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

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Again why can't you trust phorm to do this ? I'm sure all phorm will be looking for in the pages are keywords for tagging.

What reason have Phorm given anyone to trust them? They're an advertising company spun out of a malware maker, touting a most-likely illegal system in a very underhand way (until pulled up on it by a public outcry). They lie about their malware past, they've edited Wikipedia to get rid of unfavourable information, and they can't even be trusted to tell the simple truth about whether an advertising partner has dumped them or not. They have made claims that their system is endorsed by various bodies which have turned out to be incorrect (Privacy International, the Home Office) or irrelevant (Ernst & Young).

Why should anyone trust them?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

What's the threat here ? Are you under attack from terrorism ?

What exactly are you scared of when much more sophisticated eavesdropping technology already exists and is being used.

it is but is mostly in the hands of government and their minions MI5 et al

most of the time the info they gather never goes anywhere as they don't like sharing between themselves !

now while i might not like it i still trust them more than i will ever trust a for profit company

its our data and we should decide who gets it who makes money with it and how much we get out of it

plus unless we do get our own life time ip's promised by the new ip system touted it is the privacy of family individuals i feel even more concerned about as mentioned before there are children in lots of these house holds who may have things they do not want parents to see or find out about for various reasons

and on those lines i am even more worried now seeing some info being put up that https site may be able to be looked at through this as i have to deal with on occasions child protection issues as part of a charity i help run

i should not have to worry about my isp snooping on that and the idea that they ignore certain things doesn't put my mind at rest

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Quick on channel 4 news now!!!

What was on Channel 4 news? Can you give us a summary?

[manxminx]

Moving swiftly on to where we left off . . .

Online Ad System Phorm Problematic

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

What was on Channel 4 news? Can you give us a summary?

Channel 4 news did a piece on Phorm and the meeting last night. Was very good. At a guess lasted about 2 -3 minutes. Kent got some quotes in. Nothing we haven't heard before from him and his PR drones. Dr Richard Clayton got some points in including how he thought it was illegal.

Simon Davies was very impressive with what I saw. He argued that a solution could be found to this, that it must go ahead with an "informed opt-in" etc.

The report even mentioned the fact that BT carried out trials without asking consent over the last two years and explicitly mentioned that tens of thousands of people were involved. It stated that BT/Phorm were due to start a trial involving 10,000 people but that they were going to ask permission this time.

Sorry I cant remember everything that was said as I was agitated by a few things that the jackal has said so was half paying attention to the programme and part replying to him. I hope they will cover it in more detail this evening.

Everyone is entitled to their views. May I request that other members do not refer to other members as 'trolls' this is not an acceptable form of discussion. I also do not want to see someone being told to "shut up" because they have a differing view point. This happened a few pages back - this thread is fast moving so, would just like to post a polite reminder now. Thanks.

[CaptJamieHunter]

As someone else who was at the meeting I would like to say:

Thank you to Simon Davies for organising the meeting and for his introduction, which placed his involvement as 80/20T in context.

Thank you to Dr Richard Clayton for his presentation and also grace in handling the heckler.

Thank you to Alexander for his speech and putting the legal and moral issues before everyone there.

I'm glad there will be unedited soundtrack at least, as I was only able to get Simon, Richard, Alexander and Kent on video before I had to leave. Will be looking later to see if the audio quality is ok to post it online. Walking round London with a backpack and enough batteries to power the Six Million Dollar Man (but not, it seems, my camera) wasn't the nicest of experiences.

I want to review the video footage I have before posting anything in detail here but I will say this: Nothing I saw last night convinced me that Phorm is deserving of my trust. I place a lot of value on seeing people for myself, what they do say, what they don't say and their attitude.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Mick

Everyone is entitled to their views. May I request that other members do not refer to other members as 'trolls' this is not an acceptable form of discussion. I also do not want to see someone being told to "shut up" because they have a differing view point. This happened a few pages back - this thread is fast moving so, would just like to post a polite reminder now. Thanks.

Mick, to clarify matters, I didn't tell the jackal to shut up because he has a differing opinion. I told him to shut up because I thought he was offering those opinions in a deliberately provocative way with provocative and dismissive language. However, by telling him to shut up I was doing no better. I apologise.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Seriously I'm just trying to weed out the specifics of why you lot are so anti-phorm and imo it's down to different opinions with the two clans being seperated by

[1] Those who dislike the idea of ISPs profiting off their back.

[2] Those who think this tracks everything they do.

Personally clan[1] know what they are talking about and I'm all for their cause. Those in group [2] need some education on the subject.

I don't see two clans at all. I see lots of people with lots of valid concerns, some shared, some not. All keen to see Phorm stopped.

It sounds like you've got a good handle on [1]. That applies both to web users, and web site owners too.

Wrt [2] I think you might benefit from a glance at Phorms DPA registration, esp purpose 2 (concerning personal and financial data stored, sources & destinations, sales to traders in personal information, and the 'world wide' transfers). (see www.ico.gov.uk for details of Phorms registration).

You don't need a DPA registration if you don't store personal data.

So wrt [2] I think people do have a point in that Phorm have the technology, the means, and the express provision to do what is described. Even if they are not doing it right now. And I sincerely hope they never will.

There is also a national security concern too. Should this type of equipment ever have been installed in secret at the heart of the UK's ISP network, using closed source software supplied from Russia, allegedly using DNS servers in China, without at least advising people (like Police, Judges, Lawyers, Doctors, Military Personnel) so that they could take additional security measures if required?

And apparently it was installed without a contract of supply? (because Phorm publically denied having a contract with BT in 2007 after the trials had started).

If of course there was a contract to supply BT with Phorm in 2006/07, then there is also a question of insider trading. Because Phorm's CEO told the public there was no contract.

There is so much wrong with Phorm I could bore you for days. And I probably am. So I'll stop.

Pete.

[unicus]

"Phorm hires first chief privacy officer"

http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/37681/...y+officer.html

"Phorm Confirms its Commitment to User Privacy Through 'Chief Privacy Officer' Appointment"

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...o,353155.shtml

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Becky Hogge from Open Rights Group (ORG) seems to be busy in the news with regards to Phorm

http://www.drltd.com/Web-tracking-us...-18553704.aspx
http://www.equimedia.co.uk/Online-pr...2008-04-15.htm
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.18793

[nswatman]

Originally Posted by Sirius

http://www.phorm.com/about/faq.php?_...6,17,18,19#isp

http://webwise.com/ NOTE that Virgin Media are missing from that website

Looks like there is only one small mention (http://webwise.com/how-it-works/faq.html) In the answer to the question 'What's your connection to Russia and/or China?' Looks like VM are trying to do this on the quiet.

[unicus]

" Phorm boss: Opt-in is a "red herring" "

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/188361/p...d-herring.html

Is he really that clueless???

Edit: Got to love Dr Richard Clayton's comment at the end

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by unicus

" Phorm boss: Opt-in is a "red herring" "

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/188361/p...d-herring.html

Is he really that clueless???

Edit: Got to love Dr Richard Clayton's comment at the end

He's not that clueless, he's just trying to spin things so that your average punter doesn't realise that they have the right to say "No" to Phorm. Just because someone says something 100 or 1000 times doesn't make it right.

[unicus]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

He's not that clueless, he's just trying to spin things so that your average punter doesn't realise that they have the right to say "No" to Phorm. Just because someone says something 100 or 1000 times doesn't make it right.

Quite right. I've said it before about Phorm and it applies equally to Kent - he's arrogant.

@PhormUKPRteam - When in post #3441 you said

We invited Richard Clayton and the ORG to look at our system. Not out of arrogance but a simple desire to be as transparent as possible.

I trust this was in response to my accusations of Phorm's arrogance. Well you and your boss have done nothing to change this view. Maybe a quick look at a definition of arrogance;

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

[TehTech]

Originally Posted by unicus

"Phorm hires first chief privacy officer"

http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/37681/...y+officer.html

The behavioural targeting company has appointed Jeffrey Brooks, previously VP of privacy and government affairs at DoubleClick, who will be responsible for ensuring Phorm's technology meets legal requirements.

Great, Ive already blocked EVERYTHING from DoubleClick and other stats.whatever.com, try getting MY browsing data, I WILL NOT make it easy for you PHORM!!