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

[popper]

Portly

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Further to my earlier posting I was called again by Virgin Media.

Their representative told me that the previous representative who had spoken to me had advised me incorrectly because she had misunderstood the issue.

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about:
"I understand with growing concern that you plan to partner with Phorm to use deep packet inspection to monitor your subscribers' web activity, in order to present targeted advertising to them on sites which are also signed up to the Phorm service.

This proposal is fundamentally immoral ... ...

... should you deploy Phorm I will move my broadband, television and telephone services to other providers.

This is regardless of any "opt in" or "opt out" arrangements which might be agreed – any partnership with Phorm is unacceptable."

According to the representative, Virgin Media is still considering working with Phorm, though the decision is some way off.

well thats good to know Portly , given your returned call (almost never happens two times)it appears that some higher up personel (perhaps a UK executive?, if not the real deal US board member stepping in and giving direct orders) are infact monitoring the chat here about mass DPA notices, Injunctions against the CEO/COO and other named personel etc, and the willingness to file criminal charges....

theres nothing like seeing your name being mentioned in relation to (mass?)legal Injunctions (ASBO's for the high flying company boys and girls ) to give them far more focus, i imagine.

deep packet inspection
is also a good thing to keep mentioning here, there and on the phone, along with what it does, and how it works to spy on all the data passing through it etc.

[JackSon]

In lieu of a BBC 'have your say' page on the story, one such commentable alternative exists on the Guardian's (Ex-Phorm customer) blog.


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...customers.html

[popper]

Originally Posted by OF1975

My petition was rejected not only the spurious grounds of "duplication" but also because in their words it is:

* Potentially libellous, false, or defamatory statements

To say I am angry is to understate things. I immediately fired off an email back to them pointing out that BT have themselves admitted to the trial last july and that they had no consent. I gave them links to the relevant articles and forcibly reminded them that BT executives are NOT above the law.

I will be resubmitting another petition in a few minutes time then going to watch channel 4 news and then the Manchester United V Roma match.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

OK another petition submitted which is smaller and a little gentler... added a few "potentially" and "may have contravened" etc etc What are you betting they reject it again still saying that its libelous etc

like i said about Alexanders first one, they took loads of time with that ,but yours came back rejected dead quick.

they must have had the lawyers look it over and anything now comeing in with BT and Phorm in there now, will get a 'dont pass go' sticky slapped on it, perhaps that accepted totally seperate one is serving their purpose and keeping the real hard one's off the page.

[AlexanderHanff]

Soooooo BT conducted trials in 2006 with real ad targeting taking place for Egg (to name just one). Now the sociologist in me asks did these trials actually result in any sales for Egg (either credit cards or loans) and if so could the targeted advertising which happened as a result of these illegal trials be seen as "behavioural modification"?

Let me clarify. Normally, under the current way web advertising works, one would expect based upon the law of probability that web browsers would receive an even spread of adverts for all credit card/loan companies and as a result if they chose to purchase based on an ad the spread of those purchases across the customer base would also be reasonably normal with customers picking many different credit cards and loans.

However, with the illegal BT targeted ads trialled over that period, it is likely that those 18000 people would have received increased exposure to Egg products instead of a normal spread. Given the power of advertising with regards to initiating a specific response out of consumers (which is why advertising works and simply cannot be disputed) it is therefore analogous with behavioural modification and where the customers have not agreed to the system they are essentially victims of brain washing.

By limiting exposure of other "brands" and focusing exposure on the Egg brand during this trial; they have in effect prevented their customers from making an informed decision about whether or not they actually wanted any Egg products as opposed to other brand products. Given that the trials were criminally illegal under RIPA if any customers actually purchased anything as a direct result of this targeted advertising we could be looking at the potential of other sinister crimes being committed as a knock on effect.

I need to check the legislation but I am pretty certain that behavioural modification is covered under law (see things like subliminal messaging for example) which just makes the entire affair even more sinister.

And yes we are -all- effected by advertising whether we want to admit it or not and there really is nothing we can do to avoid that, but the difference here is the advertising here is the direct result of a criminal act.

Just a little food for thought that I was mulling over as I was falling asleep earlier. Perhaps more scary is that I think of stuff like that before I fall asleep

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

It should be noted too that if any company involved in the trials did make sales to trial victims then that money should be seen as "proceeds of a crime" which would make all the companies involved in the trials complicit.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

Enjoy the game. Anyone told Phergie about Phorm?
{ snip }

Good question. If informed about it am sure Phergie would see it for what it is. He was always good at spotting a duff - well, there was Juan Sebastian Veron but then no ones perfect

Time for bed...

[AlexanderHanff]

A quick note on the Earl of Northesk:

http://www.8020thinking.com/our-team.html

He is on the 80/20 Thinking "advisory group" so I wonder what he advised with regards the 80/20 Thinking report on Phorm?

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

Phorm Comms team Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am

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

....
6) I disagree — if you truly care about your privacy you should lobby for an industry standard of no storage of personal data, which is in fact what our system represents and delivers. Please see the following flash demo for more information: http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/slideshow.php
Best wishes,
Radha "

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...ID=16246#16246

Mark H asks a very interesting question, perhaps we should spead it around

"Mark H [img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: BT Webwise technical trials to begin from mid-March 2008 [Q&A thread]
Posted: Apr 1, 2008 11:17 PM [img]Download Failed (1)[/img] in response to: Mark W security , phishing , spyware , adware , phorm , webwise , illegal , snooping , wiretap , t&c's , ripa , dpa
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img] Reply
Since Mr Liversage seems to have done a vanishing act, maybe you can help with this question Mark W...

How much has the implementation of phorm changed since the sysip trials?

http://www.bikegirl.co.uk/forum/foru...?TID=2418&PN=1

https://www.bluffmagazine.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4108&PN=1&get=last

http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/forum/d...1&ThreadPage=2

http://www.angelways.co.uk/forum/for...326&FID=3&PR=3

http://www.pwcforums.co.uk/wiz/forum...TID=10314&PN=1

All of those sites had javascript inserted into users posts by the SPYware that 121media as they were, phorm as they are now were trialling with you, but since the official line is you don't do such things with webwise, can we have some technical details of how things are done differently now please.

Can you also say what changes have been made to prevent the profiling of family orientated sites etc, because one of those sites is obviously about parenting, I don't want BT or phorm knowing which, if any, sites I visit for child upbringing/welfare advice.

Lastly, and most importantly in my opinion, you will notice that one of those sites is SECURE as in it uses a https connection, yet still had the javascript inserted, how can we be sure of BT and phorms assertations that all secure pages will be ignored after seeing that?

These questions need to be answered, and I am sure I can speak for the majority of people here when I say they are extremely important questions.
No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority. - Robert A. Heinlein."

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by popper

Phorm Comms team Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am

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

....
6) I disagree � if you truly care about your privacy you should lobby for an industry standard of no storage of personal data, which is in fact what our system represents and delivers. Please see the following flash demo for more information: http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/slideshow.php
Best wishes,
Radha "

Suitably kicking response posted.

[popper]

https://www.bluffmagazine.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4108&PN=1&get=last

lol, i took a look,and on checking the TOS FOR that https'ed phormed site mark h on btbeta mentioned above.

its a shame about the first part as it may or NOT let them wiggle
https://www.bluffmagazine.com/bluffinfo/tos.asp
thepokerdb terms of service (Effective 11/25/2005)

*The following is only applicable to paying subscribers of thepokerdb.com Pro service. Users of thepokerdb.com's Standard servic
e are not bound by the Terms and Conditions, as outlined below.

....
1.3 Except as specifically provided in Sections 1.1 and 1.2, you are prohibited from downloading, storing, reproducing, transmitting, displaying, copying, distributing, or using Materials retrieved from the Online Services.
.....

did anyone check the other urls for tos that forbid the isp's and phorm collecting data?

[Florence]

I have brought this over from ISPr since I thought this was interesting and felt it needed to be added to the info we have gathered in this epic thread.

Originally Posted by drsox

I am sure this was around the time when several of my customers lost https access to websites over several weekends in a row.. only non-secure sites would work.

Tom - www.mouselike.org

taken from http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/showthread.php?t=26766

[popper]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...customers.html

charles and his rehash of the Elreg....
but heres a comment of interest to follow in coming days perhaps

"
simplepieman

Comment No. 1023314
April 1 15:18

To the uninitiated The Register article has just been posted on ukcrypto mailing list, where the likes of FIPR and other respected academics may discuss the legal implications.

The list archive is publicly readable, so those wanting to follow any legal discussion on this can do so here:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...to/2008-April/

I'm shocked that this latest revelation appears to have included some form of injection of JavaScript into pages at a network level. Although it happened nearly 2 years ago which reduces the likelyhood of logs being around to prove the trial, should anyone wish to start proceedings against BT.

Around the discussions on whether the action was legal it would be interested to know what evidence The Register has in its posession!"

[TheBlueRaja]

136 pages and people still dont get it, they dont care about you, all they care about is the money it will generate, they will fobb you off until they finally get their way and release it.

If you want to fight back - move ISP and tell them WHY your moving - simple, if that happens Phorm has NO chance.

[AlexanderHanff]

Phorm is currently the worst performer on the market in the last 30 days according to iii.

Nice way to start the day.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Maybe we should have a whip around for them, wouldn't want them to go hungry or anything...

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by mark777

If we all 'e-mail to a friend' from the BBC site, we could get this on the front page tonight as a 'most e-mailed'.

Done

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Phorm is currently the worst performer on the market in the last 30 days according to iii.

Nice way to start the day.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Maybe we should have a whip around for them, wouldn't want them to go hungry or anything...

Excellent! Next target: let's see if we can talk it below 1500...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

136 pages and people still dont get it, they dont care about you, all they care about is the money it will generate, they will fobb you off until they finally get their way and release it.

If you want to fight back - move ISP and tell them WHY your moving - simple, if that happens Phorm has NO chance.

So will YOU do that if SKY sign's up to this ?