all of this. Having gotten away with the earlier trials and all that they entailed this one is a walk in the park. It is clear that, whatever the real legal status of this or past trials, in order to be tested in a Court there has to be an investigation and that is never going to happen.

On a less cynical note "the market will decide". Kent say's "The Internet today is two to three professionals - Microsoft, Yahoo and Google - and 9,999,999 hobbyists.

Once this is in place Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are not going to give this parasitic scumware a free ride. As things stand none of them want to be seen to be getting involved - Phorm would turn that situation into a David and Goliath PR free for all. Once it is all up and running that will change. Google have spent years building their search engine and all that goes with it. They will not just hand all that work over to a "man in the middle" parasite like Phorm.

9,999,999 hobbyists? Well then it will be a very quick re-write to provide "Sorry - refused - Phormed" to all those lucky enough to get a "safer more relevant Internet experience". In the short term visitor numbers will drop but not anywhere near as fast as BT's support system and customer base.

Content providers - your hard work is about to be utilised by a parasitic set-up that is strategically placed where you and your readers cannot remove or by-pass it. The only way to kill a parasite is to deny it what it needs to survive. No content provider is legally obliged to provide content to anyone. A polite refusal will suffice.

(Sorry AH, I have less confidence in the rule of law than you. While I do believe you are right about the law I simply don't believe it will be applied. While Phorm do have a right to "test the waters" I also have a right not to participate (as a content provider) and return a blank screen. Perhaps people will take notice when a majority of their bookmarks start to return "901 - Phormed" (just made that up - might RFC it though) )


From the HO reply (#4073) "it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service ….."

"anti-phishing" is an after thought. BT hope that "wire-tap for scumware company" can be viewed legally as a "new service provision" In the unlikely event that they have to answer to a Court this will be a key defence. In reality the "anti phishing" feature is no more relevant to their system than their proposed blacklist of http e-mail providers. It's a side effect not a design feature.


(#4090) "I don't believe the system will ever be Opt-in it was only ever designed to be opt-out"

Exactly. Phorm have sold this system to their customers as being all in. If they moved to a true opt out then within months even the least technical of customers would be translating "more relevant experience" into "wire-tap". The whole thing will just collapse. Openreach will become Opengrasp and Phorm shares will be (even more) worthless.

#4092 "judicial review"

Yep saw the outline in the Reg comments this week. Had no idea such a system was in place (typical Brit - huh). Did I read correctly that for a fee we can, subject to a favorable decision of course, force an investigation?

who knew? (You have to laugh at even the most "stay at home" of us suddenly reading RIPA instead of going to the Pub! Well done BT!)


#4093 "Secretary to the All Party Internet Group in the Lords, is a leading light in the movement to protect our security online"

Our current "incumbents" want to abolish the House of Lords and we can perhaps see why. True belief and principle v. corrupt baby kissers. No contest.

One of my memorable TV moments was Tony Benn embarrassing Ali G into silence - not something any of his "guests" have ever managed before or since.


Remember kids : "BT Webwise is completely free — and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work."