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

14-06-2008, 13:37

Tharrick - That letter is fantastic. I'll post mine below, but I think that receiving letters that are different in thier content and main approach is good, it shows the strength of opinion is sufficient to stir different poeple into action (not simply a copy of a standard letter - although I think that would be better than no letter at all)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
The House Of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
Friday 13th June 2008

Dear Baroness Miller

Phorm – Intercepting communication to profile individuals members of the British public

I read with some concern, and even alarm, your comments during the House Of Lords debate on Data Protection.

I was talking with the chief executive of Phorm this week who told me that once something is stored you have lost control over it. Phorm has been the subject of an interesting article in the Economist recently which some of your Lordships may have read. It is a company on the cutting edge of what can protect the public. A bit of controversy surrounds its work because, with its client BT, it intercepted people's online business without BT customers knowing. But Phorm is certainly correct when it says that if consumers knew what was actually stored they would decide to opt for true anonymity online. This is what Phorm is trying to develop with major telecommunications clients on a global scale.
The very idea that you could believe Phorm are working to “Protect the public” and that you stated so in The Lords is very concerning indeed. I know and respect the fact that you are a member of the Liberal Democrat group of Lords and so I hope that I may take the time to offer my thoughts and a suggestion.

Kent Ertugrul has been known to individuals such as I for many years and the history of his output is very well known amongst Information Technology professionals. I stress he is not 'Personally known to me'.

I very much doubt that Kent explained that the two most common Anti-Virus software systems, produced by the highly respected companies F-Secure and Symantec, classified his Kent's products as Spyware, Malware or Adware. F-Secure and Symatec products are widely used and include processes to remove the software created by Phorm (previously known as 121Media).

Furthermore, controversy is not at all limited to the current work of Phorm with BT and their trials. Kent's '121Media' developed a technology called 'Rootkits' which was specifically designed to reduce the chances of discovery of his system on a personal computer and to make subsequent removal more difficult. The old phrase relating to 'Leopards' and 'Spots' comes to mind.

When Mr Ertugrul described that, “Once something is stored you have lost control over it,” I suspect he did not explain that the Phorm system, if implemented, will indeed need to “store” information, even if it is only for a short time. Will you be happy to lose control, for any period of time?

Anonymity cannot be enhanced by the allowance in our country of interception systems running 24/7 and sited at our ISP. To try and “sell this” as a benefit is a nonsense, but that is what Mr Ertugrul will work to do. The benefits he and BT are pushing of “Anti Phishing technology” are a smokescreen. Anti phishing technology is already available in the most common web browser on any Windows home PC and it is already free. So what benefits does that leave us getting from Phorm?

Please consider: Would you accept all your letters being opened and your communication being profiled before the postman delivered them to you? Would you accept your telephone conversations being listened to, with someone sitting half way between you and all those whom you speak with? What is the difference between these two scenarios and the interception of all your web browsing data by Phorm?

Please be aware that Phorm spin wonderfully about how they will not read emails or other personal data. They cannot guarantee this. They may have lists of hundreds of web services providing email utilities, but they cannot list them all, there are simply too many.

The Phorm business proposition is morally reprehensible. It should not be permitted and one would hope that we have members of The Commons and The Lords taking sufficient interest in the detail of how Phorm and others propose to implement these intrusive methods of making a profit. If we do not have people in these places of power investigating the issues in detail, if we only listen to those who wish to profit from exploiting privacy in this country, we will open the door to them and despite our desires to go back, it will not close afterwards.

There is no need for Phorm's system to be permitted and there have been many occasions where people in our sphere of interest have seen that Mr Ertugrul is presented as a wolf in the clothing of a sheep.

More can be learned by a visit to www.nodpi.org and you or any of the members of The Lords would, I am certain, be welcomed by concerned members of the public who are meeting at the BT AGM on July 16th (The Barbican Centre). As I understand it there will be eminent experts in the field available to discuss the issues.

I know of no experts in the field of 'The Web' who think that Phorm's system is a good idea. I refer to Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University), Sir Tim Berners-Lee ('Inventor' of the web) and Alexander Hanff (activist who has studied Phorm's system and this issue in detail).

I do hope that this letter has been received in the manner I wish. I am deeply concerned that in our country we must have the systems in place to detect and investigate terrorism and crime, but that we should work to ensure that this is achieved within a framework that does not lead to a deterioration of the freedoms that we enjoy in Great Britain. I do not see Phorm's system co-existing with the maintenance of privacy at all.

Yours sincerely

I recommend hard copy in the post rather than email if you can send it that way. It carries more impact than electronic communication.

Hank

14-06-2008, 13:37	#8872
Hank Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] Tharrick - That letter is fantastic. I'll post mine below, but I think that receiving letters that are different in thier content and main approach is good, it shows the strength of opinion is sufficient to stir different poeple into action (not simply a copy of a standard letter - although I think that would be better than no letter at all) Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer The House Of Lords London SW1A 0PW Friday 13th June 2008 Dear Baroness Miller Phorm – Intercepting communication to profile individuals members of the British public I read with some concern, and even alarm, your comments during the House Of Lords debate on Data Protection. I was talking with the chief executive of Phorm this week who told me that once something is stored you have lost control over it. Phorm has been the subject of an interesting article in the Economist recently which some of your Lordships may have read. It is a company on the cutting edge of what can protect the public. A bit of controversy surrounds its work because, with its client BT, it intercepted people's online business without BT customers knowing. But Phorm is certainly correct when it says that if consumers knew what was actually stored they would decide to opt for true anonymity online. This is what Phorm is trying to develop with major telecommunications clients on a global scale. The very idea that you could believe Phorm are working to “Protect the public” and that you stated so in The Lords is very concerning indeed. I know and respect the fact that you are a member of the Liberal Democrat group of Lords and so I hope that I may take the time to offer my thoughts and a suggestion. Kent Ertugrul has been known to individuals such as I for many years and the history of his output is very well known amongst Information Technology professionals. I stress he is not 'Personally known to me'. I very much doubt that Kent explained that the two most common Anti-Virus software systems, produced by the highly respected companies F-Secure and Symantec, classified his Kent's products as Spyware, Malware or Adware. F-Secure and Symatec products are widely used and include processes to remove the software created by Phorm (previously known as 121Media). Furthermore, controversy is not at all limited to the current work of Phorm with BT and their trials. Kent's '121Media' developed a technology called 'Rootkits' which was specifically designed to reduce the chances of discovery of his system on a personal computer and to make subsequent removal more difficult. The old phrase relating to 'Leopards' and 'Spots' comes to mind. When Mr Ertugrul described that, “Once something is stored you have lost control over it,” I suspect he did not explain that the Phorm system, if implemented, will indeed need to “store” information, even if it is only for a short time. Will you be happy to lose control, for any period of time? Anonymity cannot be enhanced by the allowance in our country of interception systems running 24/7 and sited at our ISP. To try and “sell this” as a benefit is a nonsense, but that is what Mr Ertugrul will work to do. The benefits he and BT are pushing of “Anti Phishing technology” are a smokescreen. Anti phishing technology is already available in the most common web browser on any Windows home PC and it is already free. So what benefits does that leave us getting from Phorm? Please consider: Would you accept all your letters being opened and your communication being profiled before the postman delivered them to you? Would you accept your telephone conversations being listened to, with someone sitting half way between you and all those whom you speak with? What is the difference between these two scenarios and the interception of all your web browsing data by Phorm? Please be aware that Phorm spin wonderfully about how they will not read emails or other personal data. They cannot guarantee this. They may have lists of hundreds of web services providing email utilities, but they cannot list them all, there are simply too many. The Phorm business proposition is morally reprehensible. It should not be permitted and one would hope that we have members of The Commons and The Lords taking sufficient interest in the detail of how Phorm and others propose to implement these intrusive methods of making a profit. If we do not have people in these places of power investigating the issues in detail, if we only listen to those who wish to profit from exploiting privacy in this country, we will open the door to them and despite our desires to go back, it will not close afterwards. There is no need for Phorm's system to be permitted and there have been many occasions where people in our sphere of interest have seen that Mr Ertugrul is presented as a wolf in the clothing of a sheep. More can be learned by a visit to www.nodpi.org and you or any of the members of The Lords would, I am certain, be welcomed by concerned members of the public who are meeting at the BT AGM on July 16th (The Barbican Centre). As I understand it there will be eminent experts in the field available to discuss the issues. I know of no experts in the field of 'The Web' who think that Phorm's system is a good idea. I refer to Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University), Sir Tim Berners-Lee ('Inventor' of the web) and Alexander Hanff (activist who has studied Phorm's system and this issue in detail). I do hope that this letter has been received in the manner I wish. I am deeply concerned that in our country we must have the systems in place to detect and investigate terrorism and crime, but that we should work to ensure that this is achieved within a framework that does not lead to a deterioration of the freedoms that we enjoy in Great Britain. I do not see Phorm's system co-existing with the maintenance of privacy at all. Yours sincerely I recommend hard copy in the post rather than email if you can send it that way. It carries more impact than electronic communication. Hank