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

Originally Posted by Dephormation

If you do decide to sit on the fence, I'd strongly recommend you send one of these if you haven't done it already;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

It should help if you later discover BT/Virgin have been up to something naughty.

In my view, the safest best is moving ISP now, particularly if you're on BT (both because they've trialled in the past without telling you, and because they say they will only give you 24 hrs notice... yet it takes 5 days to get a MAC code).

Given Gavin Patterson's statements at the AGM, if you are on BT and fence sitting, call BT now and ask for a MAC code so that you can move if you need to (don't take any rubbish about the system being 'down', its always 'down', and you are entitled to receive your MAC code in 5 days).

Also, while I'm plugging my letter wizards, use one of these to get talking with your MP;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/letters/

Thanks Pete - I should have mentioned taking precautions

The "stay or go now" question is something for people to weigh-up and I can't fault your take on the situation. For me it's about knowing that BT are under the microscope - better the devil you know and all that - but only on the basis that the full roll-out hasn't been announced yet.

Certainly anyone who feels that they don't want to contribute anymore to BT's earnings can and should vote with the cash.

[Heed]

Another Slashdot article on NebuAd and another ISP:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/07/25/232245.shtml

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Heed

Another Slashdot article on NebuAd and another ISP:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/07/25/232245.shtml

I see Nebuad's opt out page http://www.nebuad.com/privacy/optout.php now claims

The NebuAd opt-out system is a more robust mechanism than traditional "cookie-based opt-out" systems.

However there does not appear to be any measures in place to prevent any remote website from opting you back-in.

For example, if you view google's cache of Nebuad's opt-in page

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:JarsZGsFD8sJ:www.nebuad.com/privacy/optin_done.php+site:nebuad.com+optin_done&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

the a.faireagle.com and b.faireagle.com cookies created look suspiciously like opt-in cookies to me.

[phormwatch]

Plusnet have a forum topic on Phorm:

http://community.plus.net/forum/inde...opic=61201.416

Damn:

"Please Note: Registration to Community is only available to customers of PlusNet, Force9, Free-Online and Metronet."

[Dephormation]

I read this Hansard article with some concern, to put it mildly.

See Baroness Vadera response to Baroness Miller...

http://www.publications.parliament.u...80722w0009.htm

[JackSon]

From your reference, Pete:

It is the responsibility of the ISPs to reach a view on whether any new service they provide is within the law.

I cannot believe I have just read that.

[NewsreadeR]

Even better, get her to write to BT.

Purrrfect post. If anything it will bring a smile to their faces, I bet Emma is like the cat who got all the cream.

[phormwatch]

Dear Lady Vadera,

I am very concerned about a statement you made in Parliament in
response to a question posed by Baroness Miller on July 22nd. *The
question posed and your answer was:

'Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:

* * * What advice have they issued to internet service providers about
(a) obtaining consent from, and (b) informing internet users and
website owners about, trials of new technologies that utilise deep
packet inspection or cookies or both. [HL4867]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Baroness Vadera): The Government have
not issued advice to the internet service providers (ISPs) on this
issue. It is the responsibility of the ISPs to reach a view on whether
any new service they provide is within the law.

The Government strongly support the use of technology that supports and
enhances, rather than hinders and intrudes upon, the privacy of users’
data. Both the Information Commissioner and the Home Office have
offered comments to internet users and ISPs on aspects of new services
aimed at targeted advertising.'

I sincerely hope that you did not have the company called 'Phorm' in
mind when replying to Baroness Miller.**I am aware that Kent Erturgrul,
CEO of Phorm has been meeting with Peers and Members of Parliament in
order to promote his company. *Unfortunately, I don't believe Mr.
Erturgrul to be an independent or trustworthy source of analysis of the
merits or demerits Phorm's adware technology. *

I would like you remind your Lordship that several independent bodies
and technical experts (The FIPR, Richard Clayton, The Open Rights
Group, and Tim Berners-Lee - among others) have raised serious concerns
about privacy and security issues with the use of Phorm's technology.

While I agree that it is the responsibility of ISPs to ensure they are
within the law, it is the responsibility of the government and state to
enforce the law. *Reassurances that certain behaviour does not break
the law from an ISP should carry as much merit as reassurances from
anyone else accused of committing a crime; the reassurance itself
should not suffice to dismiss the charges.

I do hope that the government intends to take the issue of data
protection and privacy more seriously.**A public loss of confidence in
data protection and privacy would have dramatic negative effects on UK
democracy, commerce, and internet freedom.

Yours sincerely,

-phormwatch

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I read this Hansard article with some concern, to put it mildly.

See Baroness Vadera response to Baroness Miller...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/8

0722w0009.htm

What assessment they have made of the sufficiency of implied consent for the interception for commercial purposes of internet users' unencrypted communications by internet service providers. [HL4900]

Perhaps we should propose our own "intra-ISP" DPI system - one that still DPI's end user's communications but instead of using it to build a profile of the end-user, builds a profile of websites, collecting potentially commercially sensitive information, and ask the goverment if it stands by the implied consent argument

Suppose our system collects information about commercial websites such as the number of people who click on the "add to basket" link for each product on a site, and the price of the product at the time it was clicked on. The total number of visits to every webpage, and the average amount of time spent looking at each page. The post popular search terms used to find the page.

If like Phorm aims we can get 70% or better coverage, we'll see enough of end-users communications with commercial websites to build a detailed picture of the websites' businesses, and will be able to offer this for sale to whoever is interested.

Or we could have a system that monitors what goods an end user adds to their shopping basket on one site and pops up an offer to undercut their purchases. So for example you might be shopping on tesco and when you click on the checkout link, a page would pop-up offering the same basket of goods for 10% less if you complete your purchase with another site, the great thing is having profiled your purchases, the other site wouldn't need to spend much money designing its site as you'd already chosen the goods, so it would just need a checkout page.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

[Snip]
Damn:

"Please Note: Registration to Community is only available to customers of PlusNet, Force9, Free-Online and Metronet."

I am a member of the PlusNet's Forum, I have a Force9 account and a PlusNet account as well.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I read this Hansard article with some concern, to put it mildly.

See Baroness Vadera response to Baroness Miller...

http://www.publications.parliament.u...80722w0009.htm

Pretty grim, but what a performance by the Baroness Miller! That lady asked some well Phormed questions. See what a REphormed politician can do! Those are the best questions I've seen ANYONE ask at that level and the beauty of it is that the answers, lamentable though they are, are now on the record.

Well done Baroness Miller.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 ----------

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

I am a member of the PlusNet's Forum, I have a Force9 account and a PlusNet account as well.

Great. If you want to refer them to various information sites you can post a link to my C/F welcome post 11849.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I read this Hansard article with some concern, to put it mildly.

See Baroness Vadera response to Baroness Miller...

http://www.publications.parliament.u...80722w0009.htm

Ever the optimist I see a hint of the Govt saying that the ISP have the responsibility to make sure that they don't cross the line on spying,thus if the police do take action then the ISP cannot involve any Govt departments in their defence. Maybe

[Florence]

The government still on full charge stampede to spy on us but also backtracking a little incase it turns round to bite them in the backside.

Baroness Miller has to be recomended the women is doing a great job she has listened to both sides and made her own mind up about Phorm.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

Ever the optimist I see a hint of the Govt saying that the ISP have the responsibility to make sure that they don't cross the line on spying,thus if the police do take action then the ISP cannot involve any Govt departments in their defence. Maybe

I did wonder about that. "Its legal if its legal; hey, we never said it is legal".

But sadly she defers to the Home Office (who've issued that advice note which strips web sites of the right to expect private unencrypted communication) and the ICO (who can't see anything seriously wrong with tens of thousands of people having their private communications intercepted twice).

I'd prefer to read something that indicates BERR understand the parasitic effect of systems like Phorm on ecommerce.

So I wrote to Baroness Vadera anyway. Just to remind her.

[ilago]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I'd prefer to read something that indicates BERR understand the parasitic effect of systems like Phorm on ecommerce.

I like to see something that indicated any technological expertise in any government, my own included. At least in the US there seems to be some members with technology backgrounds. Our parliament here seems to be made up of ex civil servants and party officials, lawyers, accountants and farming interests. I don't think there is one scientist or engineer among them. Don't know about your lot.

This paper was linked on BadPhorm. It's a valuable insight into privacy and conceptions of privacy. In particular, it debunks the "nothing to hide" argument.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=998565

There is a link to download the PDF. Worth reading from end to end. There are several arguments that may help convince those that don't understand the implications of a loss of a right to privacy and what it really means.