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

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Ok here ceedee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm thats where i got the information from

"The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."

I actually thought a commissioned report was were some party got paid correct me if im wrong.

so i took bbc's report out of context apologies again to Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.

Satisified ?

Thats referring to 80/20 thinking who are conducting the PIA and as far as I am aware neither Richard Clayton nor Nicholas Boehm (the two who were invited for the technical analysis meeting and produced the 10 page report) are members of 80/20 thinking.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Ok here ceedee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm thats where i got the information from

"The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."

I actually thought a commissioned report was were some party got paid correct me if im wrong.

so i took bbc's report out of context apologies again to Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.

Satisified ?

You have to be careful about accepting anything reported on any site as fact unless substantiated by references and citations. All comments should be taken as an opinion of the author and it is far safer to accept them as just that.
It is better to offer counter opinions based on informed knowledge than to continue to attack individuals with spurious allegations of misconduct or misdeed.

I don't doubt you are any more angry than many of us here but we have to offer intelligent and precise counter-argument rather than offer what surely amounts to abuse?

We need to be better than that. Like it or not you have to accept that Phorm Inc. have every right to try and enter this market with their business model and I don't doubt that on some level they will succeed. This is possibly the largest global market that there will ever have been and Phorm will not be the only players. The only thing we can hope to do is to ensure that they do it within the parameters of every applicable law and that we ensure that people operating such systems give non-consensual users every opportunity to be apart and distinct from the technology.


I look forward to the account of tonight's meeting for it will only be afterwards that we are better informed and in a position to discuss where our efforts might be best directed.

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

Originally Posted by OF1975

Thats referring to 80/20 thinking who are conducting the PIA and as far as I am aware neither Richard Clayton nor Nicholas Boehm (the two who were invited for the technical analysis meeting and produced the 10 page report) are members of 80/20 thinking.

You are of course, correct. Richard and Nicholas were there purely by invitation and in an independent role. I'm of the understanding that areas of their report were amended to correct inaccuracies about the technology and those amendments were agreed by both parties.
That is to be expected and anyone would insist that in such a high stake area nothing is said that is misleading. There must be fairness adopted throughout the whole debate.

[3x2]

Like it or not you have to accept that Phorm Inc. have every right to try and enter this market with their business model and I don't doubt that on some level they will succeed. This is possibly the largest global market that there will ever have been and Phorm will not be the only players. The only thing we can hope to do is to ensure that they do it within the parameters of every applicable law and that we ensure that people operating such systems give non-consensual users every opportunity to be apart and distinct from the technology.

I think this is the key problem I have with the technology. It is so obviously skating thin ice as far as the law is concerned. The problem seems to be which laws should apply. We see Phorm and BT playing one set of laws against another, one department against another. The one thing this debate has illustrated is that the (new?) law needs to be much clearer.

There will be a host of companies waiting in the wings once Phorm is in general use and you can bet that their proposals will be way beyond anything currently proposed by Phorm.

[mark777]

The London Meeting

Quick!

Live updates!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ate_londo.html

(Spotted by Frank Rizzo on BadPhorm)

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

The debate

Quick!

Live updates!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ate_londo.html

(Spotted by Frank Rizzo on BadPhorm)

Thanks. Gotta love Simon Davies trying to make the (il)legality issue irrelevant. I have no doubt Alexander will not let him get away with that.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by 3x2

I think this is the key problem I have with the technology. It is so obviously skating thin ice as far as the law is concerned. The problem seems to be which laws should apply. We see Phorm and BT playing one set of laws against another, one department against another. The one thing this debate has illustrated is that the (new?) law needs to be much clearer.

There will be a host of companies waiting in the wings once Phorm is in general use and you can bet that their proposals will be way beyond anything currently proposed by Phorm.

Indeed. We are the thin edge of the wedge and Phorm are doing their utmost to convince the FTC in the US that they comply with all their rules on behavioural targeted advertising. What's more worrying is that I understand that the FTC are looking to legitimise behavioural targeting as an acceptable medium.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080414/20080414006002.html?.v=1

My main issue with the whole process has always been this.

The company also strongly supports a standard of transparent notice and informed choice that would permit users to make a meaningful decision whether to switch off Phorm’s service. Phorm points out that this standard is common practice and is understood by industry and consumers without being overly burdensome.

I still fail to see how the proposed technology allows for a user to truly 'switch off' Phorm's service as there seems no way as of yet to be a proposed system to allow Virgin users to avoid the DPI system regardless of the fact we will not be served the adverts. I think this is where any legal challenge must be levelled however we simply can not begin to prepare such a challenge until the technology is in operation and we understand how Virgin are implementing it because as yet it is just conjecture.

I also think it is time to move away from the 'personally identifiable information' point as Phorm quite possibly do comply within the law on this and it is why all of their statements continue to roll out the spin. Far less clear is the 'interception of communications' point and I feel this is where a battle can be fought unless of course the law lords change the goalposts on us. I don't doubt that the government will see this as a technology that should be implemented and not for any surreptitious snooping activity they can tap in to ( I don't believe they need to, they will have that already covered IMO ) but purely because of the huge tax revenue to be had from this market.

[popper]

i also posted that in the other official PIA thread #46

[Pasanonic]

Posted on the blog comments in the hope that Darren can get to read it.

Good job Darren.
Please, if you get the opportunity to see comments before the q&a can you try and get an answer on how they can call this meeting anything other than a PR exercise if they refuse to answer any questions on the legality of the system?
These pints will form the mainstay of Alexander Hanff's speech and they have already dismissed the issue on the grounds that they have no legal counsel. They surely have an opinion as to why they are within the law.

Simon Davies promised me that he can be trusted to 'do the right thing'. He's already done the wrong thing by making a farce of the meeting by whitewashing the only reason the public have issues with it. Legality.

regards

Craig.

Edit. It looks like he won't see it as once again comments on BBC blogs are borked.

Not sure about 'the only reason the public have issues with it - legality'. I'd have issues with it whether or not it is legal

[Pasanonic]

Ertugrul concludes by tackling the issue of legality and whether Phorm breaches RIPA because it makes an ilegal interception of people's browsing.

He makes the point that the body which is questioning Phorms's legality with respect to RIPA is the same body which attacked RIPA when it was first being proposed by government.

This is the sort of misdirection and spin that really makes my blood boil. Surely his point is irrelevant to the issue. How does the fact that they may have questioned RIPA make them any less able to question legality under RIPA given that RIPA exists and the law is written?

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Not sure about 'the only reason the public have issues with it - legality'. I'd have issues with it whether or not it is legal

I understand but once a legality is proven ( should it turn out that way ) then your issues can only be dissatisfaction with your ISP for using the system and at that point all we can do is vote with our feet until we have no refuge left.
If the worst comes to the worst you live near me and I'll take you for a beer and we can bemoan our fate in one of the establishments on Washway Road

edit:/ go on Richard, give them hell

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

This is the sort of misdirection and spin that really makes my blood boil. Surely his point is irrelevant to the issue. How does the fact that they may have questioned RIPA make them any less able to question legality under RIPA given that RIPA exists and the law is written?

[mark777]

I've just tried posting the following, but I get a 502 service not available error.
Anyone else getting this?
----------------------
Thanks for doing this Darren. So many of us had no chance to get there given the fairly short notice and the early start time. (No real chance if you work outside London).

"But unless there are senior legal counsel here to reflect we will end up with a bunfight."

So why didn't 80/20 or Phorm arrange one, to go on public record, rather than dismiss one of the key issues?

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

If the worst comes to the worst you live near me and I'll take you for a beer and we can bemoan our fate in one of the establishments on Washway Road

mmm...

Originally Posted by popper

Mick have you got a front page CF story primed for today ?

Sorry popper for not replying to this sooner, been out all day only got back an hour ago - I do want to get a news item up on recent developments. But this thread sure moves fast ...

...Alexander has good support -

Dr Clayton wraps up saying: "It has to be informed opt in. I don't think it improves the stability of the internet. I think it's downright ilegal in the UK."