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

[Wild Oscar]

I've just watched both 'versions' of the Click! program .. good work Alexander!
Obviously the extended web version is much better than the TV version .. I wonder why they cut it like that? ... It ruins it in my opinion!
I'm just wondering, Alexander if it were possible for you (as a subject of the interview) to ask for a copy of an un-edited cut? .. I don't even know if the BBC provide this sort of service, but it might be worth asking!

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I am disengaging. I will not sit around on my Saturday afternoon watching bruised egos go at each other like cats and dogs. It is not even remotely constructive.

Alexander Hanff

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Geez Alexander be cool, don't have a baby. People like to express opinion on forums. It's not hurting anyone is it?

If you want someone like Simon to bother wading through all this guff and respond to the important points then I guess it does. I've got no problems with expression of opinion, expression of counter opinion, countering the counter-opinion with counter arguments of sort.

But IMHO when the debate degenerates into this to-me to-you nonsense you'd be better off in a chat room.

[flowrebmit]

Originally Posted by declanh

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

I can't remember that from the interview (BTW thanks to the person who put up the link for the benefit of those of us that don't use Micro$oft or Flash) but I guess he means the logging preformed by our ISPs. I'm not aware of any ISP being open about how much of our internet traffic is being logged.

[declanh]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

It is just Kent loosely referring to his view that everywhere we go on the web is followed closely by google and that they store all that information against our IP for eons. His view is also that because google do 'this' then Phorm should be allowed to do 'that' even though 'this' and 'that' are chalk and cheese.

That really is what Kent's attitude boils down to. He's annoyed that we accept google and won't accept Phorm. He thinks because Google merely exist that everything his company does is valid and he has a little bit of a hard time coping with the fact that nobody outside of Phorm sees things that way.

Trotting out Google and its practices with the advertising tech it deploys is his favourite thing. Given that there is no correlation between what Google do and what Phorm proposes beyond the word 'advert' I must admit I admire his gall. He must have a huge set of nads to keep repeating stuff even he must know is pig swill.

well If Kent only meant Google and other search engines then his statement that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address is just plain wrong and should have been challenged ??

All your searches being stored is very different to all your online activity.

Searches would be 1% of my online activity if even that....

[Angry@VMedia]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

We should Digg this one too:

http://digg.com/tech_news/BBC_Click_Phorm_discussion

It is a link to the extended web edition of the Click! debate

Alexander Hanff

Alex, i have watched this clip over & over again, and have noticed the look in k*nts eyes & that smarmy smile around the 1:31 mark.
This is the reason that hatred for this slimebag has tripled, anyone who is ANYONE should be ableto tell that this creature cannot be trusted, and as such i would not trust him as far as i could throw one of his rootkitted, spyware servers!

It should be noted that he cannot be trusted, and ANYONE that opts in to this is just asking for trouble and they deserve every single repercussion of that choice!

I would also like to correct Mr. Phorm on 1 matter; the anti-phishing on IE7, after installing this update for no end of paying customers, EVERY single time I open IE7, it informs me that IE 7 has anti-phishing technology, and it gives me OPTIONS as to if I want it on, off or disabled, so good try kent, we can ALL see right through your pointless comments & spin!!!!!!!!!

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

If you want someone like Simon to bother wading through all this guff and respond to the important points then I guess it does. I've got no problems with expression of opinion, expression of counter opinion, countering the counter-opinion with counter arguments of sort.

But IMHO when the debate degenerates into this to-me to-you nonsense you'd be better off in a chat room.

Simon? Simon who? Why should I be interested in what Simon Says? This is a forum. People can express their opinion can't they? imho

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

OK I am disengaging. I will not sit around on my Saturday afternoon watching bruised egos go at each other like cats and dogs. It is not even remotely constructive.

Alexander Hanff

Oh dear. To be fair this has nothing to do with you beyond that it is public.

I've made my statements concerning things stated about me where I believed those things to be harsh and misplaced. I have defended myself and I'd feel that was enough unless what I say is later countered.
I don't have a bruised ego. I just don't shy from confrontation when I am in the right.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------

Originally Posted by declanh

well If Kent only meant Google and other search engines then his statement that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address is just plain wrong and should have been challenged ??

All your searches being stored is very different to all your online activity.

Searches would be 1% of my online activity if even that....

I know and there was a little tongue in cheek in my reply so you can't take it as fact. But the gist of what I am saying is correct. Kent believes that because we are already tracked on our way around the web ( Google is usually the name he trots out first ) then we have no right to object to Phorm.

The way I see it is so what? I don't actually care what google does. I've never seen a Google add anyway and anything relating to them is adblocked. I do care that Phorm want to intercept my communication data, much of which is sensitive, and hawk it out like I'm a cheap whore.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Oh dear. To be fair this has nothing to do with you beyond that it is public.

I've made my statements concerning things stated about me where I believed those things to be harsh and misplaced. I have defended myself and I'd feel that was enough unless what I say is later countered.
I don't have a bruised ego. I just don't shy from confrontation when I am in the right.

Quite right, and much as I admire Alexander, a hissy fit is out of order. Have a rest Alex, you'll feel better later

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

If you want someone like Simon to bother wading through all this guff and respond to the important points then I guess it does. I've got no problems with expression of opinion, expression of counter opinion, countering the counter-opinion with counter arguments of sort.

But IMHO when the debate degenerates into this to-me to-you nonsense you'd be better off in a chat room.

If Simon wants to respond about anything he will do. He'll trawl through all of the messages just as we all have and he has before. If he had anything to say on last nights postings then given that he was here until nearly 4am and that he did make a couple of posts then he chose not to.

Given that he is just another voice in a debate than surely it does not matter if he speaks or not.

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Simon? Simon who? Why should I be interested in what Simon Says? This is a forum. People can express their opinion can't they? imho

I for one am. He's got Phorm's ear, and that is significant. If Phorm is going to be implmented I'm glad Simon is engaged. Of course you could argue that without Simon's help Phorm would never get past the ICO and the ISP but I don't buy that. I'm all for shipping arms to Iran because if we don't, someone else will, and there's a hell of a lot can be said for knowing what's in your enemy's inventory, and in fact somehwhat subtly limiting the effectiveness of their arsenal. (opt-in).

That's not to say I'm not unhappy about the video. I feel mislead that Phorm have the footage of every opinion voiced by everyone in the audience and we don't.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Can we please stop this ridiculous infighting it is driving me berserk. I logged off early last night because of it and now today it is continuing, lets get a grip this is just silly.

Alexander Hanff

tend to agree

on another note "Micro Mart" have a good cover story on phorm by Mark Pickavance in issue 1002 ( 1- 7 May )

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

I for one am. He's got Phorm's ear, and that is significant. If Phorm is going to be implmented I'm glad Simon is engaged. Of course you could argue that without Simon's help Phorm would never get past the ICO and the ISP but I don't buy that. I'm all for shipping arms to Iran because if we don't, someone else will, and there's a hell of a lot can be said for knowing what's in your enemy's inventory, and in fact somehwhat subtly limiting the effectiveness of their arsenal. (opt-in).

That's not to say I'm not unhappy about the video. I feel mislead that Phorm have the footage of every opinion voiced by everyone in the audience and we don't.

Ok, that's fair. But answer me this, what do you know, really and reliably know about Simon? Why is everyone so prepared to believe in the self-proclaimed these days?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

I for one am. He's got Phorm's ear, and that is significant. If Phorm is going to be implmented I'm glad Simon is engaged. Of course you could argue that without Simon's help Phorm would never get past the ICO and the ISP but I don't buy that. I'm all for shipping arms to Iran because if we don't, someone else will, and there's a hell of a lot can be said for knowing what's in your enemy's inventory, and in fact somehwhat subtly limiting the effectiveness of their arsenal. (opt-in).

That's not to say I'm not unhappy about the video. I feel mislead that Phorm have the footage of every opinion voiced by everyone in the audience and we don't.

You'd have a different view of the arms trade if you were the guy who had to go and take them back when it all goes tits up.

I agree with you that it is good to have Simon engaged given his place in the wheel. Simon is a reasonable man, eloquent and courteous even when others have been less than so in the past. I've stated too many times my respect for what he has achieved in the past but I've also stated that given his relationship with 80/20 and Phorm then he can only be judged with his 80/20 hat on and that his PI hat is in the closet.
It is not unfair to remind people that Simon is an employee of 80/20 Thinking ( regardless of his salaried status ) and as such he has obligations to his client when he deals with the public and if he did not defend his client's reputation to the hilt then it is at that point that I would lose respect for him. I don't have the slightest bit of issue with Simon earning a living and seeing him stay true to his client because I'd like to think if I employed people in the same manner then they would do the same for me even if my business was processing babies for dog food.

[Kursk]

Yup, that's an important point that: we are not 80/20T's client, Phorm are. Btw, I think I just noticed why Alexander got upset: 80/20 are here. Hello Simon!