Cable Forum - View Single Post - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

3x2 · 13-05-2008, 11:02

Inphormed Consent

The "content freely available" argument is a non-starter. The communication itself is protected not the content. Just as an example ...

Let's suppose I request a page from i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com, a public site with lots of freely available help and advice on everybody's favourite subject.

Even though it is a public site, the moment I request a page it becomes a private communication. (I would even suggest that the initial DNS lookup is protected - just knowing I went there is information in itself) The fact that the content is freely available to anyone with a net connection is irrelevant.

The way I navigate the site, the search terms I use and the pages I dwell on are all unique to me and together form a private communication. Private for good reason - this is potentially very valuable information to some companies.

Phorm's blacklist argument is bogus - they simply cannot know what any one of the millions of URL's on the net lead to. i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com may have several less obvious aliases for very obvious reasons.

i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com probably has very strict published privacy policies. No logging, no cookies, no advertising links etc. All in place to re-assure users that their 'consultation' will remain anonymous. I would suggest that they most certainly don't consent to the session being wire tapped - even where the customer does.

The copyright angle has been covered earlier but Phorm are certainly, for most sites, creating an un-authorised derivative work.

Comparison with others
There is no comparison. Other companies, including Google, must fight it out in the 'free market'. Phorm is the equivalent of dropping a tape-worm in the gut of the internet. The ISP's are effectively saying to both content providers and consumers "From now on ..if you want to eat..."

13-05-2008, 11:02	#6448
3x2 Inactive Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 91	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] Inphormed Consent The "content freely available" argument is a non-starter. The communication itself is protected not the content. Just as an example ... Let's suppose I request a page from i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com, a public site with lots of freely available help and advice on everybody's favourite subject. Even though it is a public site, the moment I request a page it becomes a private communication. (I would even suggest that the initial DNS lookup is protected - just knowing I went there is information in itself) The fact that the content is freely available to anyone with a net connection is irrelevant. The way I navigate the site, the search terms I use and the pages I dwell on are all unique to me and together form a private communication. Private for good reason - this is potentially very valuable information to some companies. Phorm's blacklist argument is bogus - they simply cannot know what any one of the millions of URL's on the net lead to. i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com may have several less obvious aliases for very obvious reasons. i-think-i-may-have-cancer.com probably has very strict published privacy policies. No logging, no cookies, no advertising links etc. All in place to re-assure users that their 'consultation' will remain anonymous. I would suggest that they most certainly don't consent to the session being wire tapped - even where the customer does. The copyright angle has been covered earlier but Phorm are certainly, for most sites, creating an un-authorised derivative work. Comparison with others There is no comparison. Other companies, including Google, must fight it out in the 'free market'. Phorm is the equivalent of dropping a tape-worm in the gut of the internet. The ISP's are effectively saying to both content providers and consumers "From now on ..if you want to eat..."