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

[popper]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Details of the event can be found here (including the list of speakers):

http://www.8020thinking.com/events

Don't forget to email 80/20 Thinking in advance to let them know you are coming (as is requested on the event web page).

Alexander Hanff

"80/20 Thinking, with the full cooperation of Phorm, has decided to organise a public meeting as part of the PIA assessment process.

We intend to use feedback from this event to inform the PIA. A final version of the PIA will be published by the end of April 2008...."

more like they finally took my advice #1398 (18-03-2008) and are only now following the PIA as required.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by JackSon

It's fair because they've decided the meeting should be opt-in rather than opt-out.

I'm sure Kent and Marc won't mind you following them home and inviting yourself into their houses for a good look around afterwards, as long as you promise not to tell anyone else what you saw there...

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

now we need to do a Phorm version of the V speech :P



I'll see what I can do

"Phight the Power!"

[popper]

Originally Posted by the_baby_jebus

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm


7.1.a The data is erased
7.1.b. the data is modified to remove person data
7.1.c. not applicable only happens to home users
7.2. n/a nothing to do with billing
7.3.a it is (supposedly) value added as they've added a phishy filter.. at least that's their get out
7.3.b. user has been informed and opted-in.. or even not opted-out.. doesn't make the distinction
7.3.c. i.e. forever if they're still serving you adverts

also according to Richard Clayton http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf

so the switch redirects to a "fake" webwise domain to inspect a cookie which then decides to proceed or not.. which isn't Deep Packet Inspection

have they covered all the bases and we're dangling by the short an curlies??

(obviously this only goes for any furthur implementations.. the 2 previous trials by BT sholdn't be covered as they were under the radar so not covered by 7.3.b)

edited : 15.29 with some extra detail from richard clayton

they have covered no bases, and we are not dangling anything.
you didnt read it all,or misunderstand it perhaps, first of all the section you quote is

"Restrictions on the processing of certain traffic data
7. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), traffic data relating to subscribers or users which are processed and stored by a public communications provider shall, when no longer required for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, be - ..."

just above that is

"Confidentiality of communications
6. -
(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not use an electronic communications network to store information, or to gain access to information stored,in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.

(2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment -

• (a) is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and
  
  (b) is given the opportunity to refuse the storage of or access to that information.
  

(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information -

• (a) for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or
  
  (b) where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user."

and the most important bit you missed.

• "Relationship between these Regulations and the Data Protection Act 1998
  4. Nothing in these Regulations shall relieve a person of his obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the processing of personal data."

in other words 6 states they cant store their cookie or any other data on your machine unless you were asked and you Explicity say yes you may.

they cant go looking on your machine for any cookie or other data they might have placed there in any Yes state earlyer, after you say NO at any time later.

[Winston Smith]

The 80/20 meeting. I do think we should go with the 'V' masks. Yes it looks theatric but that is exactly the kind of thing that goes down well on a five minute news reports.
The time has come. Now we have to switch from the technical viewpoint - its bad, and we all know it it is, to a view that your average user will respect and understand. The 'techies' all grasp it now, they know it is bad but it has to spread beyond this. It has to reach the average user and what better than a mass theatrical protest?
Look at what 'Fathers for Justice' did with one man in a spidersuit. It is all very well all of us(and we are all worthy) talking about it in forums but it HAS to reach the average user.
We have to make sure our point is seen (and understood) by the average net user. If this abomination is to be opt-in then the average user needs to know what they are choosing and why they are chosing.
Even a few minutes news reports on a national channel would be priceless. We need to get the major news channels interested,and what better wqay than hundreds of people turning upto this meeting wearing 'V' masks?

[manxminx]

BT have published a diagram showing how their implementation of Phorm would work: http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html

Nice firewall, and also good to see it's truly opt-in only. Also, if Phorm cookies are blocked, the invitation page is not displayed.

---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:20 ----------

New article:INTERNET LAW - Does Phorm's 'Webwise' Online AD System Break U.K. Law?

Blog comment on itpro.co.uk: http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/davea/2.../09/bad-phorm/

“Dave, can I use your PC to check cinema times?” “Yeah sure, just let me log out and log into a guest account.” “Why? What you hiding?”

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

The 80/20 meeting. I do think we should go with the 'V' masks. Yes it looks theatric but that is exactly the kind of thing that goes down well on a five minute news reports.
The time has come. Now we have to switch from the technical viewpoint - its bad, and we all know it it is, to a view that your average user will respect and understand. The 'techies' all grasp it now, they know it is bad but it has to spread beyond this. It has to reach the average user and what better than a mass theatrical protest?
Look at what 'Fathers for Justice' did with one man in a spidersuit. It is all very well all of us(and we are all worthy) talking about it in forums but it HAS to reach the average user.
We have to make sure our point is seen (and understood) by the average net user. If this abomination is to be opt-in then the average user needs to know what they are choosing and why they are chosing.
Even a few minutes news reports on a national channel would be priceless. We need to get the major news channels interested,and what better wqay than hundreds of people turning upto this meeting wearing 'V' masks?

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

It's best that people go as suited professionals, carrying a briefcase etc.

Phorm would love for this to be characterised as an anti-global, dressed up as beagles, nutter fringe.

Outwardly there is no good reason for them to be doing this, so be careful. They have something up their sleeves.

I'm all for getting this wider coverage, but not like this.

[3x2]

Alexander - have you come across a way to, at a European level, force a national government to enforce it's own law? It is clear from both the 06/07 BTPhorm trials that they were committing at least 18000 individual criminal offences. We see from the lack of reaction that our "political masters" simply want this to go away.

After all when you have "friends" (read: senior party members) on the (BT) board and your personal portfolio could take a severe hit why would you care?

I can just see it now - HMG decides to prosecute but in the week running up to the announcement (BT) shares are dumped faster than we can follow. My understanding of the EU is that we have recourse and even if a "ministers" portfolio takes precedent in the UK, the EU could deal with them for us.

A little bit like corrupt politicians in a US city being hit by the federal government really.

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell
your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

OC - 20 April 1653

[Winston Smith]

Fair enoujgh, but which is going to grab the headline:

Men in suits and ties attend meeting;

or:

Spiderman says No to spying.

I see where you are coming from and in a real world I would agree with you, but without a serious sponsor (and so far we have nothing more than tech blogs), we have to get our views across. And to be fair 'Fathers for Justice' aare now seen as a serious pressure group

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by manxminx

BT have published a diagram showing how their implementation of Phorm would work: http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html

Nice firewall, and also good to see it's truly opt-in only. Also, if Phorm cookies are blocked, the invitation page is not displayed.

Could be an improvement, but you will still have to block webwise.net cookies and they will still have to intercept your communications with the website you are accessing even if you are opted out.

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by mark777

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

It's best that people go as suited professionals, carrying a briefcase etc.

Phorm would love for this to be characterised as an anti-global, dressed up as beagles, nutter fringe.

Outwardly there is no good reason for them to be doing this, so be careful. They have something up their sleeves.

I'm all for getting this wider coverage, but not like this.

I think I'll agree with those sentiments. Also, this could be one of the last acts of desperation they have to offer in the PR arena. It might just be so that the only things left up their sleeves are their arms (with a bit of luck). And still, in the PR game, they are really their own worst enemy with all the gaffes and failed cover-ups in the wake of their campaign, this stunt may also prove as beneficial to the cause as every other step they have taken.

But of course, nobody died from being cautious - not to my knowledge anyway. And Richard Clayton doesn't seem one to be easily out foxed, I hope that is also the case for him on the fly in public.

[popper]

its werth posting it here if its not to big.
i thumbnailed it to CF just incase it goes missing on the bt servers later.

as you can see they are still collecting your datastream and checking/processing for a cookie or other data on your PC, only now it's BT not the Phorm kit doing the collecting and processing.

plain as day, you refuse/decline ,they try and write an unauthorised data cookie to your machine without permission.

do you think they dont quite get it yet!

[unicus]

Originally Posted by popper

its werth posting it here if its not to big.

as you can see they are still collecting your datastream and checking for a cookie or other data on your PC, only now it's BT not the Phorm kit doing the colecting and processing.

plain as day, you refuse/decline ,they try and write an unauthorised data cookie to your machine without permission.

do you think they dont quite get it yet!

They absolutely don't get it. The 'rules engine' has to intercept your communication which is not legal without your consent which they can't know without using their 'rules engine'. Hence they fall at the first hurdle - no need to look any further.

Stupid system

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Fair enoujgh, but which is going to grab the headline:

Men in suits and ties attend meeting;

or:

Spiderman says No to spying.

I see where you are coming from and in a real world I would agree with you, but without a serious sponsor (and so far we have nothing more than tech blogs), we have to get our views across. And to be fair 'Fathers for Justice' aare now seen as a serious pressure group

I really want to see the headlines as well. Awareness is building slowly, but it is building. It needs to be based on concerned professionals.

A publicity stunt plays right into their hands. Fathers 4 Justice have been climbing up things for years. I'm not prepared to wait years for Phorm to be 'reversed', once it's here it will never go away.

Most of the general public believe the doctors who tell you that this drug is a lifesaver, rather than the people dressed up as beagles who do not like how it was researched in the first place.

We need to really think about this because we could end up kissing this campaign goodbye.

---------- Post added at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

I've just posted this in the meeting thread.

"I'm not so certain that it's a good idea for this thread should be split from the main one. There are plenty of people who can't get to the meeting, but would like to be involved in the discussions about it.

We dont have seperate threads for RIPA or ICO etc.

It might be a good idea to have a thread about anouncements regarding the meeting. i.e. where to meet up etc., perhaps a temporary 'sticky' if the mods would agree?

But I do think the discussion for all this should be kept in one place."

Anyone agree?

[serial]

I like the idea but I can just see the headlines the next day "Anonymous hijacks privacy debate", "Internet hackers fight for their privacy". I think the talk will be against Phorm anyway, we don't need masks.

Also i asked about filming the event, 8020 thinking:

"We are holding this meeting in as transparent a manner as possible, and as
such would be happy for you to bring along your camcorder should you so
wish"

[3x2]

It's nice that the ICO think opt-out cookies are the way to go but it still doesn't deal with RIPA. It is illegal to intercept (in the world and purposes of BTPhorm) my communications. Intercepting my communications to find out whether or not I have given you permission is still an illegal interception. End of.

If ISP's and Phorm wish to continue there must be two distinct paths through their system. Path one - as is, no interception. Path two - opted in (proxy changed on my machine?) Phorm wire-tap.

"we will check your cookie", "We promise not to look" is still an illegal interception of communication.