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

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Alex-

The existence of an entity or relationship doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing. In any case, I've change the diagram so Simon Davies points to 80/20 Thinking. However, Simon Davies still has the attribute of being Director of Privacy International.

Do you think - and do other people agree - that this is fair enough?

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/107/phormumlqw2.jpg

I would show Simon's 80/20 role (only) within the 'Simon Davies' box, and have PI as the 'external' relationship. I.e. the diagram should reflect the fact that the PIA was done in his 80/20 role, but he also happens to have the 'PI' relationship.

[phormwatch]

So what do you think? Remove all references to PI from the diagram?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Privacy International shouldn't need to dragged into this - they should be making a statement to make their position in the matter clear. I am appalled that they have avoided the entire subject and I think it is disgusting that Simon Davies has undertaken a contract with Phorm for financial gain.

I appreciate his comments posted elsewhere that he makes no money from PI but if that's a problem then he should stand down and then he can sell his talents to whomever he choses but until that time he has let everyone down who looked to him for and PI to support freedom and privacy.

Actually, and although I can't give any details of this away, he has not made any financial gain from the Phorm PIA, if you knew what the money was actually be used for you might not be so quick to criticise.

Anyway I don't want this to deteriorate into a Simon Davies bashing party *again* (as it has on a number of occassions), I merely felt the diagram should be factually accurate.

It should also be noted that Simon Davies does not have a contract with Phorm, 80/20 Thinking does, the diagram currently indicates that the contract is directly with Simon.

Alexander Hanff

[phormwatch]

>I would show Simon's 80/20 role (only) within the 'Simon Davies' box, and have PI as the 'external' relationship. I.e. the diagram should reflect the fact that the PIA was done in his 80/20 role, but he also happens to have the 'PI' relationship.

If I show Simon Davies as having the attribute (within his box) as 80/20 director, but no 80/20 Company box, but a Company box for PI, that would seem to bring even more undue attention to PI. Don't you think?

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

>It should also be noted that Simon Davies does not have a contract with Phorm, 80/20 Thinking does, the diagram currently indicates that the contract is directly with Simon.

That's a good point. I'll correct that immediately.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

So what do you think? Remove all references to PI from the diagram?

I think given the nature of the diagram (where you have included external roles for everyone else) then it would be cohesive to include PI as an external role as suggested. I would rather PI were not mentioned but that is just my opinion and I can understand why people may be upset or angry about the PIA so I am not going to put my opinion above the general opinion.

I just want the diagram to be accurate and fair. Simon has become a close friend of mine and what you guys are seeing really is only the tip of a huge iceberg; the work Simon has done and is currently doing goes beyond what most people could even begin to comprehend. And it should be noted that despite 80/20 Thinking doing the PIA, Simon has never let that get in the way of our developing friendship and has kept that matter professional and completely separate. He has been completely honest with me regarding official questions about the PIA and has never tried to hide anything, I would hope people can appreciate that.

Alexander Hanff

OK, how about a company box for 80/20, showing this outfit as having the PIA contract, then a 'person' box for Simon, connected to 80/20 on one side and PI on the other (or remove the PI reference altogether, if that helps avoid any arguments)

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by HaveToBeAnon

Oh, just another thought while I'm here.

BT have, as you would expect, a whole team of security experts who's job it is the keep the backbone infrastructure secure and reliable, and it has to be said do a pretty good job. What you would not expect is that they weren't even consulted, and discovered about phorm at the same time as the rest of us, ie February, and their head man, I won't mention names so lets call him JR, went absolutely ape-s..t on hearing about it.

Thats an indication of just how secret this has been within BT, keeping it from people who would instantly recognise it for what it was.

That is quite astonishing! How did Roman Gaufman (aka Hackeron, The Phorm Malware Hacker) managed to sneak into a BT network centre with a 19" rack full of electronic snooping equipment and leave it there like an Elephant in the room during the 2006 and 2007 spying trials?

Who opened the doors to the actual equipment rooms and who showed him which wires to tap into, surely Stratis Scleparis the CTO of BT Retail must have authorised a BT engineer to help Roman do the dirty deads? How come JR hasn't come across the details of at least 6 weeks of someone sneaking around inside the network and no one at BT control saw millions of rogue javascript injection traffic coming from one network section?





And there's more:

The cheek of this guy Stratis Scleparis!!! Pretending to be a good guy helping to fight malware at BT while he was in full knowledge of the fact his secret malware trials where going on under the noses of BT victims at his behest via his malicious rootkit friends Kent Ertugrul of 121Media (aka Phorm)

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...s-back-at.html


Note: to Phormwatch you need to add 121Media(Phorm) hacker Roman Gaufman onto your entity relationship diagram, he's Stratis lil helper

[phormwatch]

Here's the latest version - still open to suggestions...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6886/phormumlrq9.jpg

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

cut..
Anyway I don't want this to deteriorate into a Simon Davies bashing party *again* (as it has on a number of occassions), I merely felt the diagram should be factually accurate.
.cut
Alexander Hanff

I agree, we have been down this road before and some of us have already stated an opinion. I have my opinions but I am not going to re-iterate them again. All information is available somewhere deep within this thread.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Here's the latest version - still open to suggestions...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6886/phormumlrq9.jpg

That is much better, thank you for addressing my concerns. To everyone else, Simon Davies really isn't the enemy here.

Alexander Hanff

[phormwatch]

Cool.

Everyone else happy with that?

--
If you have any suggestions for further additions/relationships, please let me know. This will be an ongoing project...

Looks good to me.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Here's the latest version - still open to suggestions...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6886/phormumlrq9.jpg

The 80/20 relationship looks a more accurate.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Cool.

Everyone else happy with that?

--
If you have any suggestions for further additions/relationships, please let me know. This will be an ongoing project...

You might want to include that chap in Korea, since it is evidence of Phorm expanding their market (or attempting to) into South Korea.

Alexander Hanff

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Cool.

Everyone else happy with that?

--
If you have any suggestions for further additions/relationships, please let me know. This will be an ongoing project...

Remove the "Prince of Darkness" quote, maybe put the box in a slightly different colour, discrimination of any kind I hope is precisely what this Group is about!