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

[manxminx]

Alexander, I know you are not a lawyer, however I was wondering if you could give me a quick opinion regarding my post above (2717). Do you feel I've interpreted the PECR correctly with reference to website owners also being users and therefore also required to give explicit consent to Phorm ?

Ali.

[AlexanderHanff]

Damn we scared him off.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ----------

Originally Posted by manxminx

Alexander, I know you are not a lawyer, however I was wondering if you could give me a quick opinion regarding my post above (2717). Do you feel I've interpreted the PECR correctly with reference to website owners also being users and therefore also required to give explicit consent to Phorm ?

Ali.

Only in the case where as you outlined your web hosting is provided by your ISP. There is nothing in PECR which appears to require consent from both ends of the communication as covered by RIPA.

The main points of PECR are, it would seem to prove the trials in 2006/2007 were illegal and also reinforces that explicit informed consent must be obtained as opposed to a change in terms and conditions.

Furthermore, is clearly states that consent must be obtained before the fact, therefore using DPI (which is exactly what the Layer 7 technology does in order to detect the opt-in/opt-out cookie despite an argument to contrary earlier today on this thread) to intercept and process the traffic data fails to meet the requirements of the Directive.

It is an incredibly basic principle to comprehend and I fail to understand why Phorm and BT are having so many difficulties making an accurate interpretation of said requirements.

If Phorm would like, I am happy to visit them (at their expense) and offer my consulting skills at the cost of £160 GBP per hour (my usual consulting charge) in order to clarify this matter for them.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

BBC are a bit slow on the uptake as usual:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm

[mertle]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Damn we scared him off.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ----------



Only in the case where as you outlined your web hosting is provided by your ISP. There is nothing in PECR which appears to require consent from both ends of the communication as covered by RIPA.

The main points of PECR are, it would seem to prove the trials in 2006/2007 were illegal and also reinforces that explicit informed consent must be obtained as opposed to a change in terms and conditions.

Furthermore, is clearly states that consent must be obtained before the fact, therefore using DPI (which is exactly what the Layer 7 technology does in order to detect the opt-in/opt-out cookie despite an argument to contrary earlier today on this thread) to intercept and process the traffic data fails to meet the requirements of the Directive.

It is an incredibly basic principle to comprehend and I fail to understand why Phorm and BT are having so many difficulties making an accurate interpretation of said requirements.

If Phorm would like, I am happy to visit them (at their expense) and offer my consulting skills at the cost of £160 GBP per hour (my usual consulting charge) in order to clarify this matter for them.

Alexander Hanff

Dont undersell yourself

charge £10,000 a minute and stay few days at a top hotel at there expense and bust there ass

Go get them

[AlexanderHanff]

[QUOTE=mertle;34524311]

Dont undersell yourself

charge £10,000 a minute and stay few days at a top hotel at there expense and bust there ass

Go get them

On the contrary I would be willing to reduce my hourly rate to £120 per hour in the interest of clarifying these issues to protect the public from any more bs claims from the Phorm PR engine. Given their current stock market crisis on AIM, I understand they may not be able to afford my usual fee of £160 GBP per hour and I try to be a reasonable man.

Alexander Hanff

Sorry if its been posted already, but the El Reg article indicates that a) the 'secret' trials ARE under invetstigation and more interestingly, VM seem to be backing off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...phorm_tougher/

"Virgin Media meanwhile says that despite Phorm's claims to the contrary, it did not "confirm [an] exclusive agreement". A concerned customer was told by CEO Neil Berkett's office: "We haven't signed up with Phorm, we've expressed an interest."

"The ICO's tougher stance also means that as far as the ICO is concerned, BT and Phorm's secret and allegedly illegal trials without consent conducted in 2006 and 2007 are subject to investigation under DPA. A spokeswoman said more news on the probe will be forthcoming, but was unable to provide a timetable for when the tens of thousands who were tracked and profiled can expect to see those responsible held to account. BT has refused to answer questions on why it believes it acted within the law."

[labougie]

VM backing off for sure! That's what I've been waiting for!

[JackSon]

Did this rumoured annoucement by VM actually manifest last night?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by labougie

VM backing off for sure! That's what I've been waiting for!

yes just hope they staye backed off and not just waiting till the dust settles then jump back into bed with them. It is to late for me I have already moved on hope you all are safe from phorm.

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by Alex @ Phorm

Alex @ Phorm here

(snip: the attempt to make good out of bad...)

Alex,

Take a step back for a moment. Look at what the product is that you are trying to sell to the end user.

Where is the benefit? Where is the added value? What do I get out of it?

I'm sorry, but from the users perspective, Phorm is "I Give - You Take". I don't want Phorm's anti-phising, thank you. If Phorm think's adverts tailored to my perceived needs is adding value then they are very much mistaken.

If this was so brilliant it would be up and running and users would be begging for more... I don't see that happening though.

[popper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm

http://www.marketingvox.com/phorm-co...r-ripa-037929/

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_new...stnews&id=2031

[dav]

Originally Posted by jca111

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle3714098.ece

Looks like Kent is spinning this to a positive story!!!!!

My comment to The Times article...

It looks as if you missed out the part where ICO state that this has to be an explicit Opt-in, rather than the default opt-in that makes Phorm/ISPs more money from hawking Joe Public's browsing habits.
Is timesonline.co.uk going to be a partner in this system?

DavW, Rotherham,

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by dav

My comment to The Times article...

bet Rupert Murdoch would love to be able to do what Phorm are attempting...

[TheBruce1]

If VM implement Phrom(whether its an opt-in or out is irrelevant)should VM be forced to open its network to competitors, especially non-phorm ISP. I believe Ofcom has the power to do just that.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/internet/

Why should i or any other user of VM be forced to pay £125 to BT, if there was competition within the cable market i could avoid those costs.

[popper]

from that marketingvox above, Interesting.
"
In a phone interview yesterday, Ertugrul said that in two weeks Phorm will start serving banner ads that inform users their information is being collected. The ads will enable them to opt out. To disassociate themselves from whatever data Phorm has on them now, users can just clear their cookies, he said.

But an Off switch may not be enough. Yesterday the UK Information Commissioner, which is responsible for enforcing certain data protection and privacy acts, published an assessment of Phorm's technology. The ICO concluded "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."

[CaptJamieHunter]

One slightly shattered Captain is back. I see Virgin Media hasn't issued any kind of statement. Oh well, if they won't actually say things publicly as was strongly hinted then that's their own fault (the moral of this story is if you say to me that you're going to do something, do it!). They've had a day and a half already. To me that is plenty of time.

People here know that last month I wrote to Neil Berkett outlining my concerns about Phorm and that I've already had a correspondence with Ian Woodham, VM's Data Protection Officer. Ian's response has been carefully worded on his part (understandably) and thus a bit unsatisfying. That's no criticism of Ian, at that time there was only so much he was able to say. It seemed a good idea that Neil Berkett should know more about Phorm and why there is a backlash against it.

On Monday morning I received a phone call from the number 08454 540000. That number had called the previous evening while I was out. I Googled the number and it showed as a VM office number. When it rang this morning, it was someone saying he was calling on behalf of Neil Berkett and we talked for about 35 minutes.

As part of the chat said chappie read to me a prepared statement which he said was "just this minute from his colleague in the press office". The statement made a number of points which could be seen as being aimed at clarifying some of the spin from Phorm's PR statements.

I asked if the statement was available online anywhere so people could read it for themselves and he said it wasn't online yet but that it would be. I was just out of the shower so it didn't occur to me to ask when it would be issued.

I was able to note down a few snippets:

"We (VM) haven't signed up with Phorm, we've expressed an interest"

"VM are looking into concerns about legality and customer privacy"

"There is absolutely no foregone conclusion that VM will implement Phorm"

"Concerns about customers' security and any effect on our reputation will be at the forefront of our thoughts"

I re-emphasised my concerns over my belief that Phorm is illegal and that any opt-out must prevent data from going anywhere near Phorm's network. I made and re-emphasised that point. Chappie assured me that Neil Berkett had seen my letter and that he is "taking my concerns seriously". No doubt the bit about VM's reputation taking a hammering struck a nerve. "The people with whom you associate has a huge bearing on your reputation" is another point I made.

The Guardian's rejection statement may also have some influence as chappie mentioned the Guardian is quite influential amongst its peers.

I emphasised (as a VM customer who wants to stay a VM customer because I loathe BT) that VM needed to issue this statement publicly as soon as they could because their is a customer perception of inaction on their part.

Having had a statement read to me and been told it would be issued, I am disappointed that Virgin Media have not done so.

Maybe I should have recorded the call, maybe I should have asked for written confirmation. As requested, I have not named the contact at Virgin Media although I do have his contact details here. I was also complimented on the tone and conciseness of my letter (concise? moi? surely not!). Had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming!

I suggest that everyone here who is a Virgin Media customer writes to Neil Berkett (and I mean write, not e-mail) with a polite letter making brief points. CEOs don't like techie stuff so keep it summarised with impact points such as illegal, interception without permission, VM reputation, Phorm reputation, customers moving away because of perceived inaction.

Please keep it polite. If we can convince the CEO this is as wrong as we believe it is and that VM is and will suffer reputation damage and loss of income then we have a very influential ally. It's important that VM realise this isn't about not wanting them to make money - it's about customers being able to trust their ISP to not get involved with what many (including some very eminent people) believe to be an illegal scheme.

Time for some hot tea and a hot bath...