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

[AlexanderHanff]

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...al-thread.html

I have started a new thread for people who intend to attend the public meeting on Tuesday. I would urge people to use the thread to organise things in time for the event.

Alexander Hanff

[jca111]

Will opt-in 'phinish' Phorm?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ish_phorm.html

[mark777]

Originally Posted by manxminx

I've emailed 80/20 asking if the meeting can be broadcast on a web feed or recorded as a podcast. I'm sure there are many people such as myself who would like to attend but are unable due to location or other commitments.

Ali.

P.s I can understand the meeting being held in London, but at times I think people forget that life exists North of the M25.

Or West. Good idea on the web feed/podcast.

There has to be a catch somewhere though. I can't see many targetted ad fans turning up for this, so the attendees are likely to be mainly anti-phorm.

Why would they agree to this?

What have they got up their sleeve?
What sort of anouncement might they make, with max publicity?
Is Phorm 2 about to be released, the cuddly version, which nobody knows about?

Something is fishy, unless you think this is an open and above board company.

[AlexanderHanff]

I would just personally like to thank Rory for the compliment

"Some of the finest minds in the world of privacy, encryption and the law, have turned their minds to these issues"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ish_phorm.html

Sorry couldn't resist hehehe.

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by jca111

Will opt-in 'phinish' Phorm?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ish_phorm.html

Aunties slowly getting there!

[dav]

Originally Posted by mark777

Or West. Good idea on the web feed/podcast.

There has to be a catch somewhere though. I can't see many targetted ad fans turning up for this, so the attendees are likely to be mainly anti-phorm.

Why would they agree to this?

What have they got up their sleeve?
What sort of anouncement might they make, with max publicity?
Is Phorm 2 about to be released, the cuddly version, which nobody knows about?

Something is fishy, unless you think this is an open and above board company.

I would say that there will be a lot of Phorm plants in there, vigorously nodding in agreement with every word Kent says. That will let him say, "Lo! the promised land cometh and the people want it!" and he'll be able to spin it into a resounding acceptance of his spyware. I'd be very wary of their motives.

[Winston Smith]

Hi,

Question for the legally minded/those with more knowledge than I.

I see a lot of reports of groups etc, taking legal action on behalf of 'the general public' on various issues. If this is the case would it not be possible for the Foundation for Information Policy Research to apply for an injunction (my legal knowledge minimal, my red wine knowledge three large glasses) against Phorm?

Nicholas Bohm, general counsel for the Foundation for Information Policy Research said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm):

"This is not the end of the road. We will be taking it further. We are not satisfied with the ICO response on interception,"

Could this mean they could/will?

Regards

WinstonS

[AlexanderHanff]

"We've only heard from a small group of vocal opponents so far. The public has answered very clearly in neutral polling that this is something they want." (Kent)

From what I recall the poll was 2000 users? I expect it would have been spun around the Anti-Phishing service too?

Ok PM Petition currently stands at what 11000? somewhere around there. That trumps their poll by almost 6x.

The poll here? 95.6% against Phorm from a sample of over 700. That's a pretty clear contradiction to what they claim the public want.

Alexander Hanff

[JackSon]

It's the source of the poll which is invariably going to be the difference. I suspect this announcement of "our customers want this" is based on ISP's asking generically;
-Do you want less advertising?
-Do you want more phishing protection?
Because in a survey, teh off the cuff responses to those are going to be yes to both.

I suspect Kent is actually talking about the above instead of a question based around "Do you want Phorm specifically?"

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Hi,

Question for the legally minded/those with more knowledge than I.

I see a lot of reports of groups etc, taking legal action on behalf of 'the general public' on various issues. If this is the case would it not be possible for the Foundation for Information Policy Research to apply for an injunction (my legal knowledge minimal, my red wine knowledge three large glasses) against Phorm?

Nicholas Bohm, general counsel for the Foundation for Information Policy Research said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7339263.stm):

"This is not the end of the road. We will be taking it further. We are not satisfied with the ICO response on interception,"

Could this mean they could/will?

Regards

WinstonS

It is difficult to file for an injunction in its own right, from my understanding of the procedures. The most effective way to file for an injunction would be as an attachment to existing action (criminal trial of the BT trials for example, or litigation from some of the victims of the BT trials) which is much more likely to succeed.

I would hope FIPR will apply for an injunction but I am not sure it is feasible at this time. There is work being done with regards to filing a case from at least one of the trial victims, so if that goes ahead, it is certainly (in my mind) a legal option.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Of course it is unlikely that we will ever see the actual poll they did as I doubt they obtained informed consent from the participants. This might actually be the one time we see their interpretation of consent match what we all interpret as well, which will simply show them for the hypocrites they are.

Alexander Hanff

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It is difficult to file for an injunction in its own right, from my understanding of the procedures. The most effective way to file for an injunction would be as an attachment to existing action (criminal trial of the BT trials for example, or litigation from some of the victims of the BT trials) which is much more likely to succeed.

I would hope FIPR will apply for an injunction but I am not sure it is feasible at this time. There is work being done with regards to filing a case from at least one of the trial victims, so if that goes ahead, it is certainly (in my mind) a legal option.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Of course it is unlikely that we will ever see the actual poll they did as I doubt they obtained informed consent from the participants. This might actually be the one time we see their interpretation of consent match what we all interpret as well, which will simply show them for the hypocrites they are.

Alexander Hanff

What about a civil injunction then? (from: http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/lawukcourts.htm)
- a claim that one side has breached a duty imposed by the common law without the need for there to be a contract, for example, a civil action can be brought if a person defames you or trespasses on your land.


Does common law include RIPA etc?

Regards

WinstonS

[dav]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I would just personally like to thank Rory for the compliment

"Some of the finest minds in the world of privacy, encryption and the law, have turned their minds to these issues"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...ish_phorm.html

Sorry couldn't resist hehehe.

Alexander Hanff

Tried to post the following comment, but keep getting server error...will keep trying...

I'm with Virgin at the moment with internet, TV and Phone. As soon as they state that this system is to be launched as a "service" to enhance my internet experience, I will jump into Rupert Murdoch's lap and embrace Sky TV and sign up with any ISP that can promise me Phorm will not be entertained.
There is another side to this also. The websites that are to partner Phorm and serve OIX generated ads will immediately be added to my blocked sites list and will be boycotted until I find out they no longer carry ads served up by Phorm.
In many ways, I'm compromising my use of the internet, but it is something I'm more than willing to do to avoid this company and its collaborators.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

What about a civil injunction then? (from: http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/lawukcourts.htm)
- a claim that one side has breached a duty imposed by the common law without the need for there to be a contract, for example, a civil action can be brought if a person defames you or trespasses on your land.


Does common law include RIPA etc?

Regards

WinstonS

Again, I still think it needs to be filed for as part of an existing action, whether it is civil or criminal. There was some discussion on this in this thread about a week ago. I will find the relevant posts and link to them later, I have a guest at the moment though.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Alex @ Phorm,

Given the misquoting of Dr Richard Clayton over the weekend on Phorm's blog and antics on Wikipedia, I am not comfortable with the prospect of a telephone/voice call. I fear you would be able to deny anything I may wish to bring to the attention of the public and that you may misquote me for your PR campaign.

If Kent would like to have a discussion with me, it would need to be in an open, online environment which can be logged by independent 3rd parties and witnessed by the general public. I would suggest a chat room where I can pose my questions to Kent and the public can see his responses in real time.

If Phorm truly want to be transparent, surely they will accept these terms?

Furthermore, I am still awaiting your answers with regards to the questions I raised concerning the illegal trials of Phorm Inc.'s technology by BT in 2006/2007 which the ICO statement today has effectively reinforced the opinion of myself and many others that they failed to meet the requirements of PECR.

Alexander Hanff

A private irc channel invite only and with +m on only voicing the ones who are allowed to talk would sort that out members of the public can watch but not participate.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

"We've only heard from a small group of vocal opponents so far. The public has answered very clearly in neutral polling that this is something they want." (Kent)

So now Kent is redefining the concept of yes as anything that isn't a resounding no. And this is a company that wants people to talk to it one to one?

The public meeting concerns me some. I can't help but think there will be lots of Phorm drones there lapping up every word Ertregrul says. Will Dr Clayton and those who oppose Phorm be given the same chances to speak as Phorm? Will it be recorded and posted in full for those who can't get there to see?

Part of me thinks Phorm has got something lined up here and their PR drones will be there in force.

Now if I was the paranoid type I'd start to think along the lines of the "Anonymous" organisation who protest against the Church of Scientology. A lot of them wear V masks to mask their identity...

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by dav

Tried to post the following comment, but keep getting server error...will keep trying...

I'm getting a 502 error on there too. My comment is:

"Hi Rory, as you may be aware if you've been following any of the various discussions about Phorm, the opt-out "presented" by Phorm is based on a cookie. This means that although you've said "no" to receiving adverts your web activity is still mirrored to Phorm's systems.

Many people have made it clear to Virgin Media (of whom I am currently a customer) that an opt-out has to guarantee that their data goes nowhere near Phorm's systems.

Mr Etregrul's assertion that "neutral polling that this is something they [customers] want." is complete and utter hogwash. Internet advertising is a bugbear, a nuisance and is tolerated with a heavy heart by many.

Solutions are available which minimise the amount of advertising a user is exposed to and I use a number of them myself. The difference it makes in the speed of a page downloading is considerable.

Mr Etregrul's logic is flawed and is that of a spin doctor trying to fight off a growing resistance.

Check The Register's ever growing report file on Phorm at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/

Phorm is (in my view) illegal and offers nothing of value to the broadband customer. I will not be opting in and I will be advising everyone I know to have nothing to do with Phorm."