Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 22-05-2008, 12:22   #6989
AlexanderHanff
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,028
AlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful one
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
But Alex - your name is in that search string because you (or anyone else searching for "Hanff Phorm" put it there.) I can't quite see how it leads to an identification of the person making making the search, or the fact that a personal name got put in a search box leads to an argument against Phorm. (Although of course your google profile now includes an interest in Phorm matched against your Google cookie unless you delete the cookie and change your IP address)

Or have I misunderstood what you said?

I completely agree with you that it is a fairly trivial matter for anyone with a website to link the Phorm UID of a Webwise opted-in visitor, with their actual logged in website identity and the personal data that the website already holds on them.

I also agree that the "man in the middle" technology that Phorm are installing stinks and makes possible a whole host of nasty things if Phorm/Webwise are prepared to break the law and lie to us , and just allow mission creep to the extent of their own patent documents - which of course they are,

- but I don't agree that your example above about the google search string is a good way of making the point. Maybe I'm being picky!

I also agree that neither Phorm nor BT have actually come up with a decent answer to the lousy security of the Phorm UID. Dr Clayton has not had an answer to his discussion of the security weaknesses of the model.

I also agree that BT produce a lot of BS - that's why I am always happy to quote their statements, because they so often turn out to be wrong, either through incompetence or dishonesty.

Of course you might now get targeted with adverts for Hanff related merchandise?? (for the book 84 Charing Cross Rd by Helene Hanff, who is still above you on the google hits for "Hanff" - wonder how long she can hold out?)
OK let me clarify a little. Say for example you are searching on Google for a family member who shares the same surname, or you are searching for information about yourself; those search terms will be profiled based on the BT explanation posted. So clearly stating that no identifiable information is taken from search forms is incorrect. That was my only point, just a simple example of how those search terms can actually contain personal information.

My other point was that even if you never use anything which might be considered as personal information, you can still be identified from your searches as happened with one elderly woman in the US who was identified and tracked to her home address as a result of her anonymised search data being leaked by AOL.

So my post was more about the inaccuracies of BT's FAQ as opposed to anything ground breaking or new.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline