Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 180

jca111 · 09-04-2008, 12:54

Hi all

I've just had a thought! Every one in concentrating on consent etc.

BUT I've just read Dr Richard Clayton white paper on how Phorm works, and I realised something (extract from the white paper).

"The Layer 7 switch will see that the request does not contain a Phorm "cookie" and will direct the request to a machine located within the ISP network that will pretend to be www.cnn.com and will return a "307" response which says, in effect, "you want that page over there". The page that will be directed to is webwise.net/bind/?<parameters>where the parameters record the original URL that was wanted."

The key is "will pretend to be www.cnn.com" (or obviously any other website you are surfing.

Would it not be illegal to pretend to be another company or person in the UK without that company/persons permission? Particularly for commercial gain?

Phishing is a prime example of impersonation of a company, so surely this is just another form of that?

Anybody know how I can find out if impersonating a company is illegal?

Ravenheart · 09-04-2008, 12:54

The ICO have amended their "green light" they gave on phorm last week.

the 1.2 version can be found here and a number of interesting changes

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/...e_and_oie.aspx

and a really intersting bit

Quote:

Regulation 7 of PECR will require the ISP to get the consent of users to the use of their traffic data for any value added services. This strongly supports the view that Phorm products will have to operate on an opt in basis to use traffic data as part of the process of returning relevant targeted marketing to internet users.

Wonder if this is the reason for the hit on the share price

AlexanderHanff · 09-04-2008, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jca111

Hi all

I've just had a thought! Every one in concentrating on consent etc.

BUT I've just read Dr Richard Clayton white paper on how Phorm works, and I realised something (extract from the white paper).

"The Layer 7 switch will see that the request does not contain a Phorm "cookie" and will direct the request to a machine located within the ISP network that will pretend to be www.cnn.com and will return a "307" response which says, in effect, "you want that page over there". The page that will be directed to is webwise.net/bind/?<parameters>where the parameters record the original URL that was wanted."

The key is "will pretend to be www.cnn.com" (or obviously any other website you are surfing.

Would it not be illegal to pretend to be another company or person in the UK without that company/persons permission? Particularly for commercial gain?

Phishing is a prime example of impersonation of a company, so surely this is just another form of that?

Anybody know how I can find out if impersonating a company is illegal?

Yes, Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 ss1.a, ss1.b.i and ss5. Read all about it in my finished paper on Monday

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

The ICO have amended their "green light" they gave on phorm last week.

the 1.2 version can be found here and a number of interesting changes

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/...e_and_oie.aspx

and a really intersting bit

Wonder if this is the reason for the hit on the share price

Nice

In essence that statement makes it clear that the BT trials of 2006/2007 were a breach of PECR (which I have stated in my paper). So now we need to start a letter campaign to the IC directly citing their own press release and demanding an investigation of the BT Trials in 2006/2007.

The tide has just turned in a dramatic way against Phorm and more importantly BT and we need to jump on our surf boards and ride this all the way to ICO. I will post a letter template this evening.

Alexander Hanff

rogerdraig · 09-04-2008, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

The ICO have amended their "green light" they gave on phorm last week.

the 1.2 version can be found here and a number of interesting changes

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/...e_and_oie.aspx

and a really intersting bit

Wonder if this is the reason for the hit on the share price

cant remember if this bits the same as before

"A question has been raised by the some individuals about whether or not the Phorm products entails an unlawful interception of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Home Office is responsible for compliance with RIPA and Phorm has approached the office directly and had a written response. Some organisations have stressed an alternative view that the scanning of the content of websites by the ISP on route to the user will entail an interception of communication during transmission. This is a matter that the Home Office takes the lead on and the Commissioner will not be taking any further action."

but they are passing the buck to home office it seems

AlexanderHanff · 09-04-2008, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogermevans

cant remember if this bits the same as before

"A question has been raised by the some individuals about whether or not the Phorm products entails an unlawful interception of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Home Office is responsible for compliance with RIPA and Phorm has approached the office directly and had a written response. Some organisations have stressed an alternative view that the scanning of the content of websites by the ISP on route to the user will entail an interception of communication during transmission. This is a matter that the Home Office takes the lead on and the Commissioner will not be taking any further action."

but they are passing the buck to home office it seems

That just means we can all write to the Secretary of State for Justice under the "advisement from the Information Commissioner" requesting an investigation of the BT Trials and future deployment of Phorm under RIPA. That will be template #2 then

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

Someone get this info posted on iii asap please. I would say it is definitely in the interests of investors to know that Phorm will be required to be Opt-In, which significantly devalues it as an investment.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Wow I am grinning from ear to ear

Such a good day!

rogerdraig · 09-04-2008, 13:26

lol sounds good to me as you said they did tell us it wasn't their problem

and the home office was where to go to deal with it

jca111 · 09-04-2008, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Someone get this info posted on iii asap please. I would say it is definitely in the interests of investors to know that Phorm will be required to be Opt-In, which significantly devalues it as an investment.

Alexander Hanff

[SIZE=1][COLOR="Silver"]---------

Done it on iii.

AlexanderHanff · 09-04-2008, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by jca111

Done it on iii.

It means a bit more than they think the system should be opt in. ICO are responsible for enforcing Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR) so if Phorm was not explicitly opt-in in it's current form, ICO would have to intervene under PECR.

Alexander Hanff

jca111 · 09-04-2008, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It means a bit more than they think the system should be opt in. ICO are responsible for enforcing Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR) so if Phorm was not explicitly opt-in in it's current form, ICO would have to intervene under PECR.

Alexander Hanff

OK - I was a bit rushed - I have added that bit as well now to the iii forum

AlexanderHanff · 09-04-2008, 13:52

If ICO refuse to act now with regards to the 2006/2007 trials, we need to think about going to Europe. PECR is an EC Directive so if the IC is not enforcing it then it needs to be brought to the attention of our MEPs.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:52 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

I have emailed Chris Williams at The Register as well to make sure he is aware of the changes

Hopefully we will see another El Reg article before the end of the day.

I will be emailing the BBC News Room as well, I would suggest that as many people as possible should do the same.

Alexander Hanff

Ravenheart · 09-04-2008, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I have emailed Chris Williams at The Register as well to make sure he is aware of the changes

Hopefully we will see another El Reg article before the end of the day.

I will be emailing the BBC News Room as well, I would suggest that as many people as possible should do the same.

Alexander Hanff

I emailed Chris Williams about the changes earlier

I'll was also going to contact Darren Waters at the Beeb

kt88man · 09-04-2008, 14:01

There seems quite a lot more public awareness of Phorm thanks to the efforts of quite a few regulars on here. So....

I wonder just how BT are going to entice their 10,000 trial users to take part. I would really like to be able to see the web page that will spin (whoops, sorry, explain) all of the benefits, enhanced anti-phising, high quality adverts etc etc.

I've spoken to a few people who are not tech-heads but do follow the news - the association seems to be BT-Spying-More Adverts...

Unfortunately there are also the 'well, so what'.

I also notice that the PM petition is growing at a nice rate, another 1000 signatures in the last four days.

Just off to write a few more letters...

AlexanderHanff · 09-04-2008, 14:08

OK if you all go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/

You can send a message to the BBC Press Office. I just sent the following:

The ICO published an amended public statement regarding Phorm and OIX today here:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/...e_and_oie.aspx

Paragraph 12 of the statement refers to consent requirements under PECR. This clearly indicates that the BT Trials of 2006/2007 were a breach of PECR as consent was not obtained.

Alexander Hanff
University of Cumbria (Student)

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

I just had an email back from Chris Williams saying he is already working on the story so we will look forward to that one

Alexander Hanff

the_baby_jebus · 09-04-2008, 14:16

the new advice from the IC still doesn't say anything about our data not being mirrored..

it could be taken to mean that we will have to opt-in to the data rape but our data will still go past the profiler even if it does have it's eyes shut by the default opt-out cookie

unicus · 09-04-2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kt88man

I wonder just how BT are going to entice their 10,000 trial users to take part.

What is needed is 10,000 BT users who aren't going to use the web during the trial period, it won't happen but an amusing thought (Kent storming into a rage - "what do you mean the logs are empty"

)