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

[Shaun]

I sent an email to them the other day stating that I didn't give them permission to use my data in the way they intend.

Got a phone call at 4.45 today stating that they had received my email but didn't have a start date and couldn't confirm that I'd be opted out from my contact with them.

However the woman on the phone kept telling me I'd have an opt out and that they'd be contacting ALL customers before launch.

I said that as far as I was concerned I'd told them I didn't want my data processing in any way other than to provide me with the service and that was that. If they then did I'd refer the matter to the IOC as a breach of the DPA.

Dear Shaun

Further to our telephone conversation today I confirm we have received your email that you do not give us premission [sic] to give your details to phorm. i have also fully noted your account. please see below more information.

Protecting customers' privacy

Webwise has been designed from the ground up to protect our customers' privacy and anonymity. As the system only learns about topics of interest, it does this anonymously, ensuring their privacy is completely protected.

Neither the web addresses, nor search terms they use are stored. They are purely matched to an advertising topic and then discarded.
Webwise doesn't store their internet (IP) address or keep track of their browsing. The system or advertisers won't know who you are or the websites they've visited.
No personally identifiable information such as email addresses, surnames, street addresses, or phone numbers are ever gathered.
No sensitive or personal financial information, such as credit card numbers, login IDs, passwords or bank account numbers are ever gathered.
Customers won't be forced to use the system, and will have the choice to keep their internet experience exactly as it is now. As we get closer to launch we'll explain how this will work.

if you like to discuss the above further with me I can be reached on 0845 650 3131.

Kind regards

Darya
Customer Concern
Virgin Media

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by none

very well put

Thank you. This scheme is aimed at taking everything and offering nothing.

Originally Posted by Shaun

I sent an email to them the other day stating that I didn't give them permission to use my data in the way they intend.

I'll do the same. I am not interested in "how it will work". I want no part of it.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I

I said that as far as I was concerned I'd told them I didn't want my data processing in any way other than to provide me with the service and that was that. If they then did I'd refer the matter to the IOC as a breach of the DPA.

See, this is the point. There have been repeated quotes that no identifiable information will be sent to the Phorm system, no name, no address, no IP address, nothing (btw your IP address is stored against every post here, a forum moderator - with the right permissions- can see your IP address). There may be privacy issues yes, but so far no DPA issues that I can see of the quotes from Phorm, BT Website is true.

It can only be a breach of the DPA if personal identifiable information is sent.

I don't think for one minute that VM would do that, this is a matter of persoonal privacy between you and your ISP.

Whether or not we believe Phorm is one thing, whether we can trust VM to do the right thing, in our opinion, is a totally different matter. I have no intention of signing into this system, and I will sign out if I have to.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Just for those that CANNOT read what i stated.

I will stay with VM IF they can guarantee that my data does not get touched in any way by any of the equipment that they will install in there headends or pop sites. IF talk talk say that they can do that then VM should be able to do that again. I do NOT want my personal information to be subject to Deep Packet Investigation. To do that VM will have to install equipment. I do not give and will not give VM permission to do that. Should they do that i WILL disconnect all my services from them.

If i have to disconnect i will go to a company that has NO Phorm spyware equipment installed in the POP or exchange that they use. At the moment that will be Be Unlimited.


Now was that clear enough

Thanks Sirius. I can read, however your two posts seemed to contradict each other a little, possibly tainted by your feelings towards VM prior to this Phorm revalation. I just wanted you to clarify a point or two...which you have.

[Kursk]

Let's not give any credence to any of the claims made by Phorm; we can't verify them and the goalposts may be moved at some time in the future.

It would make no difference to me if the data was provided in iambic pentameter and was processed by a blind, deaf, mute wearing rubber gloves and a nose clip, I don't want to 'share' anything that might be generated by my internet usage with any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along hoping to make a fast buck.

Clearly neither do the majority of forum contributors. The way to respond is in numbers.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Let's not give any credence to any of the claims made by Phorm; we can't verify them and the goalposts may be moved at some time in the future.

It would make no difference to me if the data was provided in iambic pentameter and was processed by a blind, deaf, mute wearing rubber gloves and a nose clip, I don't want to 'share' anything that might be generated by my internet usage with any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along hoping to make a fast buck.

Clearly neither do the majority of forum contributors. The way to respond is in numbers.

And that is the big rub.....

Other ISP's have been in talks, they are just waiting to gauge the response from the so-called Big 3 ISP's.

The grass may be greener on the other side, but if its managed by the same farmer in the future....why move?

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Kursk

It would make no difference to me if the data was provided in iambic pentameter and was processed by a blind, deaf, mute wearing rubber gloves and a nose clip, I don't want to 'share' anything that might be generated by my internet usage with any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along hoping to make a fast buck.

Well said!

[Phormic Acid]

Originally Posted by Phorm

RIPA is intended to protect the privacy of private communications. As outlined above, the Phorm service respects users' privacy at all times by ensuring that users remain anonymous and by obtaining the user's consent to the service via our ISPs. We have considered RIPA with great care and are satisfied that our technology does not breach RIPA

Consider the following scenario:

1. Person A starts a web browser.
2. Person A attempts to start browsing.
3. The first page person A requests is hijacked and replaced by the Webwise page asking them whether they consent to Phorm monitoring their web browsing.
4. Person A decides to allow Phorm to monitor their web browsing.
5. A non-persistent (session) cookie is sent to the web browser showing that person A has consented.
6. The presence of this session cookie means that future web pages are not replaced by the Webwise consent page.*
7. Person A walks away from the computer without locking it, logging out or switching accounts and without closing their browsing session by closing all the browser windows.
8. Person B comes to the computer.
9. Person B starts browsing the web using the open web browser windows.
10. Person B is not presented with a Webwise consent page.
11. Phorm monitors person B’s web browsing without obtaining their consent.
12. Under RIPA, a criminal offence has now been committed.

I would like to know which, if any, of those statements is in error and why.

I don’t see how Phorm can rely on users behaving in the way they’d like. I think the assumption that one browsing session will be used by only one person is unreasonable and will not be supportable in law. The Internet is an ‘always on’ packet-based network. It’s not like the telephone, where, once you finish your communication with a specific second party, you put the receiver down and completely sever the connection.

*I know there have been comments that cookies are restricted to the domain from which they’ve come. I’m expecting some fairly dirty trick to get around that. As it has been stated that Webwise does not work with Safari, I conclude that Phorm haven’t got this trick working with that browser.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Shaun

... a breach of the DPA.

Probably not. An IP address and list of web sites visited does not constitute "personal information", as far as I can see:

Definition
Personal data are defined in the Data Protection Act, as follows:-
"data which relate to a living individual who can be identified:-
* from those data; or
* from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual".

http://www.dataprotectionact.org/2.html

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Shaun

ROFL, surely it's been designed from the ground up to make Phorm & the ISPs shed loads of cash from selling customer browsing habits to advertisers?

Originally Posted by none

AND YET AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE ACTUAL QUESTION!!!

none - I requested several pages ago that I will not tolerate rude or offensive posts and especially those which contain SHOUTING. Please adhere to my requests - I shall not request this again - I'll simply start to hand out suspensions and delete posts where necessary.

[popper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012101340.html
"IP Addresses Are Personal Data, E.U. Regulator Says

By Aoife White
Associated Press
Tuesday, January 22, 2008; Page D01

BRUSSELS -- IP addresses, strings of numbers that identify computers on the Internet, should generally be regarded as personal information, the head of the European Union's group of data privacy regulators said Monday.

Germany's data-protection commissioner, Peter Scharr, leads the E.U. group, which is preparing a report on how well the privacy policies of Internet search engines operated by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others comply with E.U. privacy law.

Scharr told a European Parliament hearing on online data protection that when someone is identified by an IP, or Internet protocol, address, "then it has to be regarded as personal data."

His view differs from that of Google, which insists an IP address merely identifies the location of a computer, not who the individual user is.

That is true but does not take into consideration that many people regularly use the same computer and IP address.

Scharr acknowledged that IP addresses for a computer may not always be personal or linked to an individual. For example, some computers in Internet cafes or offices are used by several people.

These exceptions have not stopped the emergence of a host of "whois" Internet sites, which allow users to type in an IP address and will then generate a name for the person or company linked to it.

Treating IP addresses as personal information would have implications for how search engines record data.
...
"

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Toto

See, this is the point. There have been repeated quotes that no identifiable information will be sent to the Phorm system, no name, no address, no IP address, nothing (btw your IP address is stored against every post here, a forum moderator - with the right permissions- can see your IP address). There may be privacy issues yes, but so far no DPA issues that I can see of the quotes from Phorm, BT Website is true.

However for the admins/mods here to track that IP to me is very very difficult, for my ISP - not so hard.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by mertle

I know few here saying if VM go ahead thats it they are moving lock stock and barrel there custom.

Thats your decision but you must remember your moving from the frying pan and straight into the fire if you goto BT telephony & SKY TV.

If you think VM is bad then SKY, BT is just as evil to support PHORM and dont deserve custom.

Why should you move your TV to SKY if SKY talk talk is going to support PHORM. To me it does not add up on that front.

As for telephony its different you still got to go to a scummy company BT so we can get a NON compliant ISP.

BT probably laughing that they know they cant lose custom due to we all have to move to BT in order to get BE.

I maintain if I do have to go BT my TV will stay with VM the alternative I suppose is freeview(not exactly brilliant service), I am not allowed a satelite but for those who want a clean break from these companies I suggest look into FREESAT for TV.

You cant completely cut ranks to teach all companies a lesson due to telephony issue.
I suppose you could decide against a land line all together and go mobile but then what about internet.

Basically in a sense what I am saying you cant punish one to move to another evil attitude company who is going to support PHORM. It makes no sense.

I will not be using Sky for my broadband i will be Using Be Unlimited which is LLU and does NOT use the BT network. Just because my line is BT does not mean it will be Subject to Phorm ?

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Toto

See, this is the point. There have been repeated quotes that no identifiable information will be sent to the Phorm system, no name, no address, no IP address, nothing (btw your IP address is stored against every post here, a forum moderator - with the right permissions- can see your IP address). There may be privacy issues yes, but so far no DPA issues that I can see of the quotes from Phorm, BT Website is true.

It can only be a breach of the DPA if personal identifiable information is sent.

I don't think for one minute that VM would do that, this is a matter of persoonal privacy between you and your ISP.

Whether or not we believe Phorm is one thing, whether we can trust VM to do the right thing, in our opinion, is a totally different matter. I have no intention of signing into this system, and I will sign out if I have to.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------



Thanks Sirius. I can read, however your two posts seemed to contradict each other a little, possibly tainted by your feelings towards VM prior to this Phorm revalation. I just wanted you to clarify a point or two...which you have.

Toto


No problem

[bigbadcol]

It is intresting to see how many changes in the story about how the system works since it was first anounced.

on the 29th of feb it was reported at techcrunch the following

1) Privacy International approves Phorms Privacy claims. Something we now now is untrue

2) "Of course, data is secure as the companies that keep it - and it’s possible to de-anonomyse data. Phorm says it wouldn’t mix surfing data with, say, an ISP’s billing data on users."

This is the most telling thing I have read. 2 weeks ago Phorm state that it’s possible to de-anonomyse data. Now we are told the system is secure.

3) they say "What information they do have - which is just the surfing habits of that PC - gets deleted after a few hours"

If it is deleted after a few hours then it must be stored. Somthing that has been denied most strongly over the past few days.

Teh company is acting like any person who tells a lie and is found out - Change the story - and change it again.

read the full piece at

http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/02/29/...nto-something/

[Sirius]

Its simple really. The company now known as Phorm was a Spyware and Root kit supplier. Therefor in my eyes they will never ever be trusted on my PC. I have the same feelings for Sony, I have no Sony equipment in my house and never ever will. Reason TRUST and they don't deserve it.

If Virgin introduce this then i will add them to the list as well.