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

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by kt88man

It {BT} said that the aim of the trial was to validate that users were unaware of the presence of the tracking system.

Says it all... I'm sure that BT would like users to be unaware.

I would so love to be "unaware" of BT you wouldn't believe it. If BT had never existed then my professional life would have been so much easier, my blood pressure so much lower and I would have had enough time to finish the other projects on which I was engaged.

As it is, many home users are unaware of what goes on involving their broadband - it just works and that's that. Part of our job here is to tell them what's happening so they become a lot more aware of BT's unethical and (IMHO) illegal conduct (if they are BT customers) and of what Phorm means for them if they are VM and TalkTalk customers.

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

In the meantime see how BT rewards unethical behaviour: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...vingstone_ceo/

Wonder if he's off to Phorm too

[dav]

Discredited
By Cris PagePosted Tuesday 8th April 2008 11:06 GMT

BT are starting to smell as bad as their parasitical buddies. First they lie to thier customers, now they seems to defend the blatant attempt to sanitise the facts about this invasion of our privacy - the fact that Phorms PR droids (or whoever) were unaware of wiki policy just shows the arrogance with which they operate, not only do they assume they have some god given right to our data, they assume they can distort data on websites to suit their own ends

Of course BT wouldnt see a conflict of interest would they? They cant see past that cheque from Phrom for selling out their customers privacy (aka data that isnt theirs to sell).

There is an interesting precedent here though.

Clearly, they didnt read the WIKI AUP and T&C before they got the scissors out... right?

So how can this now be opt in by default, on the assumption that people will have read and understood any T&C change published in some remote corner of an ISP web page?

Surely now theres an unbreakable case that this must be placed infront of each and every affceted ISP customer by email and a POSITIVE OPT IN required before inclusion? Phrom have clearly demonstarted that people DONT routinely check T&C so to obtain informed consent to data interception they have to ptretty much wave the thing in everyones faces before they go ahead

The above is from the comments on the previously linked ElReg Wiki article.

I think the word "Zing!" applies here.
Well done Chris Page...straight for the throat

[Florence]

There is a good idea to bring awareness of phorm to many ppl on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpwlBhDKOvs

was originally posted on ISPreview many thanks to Mel for the link..

[OF1975]

Finally getting somewhere on the iii investment site. Some of those who invested in Phorm seem to be waking up to just what a bad idea it is and reconsidering their investment

Lets keep it up.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Finally getting somewhere on the iii investment site. Some of those who invested in Phorm seem to be waking up to just what a bad idea it is and reconsidering their investment

Lets keep it up.

Good to see they might be human after all I had almost given up hope on them being part of the human race. On another note I moved from VM to Aquiss and so far my speeds have been much better even on a central that was red and full I was not having any speed problems unlike my last months with vm where at peak times I would slow to below 2meg.

I am no phorm phree with Aquiss.net who are going to stay phorm phree.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Phorm spin update at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ors_wikipedia/

"Hi Chris,

We let you know yesterday that we had proposed amendments to the Phorm entry on Wikipedia – there were several factual inaccuracies that were pointed out to us. Having reviewed our suggested changes with hindsight, we accept that we were a little over zealous in our efforts to make those corrections and that we erroneously removed some relevant items in the editing process. These were quickly reinstated by Wikipedia’s editors. We will endeavour to make sure that this does not happen in the future."

Come on! That's just saying someone has been rather unprofessional and been caught out.

Strike another point for how to fail...

The Captain has duties to perform. Back tomorrow. Keep up the good work my friends!

[AlexanderHanff]

Just an amusing little anecdote here for you all. I was just spell checking my article after finishing the section on Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 when I noticed the recommended spelling for Phorm's COO (Virasb Vahidi) from my spell checker was "Virus".

I hope you all find that as amusing and apt as I do

Alexander Hanff

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just an amusing little anecdote here for you all. I was just spell checking my article after finishing the section on Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1997 when I noticed the recommended spelling for Phorm's COO (Virasb Vahidi) from my spell checker was "Virus".

I hope you all find that as amusing and apt as I do

Alexander Hanff

LOL how apt indeed.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

A little birdie tells me there might be a statement from Virgin Media today.

My guess on it will be

We are going to do it.
You will bloody well like it.
There is NO opt out.


In other words STUFF YOU

[dav]

Originally Posted by Sirius

My guess on it will be

We are going to do it.
You will bloody well like it.
There is NO opt out.


In other words STUFF YOU

I'm forced (on past behaviour by VM) to agree with you

[3x2]

A little birdie tells me there might be a statement from Virgin Media today.

It looks like it is going to cost me more than I thought (both time and money) to switch BB suppliers. Before the celebrations start at VM though - I'm waiting for your statement and if I don't like it I will immediately cancel all your other services followed ASAP by BB.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by dav

I'm forced (on past behaviour by VM) to agree with you

Let's wait and see. No jumping to conclusions either way here.

Must dash, train's on time for a change!

[OF1975]

Another blog on the NY Times website about Phorm. I deeply suspect a few of the commenters are either investors trying to talk up Phorm or maybe employees. Dont they have an office in New York?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...rasite-cookie/

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by dav

I'm forced (on past behaviour by VM) to agree with you

Does it follow therefore that it'll be over-hyped, three months later than expected and lead to more frustration than it was designed to avoid?