Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
|
Nice one Pete. I've raised the Canon photo example with BT but got no answer. Surprise surprise.
Para 3 of my
letter to BT Retail legal wallahs,
3. Issues relating to Phorm/Webwise claims about the storage of data
3.1. This question is based on a review by a lawyer, Struan Robertson, from Pinsent Masons -(but he is speaking personally not on behalf of Pinsent Masons) – I understand that Pinsent Masons are retained by BT for legal advice? http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=9090
Phorm's have noted that this article "makes the important distinction between the letter and spirit of the law". (I suppose he means - "Officer, I know I was speeding but surely the law wasn't meant to catch people like me?")
Struan Robertson says:
Point 1...
Canon could instruct Phorm to deliver adverts for its latest digital camera to anyone who visited a web page identified by Canon as giving a glowing review the previous week. It can narrow that request even further: Canon can tell Phorm only to deliver the ad to anyone who read that review and also visited more than two other pages that mentioned the model name, e.g. IXUS 970, within the past three days.
Point 2...
There are certainly good things about Phorm. First and foremost, it never knows who you are, it can't find out and it has no record of where you've been.
Now - my question. How can Phorm not store any browsing history, yet know
where someone browsed three days ago? Is Struan Robertson wrong in point 1 or in point 2?
Their reply artfully, and in my opinion, deceitfully, avoided the whole issue and definitely didn't answer my question. (that url is cuttable/pastable/quotable, so feel free to quote - after all it's on the internet, so according to BT you can assume implied consent or whatever)
Storage of data
There is no fundamental disagreement between Struan Robertson's piece and the claims made regarding the privacy safeguards of the Webwise system, as can be illustrated by a fuller description of the mechanics of the system. When an advertiser specifies their targeting criteria for serving ads to particular users, they are actually defining the parameters of an advertising channel within the Webwise system, plus their "recency" requirements for channel matches (i.e. when the matches occurred).
This channel definition is then used to match against summaries of web page content as pages pass through the system (the summaries or 'data digests' contain page and search keywords, plus site URLs from pages that are permitted to be profiled). If there is a match for a particular page's data digest against the channel definition, the match is recorded, with the channel name, the Webwise UID and a timestamp being the only information stored. The URL of the page visited by the user is not stored.
When at a later time/date, a page containing a Phorm advertising tag is requested by the Webwise user, the Phorm system looks up the Webwise DID in the channel match database and selects and ad to show based on the stored channel matches and the campaign requirements (e.g. user must have matched the channel once in the last 5 days). It should be noted that advertisers will not be allowed to specify single URLs in the definition of channels, and hence it will not be possible to target ads based solely on a user having visited a specific page."
So - once again for the record.
How can the system "know" where I've been (as in which urls I've visited and how many days ago) and simultaneously not have any record of where I've been? If Canon will only serve an ad when I've been visiting a specific set of urls, or matched certain conditions within the last 5 days or 10 days, how is that done? How does the system meet Canon's "recency" requirements. HOW?
I'm not making this up - I'm just using the published information, and quoting stuff coming out of either BT or Phorm, and trying to make sense of it. The answer about the Canon ad came from a Phorm representative answering questions from Struan Robertson. It's not something campaigners have made up.
But then they do say that once you start telling porkies in public it gets very very difficult to hold on to a consistent storyline.
It's really very easy, just be
transparent to the end user. Transparent as in "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". (Not transparent as in covert, deceptive, obfuscation, spin, so you don't get found out.)
Oh what a tangled Web(wise) you weave.
---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------
Is there anyone with no significant assets, and who is not a property owner, fancies copying a sizeable chunk of a BT website and putting it up on their own webspace, and then letting BT know about it?
If they act against you by asking you to take it down, we have them between a rock and a hard place.
If they FAIL to act against you, then the fact can be publicised and maximum hay made while the sun shines, emphasising that according to BT anything anywhere on the "open" internet can be copied and reproduced anywhere.
Alternatively we could write/email BT and simply let them know that we are planning to do this, and do they have any comments? (free of legal risk).
Is there a particular part of their empire that might be suitable for such exploitation? (Like the DABS site?) Perhaps we could let them know we plan to scrape the DABS site regularly and use the data to undercut them?
Now who would we need to contact to inform them about that?
Here's the sort of thing I had in mind - I'm
sending this off to BT Retail legal department...
Dear Sir or Madam:
Copryright
Pursuant to recent correspondence from yourselves, I wish to advise you that I have plans to copy large sections of material on websites from BT Group plc, and put them up on my own websites. I am presuming that there are no copyright objections to this.
I am also planning to “scrape” the sites of both DABS and the BT Shop on a regular basis, and then use the data therein to offer the items at a lower price from my own retail outlet. I may just use the page copies from the BT Shop and DABS sites as they stand, but with altered contact details so shoppers can contact my own sales outlet instead of yours.
I was worried about copyright issues, when I was planning this but your reassurances that “Our position is that as a general proposition, by placing a webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied licence to reproduce/copy. We believe that the taking of a temporary copy for the purposes of Webwise will fall within that implied licence and also believe in any event that the proposed operation of Webwise is permitted under S.28A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”
I was also worried that there might be conditions on the website forbidding me taking such copies, but I now see that even if a website owner puts up that sort of notice, it is not necessary according to your legal position, for anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to it.
I’m delighted to have this opportunity to save myself all the tedious and expensive market research and web page design fees – now I can just rip off someone else’s work and use it for my own commercial purposes. Can I assume you are happy about me doing this? If you have no objections I can just go ahead in 14 days time? Of course if you object I will observe (and publish) your objections. But you will need to explain why what applies to the BT Retail goose, doesn’t apply also to the BT customer gander.
Unless you object specifically I shall assume implied consent to publish your reply.
Sincerely,