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

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by wecpc

I have only just realised that as I have a Microsoft Home Server which holds all my media (music, photos, DVD's) and some personnel information, which is all password protected for online access for my family when away from home, so will this be subject to PHORM's invasion.
Previously I was only thinking it affected full servers and not the home-brew variety. If that is the case what is the best way to prevent it, apart from obviously disabling the online access totally.

Colin

Encrypt the contents?

I can't help wondering if this is the source of BT's legendary market research. (If you want the full report it can b downloaded at a cost of $695)

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by wecpc

I have only just realised that as I have a Microsoft Home Server which holds all my media (music, photos, DVD's) and some personnel information, which is all password protected for online access for my family when away from home, so will this be subject to PHORM's invasion.
Previously I was only thinking it affected full servers and not the home-brew variety. If that is the case what is the best way to prevent it, apart from obviously disabling the online access totally.

Colin

First tip would be avoid BT (both as a host, and a remote client ISP). Also Virgin and TalkTalk.

Then you'd have to consider encrypting it all, either using SSL certificates for access through a web browser (you could use self signed certificates for free, no need to buy them, but the process is quite complex), or VPN.

Some routers have VPN termination built in.

But to reiterate, this is the reason why Phorm must never be allowed to happen. You did not consent to interception, either as a server or client to the communication. Your documents carry an assumed copyright. You shouldn't need to do this to protect yourself from a communications company like BT.

Pete.

[HamsterWheel]

So 66% of people would click on more ads if they were targeted to their needs.
So a valuable service that Phorm would supply, certainly for the advertisers.
And 47% hate irrelevant ads.

Interesting.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

So 66% of people would click on more ads if they were targeted to their needs.
So a valuable service that Phorm would supply, certainly for the advertisers.
And 47% hate irrelevant ads.

Interesting.

Hammy it is US citizens not UK go figure that..

We hate all adverts relevent or irrelevent, if Iam looking I will unblock on certain sites search investigate then block all adverts again. No gurentee I will order from those sites.....
Sometimes just use them to find the prices to be sure it is cheaper to buy from shops once you add delivery charge to purchase price..


Bye hammy dear....

[buckleb]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

......

Your sig says that 'phorm is rather good isn't it?'.

Given your support for the product, does this mean that you've tried it?

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

So 66% of people would click on more ads if they were targeted to their needs.
So a valuable service that Phorm would supply, certainly for the advertisers.
And 47% hate irrelevant ads.

Interesting.

Masterful misinformation, Hamster. The survey says 'see' ads, not 'click on'. And it didn't ask people anything about *how* a webpage might work out what ads are "relevant".

The problem with Phorm is not so much that it provides relevant advertising, it's about *how* it achieves that. And the survey quoted above has nothing at all to say on the subject of *how* Phorm gathers data.

Nice try at poisoning the well, though.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Peter N

I can't help wondering if <snipped > is the source of BT's legendary market research. (If you want the full report it can b downloaded at a cost of $695)

<snipped>

Wouldn't suprise me but just how that would make the research relevent to UK public I wouldn't know since the only thing we have in common with american citizans is similar language they have a form of english language but it isn't the Queens english....


For that matter wonder what the Queen would say about being hijacked and phormed?

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

On another note seems the government have had knuckles rapped over 90s wiretapping it has been said by EU as illegal..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ipa_judgement/

[buckleb]

Originally Posted by Florence

For that matter wonder what the Queen would say about being hijacked and phormed?

No doubt she, and members of Parliament will not be included in Phorm's data farming. This is possibly the reason Phorm met with the Home Office, to give assurances that they, our leaders, would not be profiled.

I believe that Members of Parliament cannot be bugged or put under surveillance, so I imagine some assurances would have to be given, by the ISPs and Phorm, that our 'betters' would really be opted out..

[Florence]

Originally Posted by cadire

No doubt she, and members of Parliament will not be included in Phorm's data farming. This is possibly the reason Phorm met with the Home Office, to give assurances that they, our leaders, would not be profiled.

I believe that Members of Parliament cannot be bugged or put under surveillance, so I imagine some assurances would have to be given, by the ISPs and Phorm, that our 'betters' would really be opted out..

yes but then again you only have the word from someone who has never shown any respect or regards for other peoples privacy, feelings or property would you trust his word that he wouldn't profile these people for monetry gain?

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

So 66% of people would click on more ads if they were targeted to their needs.
So a valuable service that Phorm would supply, certainly for the advertisers.
And 47% hate irrelevant ads.

Interesting.

It might be interesting if it wasn't quite so rigged. There's no qustion there asking how many people hate adverts that are targetted or whether they feel strongly enough about untargetted adverts to give up their privacy to avoid them.

An advert for a CPU is targetted when it appears in a computer magazine but not when it appears in What Car. It doesn't need the Royal Mail to open my copy of MicroMart every week to work that out and I don't want to see adverts in What Car for the CPU that I was looking for last week.

If you ask people "Would you like less irrelevent junk mail through your door?" then I suspect that the answer would be a resounding "yes" but if you asked them "Do you want the postman to read your letters to find out what you are interested in so that he can chose which junk mail to put through your letter box?" then I think that most normal people would say "No thank you".

It's the same as being asked "Have you stopped beating your wife?". If you say "Yes" then you have admitted that you used to beat her and if you answer "No" then you are admitting that you still do. The question is rigged such that the only possible answers are proof of a preset and prejudiced supposition.

So Hammy,

Question 1> Would you like to receive less irrelevant junk mail through your door?

Question 2> Would you like the postman to open your letters to see what junk mail is best suited to your personal needs?

Question 3> Would you like less junk mail?

Question 4> Would you like the postman to open your letters?

[Dai]

A leading cable firm has abandoned plans to monitor its customers' Internet use and sell the results to advertisers.

Charter Communications, which is either the third or fourth biggest US cable company (depending on which stats you follow) announced the scheme in May. It planned to use the services of NebuAd, a California advertising firm which installs a physical device on an Internet provider's network.

http://www.infopackets.com/news/your...ing_scheme.htm

At least one company has seen the light..

[HamsterWheel]

Question 1> Would you like to receive less irrelevant junk mail through your door? Don't receive much anyway so no opinion.

Question 2> Would you like the postman to open your letters to see what junk mail is best suited to your personal needs? I wouldn't mind as long as I knew he wouldn't remember what he saw - like Phorm forgets. I suspect most postmen know what is in 90% of letters anyway, most are pretty obvious.

Question 3> Would you like less junk mail? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer to the first question

Question 4> Would you like the postman to open your letters? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer to the second question

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Question 1> Would you like to receive less irrelevant junk mail through your door? Don't receive much anyway so no opinion.

Question 2> Would you like the postman to open your letters to see what junk mail is best suited to your personal needs? I wouldn't mind as long as I knew he wouldn't remember what he saw - like Phorm forgets. I suspect most postmen know what is in 90% of letters anyway, most are pretty obvious.

Question 3> Would you like less junk mail? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer to the first question

Question 4> Would you like the postman to open your letters? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer to the second question

I submit that if you have answered questions 2 and 4 honestly, then you do not represent the typical views of most adults in this country.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

A leading cable firm has abandoned plans to monitor its customers' Internet use and sell the results to advertisers.

Charter Communications, which is either the third or fourth biggest US cable company (depending on which stats you follow) announced the scheme in May. It planned to use the services of NebuAd, a California advertising firm which installs a physical device on an Internet provider's network.

http://www.infopackets.com/news/your...ing_scheme.htm

At least one company has seen the light..

CenturyTel did the same last week too following in Charter's shoes. Welcome to the thread.

Alexander Hanff