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

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Florence

This was answered earlier by Simon he is waiting on something from the ISPs perhaps they are scared of releasing daming information...

Did Simon mention the ISPs or are you in posession of more information than us?

[serial]

If, as is being rumoured, BT/Phorm remove the cookie based system then this will require a change to the report.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Florence

Have to agree with Alexander here infacr if the infighting carries on the winner is phorm devide and conquer..
.

Again with the infighting? Have I not the right to defend my comments when I am misquoted and then insulted?

Seriously it seems I'm only accepted as long as I don't rock the boat.
I'll leave you to it and post elsewhere.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

Have to agree with Alexander here infacr if the infighting carries on the winner is phorm devide and conquer..




This was answered earlier by Simon he is waiting on something from the ISPs perhaps they are scared of releasing daming information...

The context of Frank Rizzo's post suggests his question was about delay in releasing the video.
Subsequent posts, however, seem to be about delay in finishing/publishing the PIA.
We could get confused! (and end up squabbling again!!)

[mark777]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Hi everyone,

first, sincere apologies for my recent absence from the forums. This has been a week from hell, traveling extensively and dealing with other deadlines.

Many thanks again to Alexander, who, as alwaysm has been a star.

Just to reiterate what Alexander reported, 80/20 had no role in recording the public meeting. Our job was simply to organise the venue and speakers. I'm afraid I can't tell you any more about the video or any schedule for its release or otherwise. Right at the moment our key issue is securing information from the ISP's so we can complete the PIA.

We do need to have the PIA finalised soon. We've had some extremely valuable input from so many people and we continue to receive this input. My hope is that we can bring this part of the process to a conclusion fairly promptly so everyone can consider how to move forward.

Best wishes

Simon

@James - Waiting for ISP's. 13 pages back now!

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by serial

If, as is being rumoured, BT/Phorm remove the cookie based system then this will require a change to the report.

All the direct quotes from BT are that they're just removing cookies from the opt-out.

A poster on iii, Professional Party, claiming to have inside knowledge on BTs technical side, said (Sat 21:51) "BT have proposed a design whereby anyone who has opted-out (nitpicky point here BT - RIPA needs them to opt-in, not opt-out!) will not have their data-stream intercepted and sent to the profilers at all - which would satisfy a lot of consumers and would go a long way towards addressing some of the legal issues raised (there are still a lot of issues to overcome in this regard but that isn't the point I want to make)."

This fits also with my own letters to BT legal and the ICO pointing out the catch-22 in that the traffic had to be intercepted and classified as traffic that must be ignored in order to ignore it, but I think the real driver may be DPA "Section 11" opt-out, which could require ISPs to opt anyone out who puts a request in writing, irrespective of cookies and blocking domains etc.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Kursk

So we substantiate his credentials through a source that can be self-edited or ask him if he's a nice person? Is there any other way please?

I guess at a push you could check Wikipedia's references for yourself?
Or Google his name? I can't think of any better way than researching what he's been up to for the last couple of decades.

Perhaps there's somebody active in internet or privacy fields that you would accept as a respected authority?
If so, I expect they'd be happy to give him a reference.
Why not start with the advisory boards of Privacy International and 80/20?

And if third-party testament doesn't convince you then, yes, I suggest you have a chat with him.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by serial

If, as is being rumoured, BT/Phorm remove the cookie based system then this will require a change to the report.

I am aware that BT have stated publicly (and to me in emails) that they are working on a way of allocating people to the trials using a non-cookie opt-IN, with people declining the trial not requiring an opt-out cookie to remain on their machine. They have not guaranteed that it will be ready for the trials.

I haven't read anything so far that suggests anyone is working on a cookie-free Webwise/Phorm profiling system. So if there is something reputable out there, stating otherwise, does anyone have a reference to it?

Remember that Kent's current policy is to accuse us of scare-mongering. Alex did really well on the Click interview rebutting that accusation with FACTS. IMHO we have to follow his example and be careful about unsubstantiated rumours or we fall into Kent's trap. I'd rather Kent Ertugrul fell into his own traps (which he does, quite regularly nowadays.)

I've been pestering BT fairly frequently recently, and they have so far been responding promptly - not always clearly, not always comprehensively, but they certainly haven't dropped even a hint that they are looking at a cookie-free Webwise/Phorm profiling system.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Again with the infighting? Have I not the right to defend my comments when I am misquoted and then insulted?

I'm very careful to quote posts and if I have made a mistake then I unreservedly apologise.

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by mark777

@James - Waiting for ISP's. 13 pages back now!

Thanks for that. I had seen it but took it to mean waiting on information from the ISPs to complete the PIA. I can't see why the ISPs would block the video, but I'm prepared to be surprised by the facts if/when they emerge!

[Frank Rizzo]

re: simon waiting for ISPs. If I read that correctly it has nothing to do with the delay with the video. Simon states that the securing information from the ISPs is required to complete the PIA and not to do with the video.

I do not know why there is no answer for the reason for the delay of the video. Why is no one asking questions about it? Why is it seen as low priority.

If 80/20 did not record it then why don't they ask who did why there is a delay.

If Phorm want to delay the video maybe 80/20 could delay the PIA in response.

One reason why I did not attend that meeting was that I could watch it all later. I am sure many others had the same reason.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

Thanks for that. I had seen it but took it to mean waiting on information from the ISPs to complete the PIA. I can't see why the ISPs would block the video, but I'm prepared to be surprised by the facts if/when they emerge!

I read it the same way you do, waiting for the ISP's in order to complete the PIA.

I don't think we will ever see the video, which is a shame, especially as I think more people would have taken their own 'cams if it had not been mentioned.

---

Or, as Frank points out, attended in person.

[Frank Rizzo]

Did anyone bother to check the camera was actually switched on?

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Did anyone bother to check the camera was actually switched on?

I'm sure they were on. Edited highlights of people wearing masks would have been released within hours.

[Florence]

With Phorm holding the Video don't expect to see it ever you could put it down to experience and the fact Kent has proved again he will hide what he doesn't like.

The Video was one chance he had to save some face he blew it..