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

[Ravenheart]

MP's start to apply pressure over Phorm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...t_westminster/

That should send the shares into a nosedive

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

MP's start to apply pressure over Phorm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...t_westminster/

That should send the shares into a nosedive

You beat me to it! This is good news.

Keep spreading the word!!!

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by thejaygee

Virgin hasn't answered the most important five words in the language, "What's in it for me?".

And there was me thinking the most important five words were "so, your place or mine" and it was the three important words we were all looking for.

[3x2]

While it is good that some MP's think this is something to ask questions about it's hardly the rush to defend constituents that some of us had hoped for. You might have thought that a proposal to wire-tap millions of their voting constituents (so close to an election) might have generated a bit more interest in The House.

[manxminx]

Consumers have widespread concerns around privacy and data protection
http://www.ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk/news/270308.htm

Doesn't specifically mention Phorm, but even so, it's very relevant.

What's the betting that Phorm PR will use this report to support their pro-personal privacy policy as the Phorm software doesn't store personal info (while carefully neglecting to mention that it intercepts, scans, and profiles as much as it can).

[kt88man]

ORG and FIPR meet with Phorm:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...et-with-phorm/

...
Nothing Richard Clayton and I saw yesterday appeared to contradict the legal analysis issued by FIPR last week, analysis that raised questions as to Phorm’s legality under section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. But the Phorm issue is far more likely to be decided upon in the court of public opinion than in a court of law.
...

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by manxminx

What's the betting that Phorm PR will use this report to support their pro-personal privacy policy as the Phorm software doesn't store personal info (while carefully neglecting to mention that it intercepts, scans, and profiles as much as it can).

I've been thinking about this random number that they use to aggregate your browsing habits. Surely if this number is allocated to a specific person/browser/account then it is, by definition, "personal data". The fact that it is randomly generated is irrelevant and is perhaps being used as a smoke screen. What, really, is the difference between your PHORM number, IP number or your national insurance number, other than the fact that a person may have multiple PHORM numbers. Indeed, a person may have multiple IP's but they are still considered personal information.

If this is true, and IANAL, then they are, in fact, storing your aggregated browsing history against your personal PHORM number. The only issue may be whether or not a person can be identified by it. Could we make this it public, say by publishing it, and in doing so, cause PHORM to be in breach of the DPA (even more)?

[SMHarman]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19/phorm_8020_pi/

But how does that work. You tripwire the servers and only one code base can be used. What happens when the code changes. A full review again?

[3x2]

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...et-with-phorm/
Nothing Richard Clayton and I saw yesterday

OK but again - engaging with Phorm. I'm getting tired of various organisations clouding the issue. I don't want an explanation of Phorm's technology. No matter how they spin things - IT'S A WIRE TAP.

Originally Posted by 3x2

OK but again - engaging with Phorm. I'm getting tired of various organisations clouding the issue. I don't want an explanation of Phorm's technology. No matter how they spin things - IT'S A WIRE TAP.

Trust me, it isn't - Echelon is.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Trust me, it isn't - Echelon is.

Yep, that's scary...

[3x2]

It's Friday so on a brighter note - oop's Phorm seems to have dropped another 100 points in the last half hour

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

I've been thinking about this random number that they use to aggregate your browsing habits. Surely if this number is allocated to a specific person/browser/account then it is, by definition, "personal data".

I've been wondering the same thing. Apparently, however, the number they assign you refers to a specific 'ad-channel', which they assign to you based on the keywords in pages you've looked at. You look at gardening websites, they assign you to the gardening ad-channel by giving you that specific ad-channels id number (or a number that identifies a specific selection of ad-channels, based on your browsing).

I'll stand corrected on that one!

My thought though is that no matter how random the number is, it refers to the type of ads they serve to your computer, so It must be personal, if not to you, then certainly to your computer!

[dav]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

I've been thinking about this random number that they use to aggregate your browsing habits. Surely if this number is allocated to a specific person/browser/account then it is, by definition, "personal data". The fact that it is randomly generated is irrelevant and is perhaps being used as a smoke screen. What, really, is the difference between your PHORM number, IP number or your national insurance number, other than the fact that a person may have multiple PHORM numbers. Indeed, a person may have multiple IP's but they are still considered personal information.

If this is true, and IANAL, then they are, in fact, storing your aggregated browsing history against your personal PHORM number. The only issue may be whether or not a person can be identified by it. Could we make this it public, say by publishing it, and in doing so, cause PHORM to be in breach of the DPA (even more)?

I've seen a quote from someone in Phorm this week that the cookie number is actually Pseudorandom. I would imagine that in cryptography circles, that particular word gets a hearty laugh, a nudge and a wink.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by 3x2

OK but again - engaging with Phorm. I'm getting tired of various organisations clouding the issue. I don't want an explanation of Phorm's technology. No matter how they spin things - IT'S A WIRE TAP.

I can understand how you feel but I personally do want an explanation of their technology. I have pushed hard in my confrontations with the PR team on a few blogs for them to come forward and give some real crystal clear technical answers to the technical questions put to them.

Does that mean that I somehow want to find some sort of compromise with Phorm? Hell, no, it doesnt. I want Phorm to go out of business and drag other companies like them over the abyss with them. It just means that at last we will be getting decent answers. Lets remember, to quote a good old fashioned cliche, "the devil is in the details."

If they do actually come forward and stop spinning and give detailed, non-obfuscated answers to the questions posed to them then maybe, just maybe, there will be a smoking gun in there. Something we can use to truly land a killer blow. At the very least, if they do this, hopefully it will mark a change in direction and the end to all this disingeniuos PR spinning.