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

Originally Posted by Peter N

I wasn't criticising his writing abilities in isolation. I was highlighting the fact that his posts have degenerated in style and content during the course of the evening and suggesting that responding to him in his current state of mind may no longer be appropriate or productive.

If and when Feesch is ready to talk to us in a manner befitting the seriousness of the subject I am happy to debate but he is clearly indisposed at present and is no longer making any sense.

Then may I suggest that you follow your own advice.

Fair enough - I'll leave you all to it.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by feesch

Appreciate difference between web and internet, but the system won't just be monitoring 'web' activity, but any activity running over the Intenet - so that will include IPTV and mobile (and in time) billboards as will all go via the same routing.

The bigger picture is in joining all the dots, linking consumer behaviour to all display devices.

We are discussing BT and Virgin - they are not just after distributing websites, they are content distributors of TV streams.

Function creep? What do you know that we have not been told? Monitoring of 'any' content over the web? So much for being assured that only port 80 will be intercepted.

If BT and Virgin need more money for TV content then they need to earn it from their TV customers. No point supplying a product below cost. The last time I looked, my TV sat in the corner using radio waves which are relatively cheep and are transmitted only once.

If mobile needs more money, they can charge mobile users.

Digital media - do you mean something like DAB radio which uses up so much battery power that most people won't be able to listen all day. You think anyone will be happy having to pay extra to received targeted content?

Why don't you think about websites? Each website has to pay for the bandwidth used by their visitors. Do you really think that a 3rd party system which makes use of that bandwidth to make money for themselves and not for the website is going to be able to survive? It is illegal to take copyrighted content and use it for commercial uses (whether or not a profit is made) without paying a royalty or agreeing a licence fee.

A website pays a lot of money for content and bandwidth. That is a direct expense against revenue.

The ISP and DPI systems want to just help themselves to that bandwidth and web content to make money for themselves and their shareholders. And to earn that income without making any payment to the owners of that content nor offering any reimbursement for the bandwidth cost.

They are in cloud cuckoo land - and will just have to accept that in this case it is the cuckoo's egg that will be removed from the nest.

[Bonglet]

Let bt, virgin or whoever roll phorm/webwise out now if they have that much confidence in it then, see if net users are just sheep as so many think they are.

Dont let anyone that trolls about share prices or how advertising needs to do this get on your nerves, remember that as soon as you see any invitation page from your isp (thats interception plain and simple) any of your data could be mirrored anything could be harvested just phorms words of trust us (like trusting harold shipman to be your doctor).

Even if any isp offered me a free 100mb connection with added phorm i still wouldnt take it sure a few might but not those in the know no way, bt might risk another trial as they are in the black and could loose a few customers and take fines, virgin though will say nothing not one thing about it yet with them still being in the red mass exodus will hurt the company big time and they know it.

Simple matter of fact is if phorm/webwise does get past regulations in some bizzare manner prepare for exodus and then people securing there net transmissions even more over secure sessions and blocking EVERY add (not that the net needs more advertising or relevance).

OIX (Open Internet Exchange) as phorm lolably calls it open to who ahh yes those who can afford it, do you think websites who rely on there advertising want it poached or overwritten (might not be at the start but ahh the function creep sets in) where is the list of oix partners? would be great to actually know who is thinking of teaming up with them or have they just got agreements with them to serve ads.
There is and never will be relevance in advertising simple fact and if there is it would be needed by about 0.1% of net users if that, it would all end up as irrelevant as any other advert on the net would it not?.

Originally Posted by feesch

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

Just to clarify - when I talked about blocking ads, I was specifically referring to ads on web pages. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Whether Phorm's technology, IF it is ever introduced (and I sincerely hope it isn't) , will be able to get round current blocking techniques remains to be seen. What I was trying to point out, as others have done, is that this campaign is not about blocking ads via Phorm or any other delivery mechanism. It is about preventing ISPs intercepting and analysing personal communications for commercial gain without the consent of both parties to the communication. The fact that that commercial gain would be via the advertising industry is incidental to the debate.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by feesch

and you yourself are running media down as some lesser actvity. So thanks!

If that was how my post read, I apologise. It was not my intention: I have the highest regard for some parts of the media. My point was that if you work in the media/advertising sector, then your attempts to debate the Phorm issue will be suspect in the eyes of many individuals who will assume you are trying to "divide and conquer" opponents to the system.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Just to clarify - when I talked about blocking ads, I was specifically referring to ads on web pages. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Whether Phorm's technology, IF it is ever introduced (and I sincerely hope it isn't) , will be able to get round current blocking techniques remains to be seen. What I was trying to point out, as others have done, is that this campaign is not about blocking ads via Phorm or any other delivery mechanism. It is about preventing ISPs intercepting and analysing personal communications for commercial gain without the consent of both parties to the communication. The fact that that commercial gain would be via the advertising industry is incidental to the debate.

Correct John we do not want to be intercepted, stalked, read over our shoulder or nannied about the internet. Advertisements are there if you wish to see them I personally don't so take action to stop them.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Florence

Advertisements are there if you wish to see them I personally don't so take action to stop them.

Advertising has never done Loot, local newspapers or Yellow Pages any harm. When I want ads, that is where I look. And eBay too, quite useful for finding people advertising what I am looking for. A choice of physical or virtual ads.

I don't use a search engine to find adverts. I don't visit information pages to find adverts. And I certainly don't expect my ISP to exploit my relationship with them so that they can force adverts to me everywhere.

And I don't invite visitors to my sites so that the competition can know about my relationship with them.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by madslug

Advertising has never done Loot, local newspapers or Yellow Pages any harm. When I want ads, that is where I look. And eBay too, quite useful for finding people advertising what I am looking for. A choice of physical or virtual ads.

I don't use a search engine to find adverts. I don't visit information pages to find adverts. And I certainly don't expect my ISP to exploit my relationship with them so that they can force adverts to me everywhere.

And I don't invite visitors to my sites so that the competition can know about my relationship with them.

Yes search engines are for finding information not adverts never take adverts from around search engines... I only buy from reputable companies people I know have had dealings with but I will boycot any company that thinks that stalking me to supply adverts is a good idea.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by lucevans

I may be behind the curve here, but I've just discovered that the webwise site is now serving UID cookies to Virgin Media customers via a.webwise.net. The content ("unique" identifier) in the cookie seems to fit the stated format for a production-version Phorm cookie.
It occurs to me that even if, as they claim, VM have not trialled the Phorm DPI kit in their customer network yet, if they ever do, then those of us who are curious about the technology and have visited www.webwise.com to find out further information will immediately be identified to the interception kit by this cookie.
This could result in the mistaken assumption that we have already been presented with the "invitation" page and accepted, thus preventing the invitation from ever being displayed, and our browsing being profiled without our knowledge. (I have, of course, deleted the cookie now)

I just wanted to bring this post back into clear sight as I suspect it may have got lost amid all the posts last night.

Even with very low security settings, the only cookie the webwise site offers me is a php session cookie. Surfing around the webwise site, it sniffs my ISP and tells me that my ISP has not yet enabled webwise.

Also, if I use the Google cache of the opt-in/out pages, trying to pick up either version of the cookie results in a 403 response from the server. This is the same as I have seen for a few months now.

If there is anyone here who still uses VM, BT or TT (or any of their subsidiaries) can they post whether or not they are also seeing cookies in the a.webwise.net domain?

These cookies are a bit odd because BT have always said that blocking cookies in the www.webwise.net domain will prevent the profiling.

Time for a bit of clarity from Webwise: which domain is used for the UID cookie?

Or, will it be like the 2006/7 trials where every ISP had a unique identifier?

When you think about it, if everyone has the same domain for the cookie, how will the OIX script know which ISP to pay after displaying the ads?

[phormwatch]

OK, so I've had no offers to distribute Phorm Flyers on the Tube. I live 2 hours from London, so it would be a right pain for me to do it.

If no one is willing to take this up, then we should concentrate on other ways of getting the word out. Talking amongst ourselves on CableForum will do little to further the campaign unless what we talk about translates into action.

Any concrete ideas, suggestions?

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

OK, so I've had no offers to distribute Phorm Flyers on the Tube. I live 2 hours from London, so it would be a right pain for me to do it.

If no one is willing to take this up, then we should concentrate on other ways of getting the word out. Talking amongst ourselves on CableForum will do little to further the campaign unless what we talk about translates into action.

Any concrete ideas, suggestions?

I think to distribute on the tube is a great suggestion. I have distributed fliers in my local area. I am surprised nobody has taken you up on it who are local to London.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by madslug

I just wanted to bring this post back into clear sight as I suspect it may have got lost amid all the posts last night.

Even with very low security settings, the only cookie the webwise site offers me is a php session cookie. Surfing around the webwise site, it sniffs my ISP and tells me that my ISP has not yet enabled webwise.

Also, if I use the Google cache of the opt-in/out pages, trying to pick up either version of the cookie results in a 403 response from the server. This is the same as I have seen for a few months now.

If there is anyone here who still uses VM, BT or TT (or any of their subsidiaries) can they post whether or not they are also seeing cookies in the a.webwise.net domain?

These cookies are a bit odd because BT have always said that blocking cookies in the www.webwise.net domain will prevent the profiling.

Time for a bit of clarity from Webwise: which domain is used for the UID cookie?

Or, will it be like the 2006/7 trials where every ISP had a unique identifier?

When you think about it, if everyone has the same domain for the cookie, how will the OIX script know which ISP to pay after displaying the ads?

If I visit webwise.com I get a session cookie for webwise.com and that's all. I checked before visiting to make sure the sites were not blocked for cookies in Firefox. Cookie disappeared once I closed Firefox. I'm a BT customer. Also had a quick tour round the Phorm site, no problem collecting cookies there either.

You sure you aren't running the Dephormation addon and getting a cookie because of that?

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

What about library's most have terminals these days and all are shared,Ideal place for inphomative flyers.

[phormwatch]

Tarquin L-Smythe

Did you get my email?

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:01 ----------

I have been doing extensive leafleting around my town, including the library.