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

From a post in the Webwise discussion thread @ BT Support Forums
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread...rt=0&start=120

Can I suggest that we use the word "Webwise" more prominently in these discussions and in any contact with the press or authorities. I'm concerned that many people not actively involved in these discussions will have heard of Phorm and the BT Trials through the mainstream press but may not equate this with Webwise when the "Do you want protection from phishing?" pop-up appears.

Might be an idea - maybe Phorm/Webwise or Webwise/Phorm to open up the range of available info for those googling "Webwise"?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Damn, the financial stuff happened just after I'd sent this e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk... And grateful thanks to the folk who keep this discussion thread going - you've helped word this and my earlier e-mails.

"Dear Lord Northesk,

Thank you for replying even though you are overseas. I and others appreciate your response. There are many others who share my confusion over why the Home Office has not acted to initiate investigative proceedings into the BT secret trials which could now have involved some 108,000 customers.

It has been suggested that the Home Office is not an investigatory body and that it is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception. This suggestion may well be true but the Home Office has an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them.

Given that the Metropolitan Police refused to issue a crime number when Alexander Hanff attempted to report the tests as a crime, the full details being at http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html, there is now at least one example of the Police being obstructive and failing to do their duty. That surely comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Chris Williams of The Register has also highlighted the Home Office's failure to act in a report at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/ some of which I quote for your reference:

"The government has refused to investigate BT's covert wiretapping of thousands of its customers in 2006 and 2007, despite its own expert's view that without consent Phorm's advertising targeting technology is a breach of criminal law.

Whitehall's willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people were spied on by big business in order to serve up targeted marketing has angered web users. "I'm absolutely sickened and appalled," Pete John, who has tried to interest authorities, told The Register this week.

BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission."

A number of CableForum users and The Register readers have used government online chat forums to put questions to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary but our questions have been ignored.

A public meeting was held in London on Tuesday as a forum to discuss many of the issues surrounding Phorm. Organised by 80/20 Thinking, attendees were publicly invited via CableForum to bring cameras. I was able to attend some of the meeting and filmed the presentations of Simon Davies (80/20 Thinking), Kent Ertegrul (Phorm CEO), Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University and FIPR) and Alexander Hanff who has worked extensively towards the campaign against Phorm. I saw nothing at that meeting to dissuade me from my beliefs that Phorm is illegal under RIPA, it offers nothing in the way of value to me as a customer and that if this business model is allowed to go live as it is now it threatens privacy and lacks any kind of audit trail and accountability.

In the interests of keeping the discussions open and honest these videos are now posted unedited at http://tobymeres.net for people to see, as the professionally filmed versions are not yet online. By posting these unedited versions there is a record of what was actually said in the presentations, the intention being to prevent Phorm's PR from attempting to spin them.

I and others yesterday received an e-mail response from the Information Commissioner's Office informing us that the complaints we had made dated the last week of February had finally been allocated case numbers. The ICO claims that they are "currently dealing with large volumes of work", hence the nearly seven week delay in responding.

I sincerely hope that your question to the Home Office gets a substantial and meaningful response. There are many people who are very interested in what the Home Office has to say about what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of action.

Thank you again for your reply. If I can be of further assistance please contact me and I will endeavour to be of service.

I remain sincerely yours,"

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Deko

Guys

Check this. its seems phorm are shitting it.


Posted here.

http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread....3044&from=1387


Phorm - 18 Apr'08 - 12:09 - 1362 of 1396


Hello, This is Lynne Millar, CFO of Phorm. For some time now, there has been
a great deal of misinformation about the system which we are rolling out
with the UK’s three largest ISPs and what it actually does. That's not
surprising, because it is a complicated system. In an effort to engage with
those who have privacy concerns in particular, we have taken a number of
steps to correct any misinformation and better explain how the system works.
However, we have not to date engaged with the investment community on
bulletin boards such as this one. We will now begin to do so in the interest
of presenting a fair and accurate picture of where we stand. We will not be
introducing new information, simply correcting misperceptions by calling
attention to easily verifiable facts already in the public domain.

Here are the three main areas of misunderstanding:

1) Our three ISP partners have strongly reassured us that they are in
no way reconsidering their decision to deploy or are in any way reducing
their level of commitment to the project

snip

Regards,

Lynne Millar, CFO
http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_millar.php

3 partners? I can only see 2 logos on the Webwise site! My ISP BT and TalkTalk. Richard B seems to have taken his ball home.
www.webwise.com - apologies to any offended by that url

[smcicr]

Originally Posted by Deko

Here are the three main areas of misunderstanding:

1) Our three ISP partners have strongly reassured us that they are in
no way reconsidering their decision to deploy or are in any way reducing
their level of commitment to the project

Just by way of info - here is the current statement for interested / concerned customers from VM on this - to me it appears to be a definite step back from the initial info on the VM Webwise page (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php)

Latest Statement.

"We're still currently focused on understanding better the Webwise technology and the many complicated technical questions around how it could be integrated into our network architecture. We can therefore say at this stage that a) there are absolutely no foregone conclusions; and b) consumer concerns around privacy and data protection, not to mention any adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation, are (and will remain) an important element in our deliberations.

In the event Virgin Media does roll out this solution, all customers will be notified and will not be forced to use the system. However, to reiterate, no solution has yet been implemented and will not be until we are confident that it is compliant to do so."

[3x2]

Their blurb seems to change by a few words each day. Next week's version??

We're still currently focused on understanding how we even got involved with Phorm in the first place let alone integrate them into our network architecture. We can therefore say at this stage that a) we are frantically looking for a way out; and b) consumer concerns around privacy and data protection, not to mention any adverse impact on Virgin Media's reputation, are (and will remain) an important element in our deliberations.

In the very unlikely event Virgin Media does roll out this solution, all customers will be notified and will not be forced to use the system. However, to reiterate, no solution has yet been implemented and will not be until we are confident that BT has gotten away with it."

[Tharrick]

Well, I just got a response from VM's customer complaints department:

Originally Posted by Virgin Media

Thank you for your e-mail dated 15 April 2008 regarding Phorm, the
company behind Webwise and Virgin Media.

Although Virgin Media have signed a provisional agreement with Phorm, we
still have a lot of work to do in evaluating various aspects of any
possible deployment. As a result, it may be some months before we are in
a position to confirm how and when the solution will be implemented, or
indeed if we choose to go ahead with it.

As we have not yet decided on if and, in particular, how the Webwise
system will be incorporated into our network, it is impossible to
speculate about any changes to customers' terms and conditions. However,
you can be assured that should your service change in such a way that
modifies your terms and conditions as stated, and if you are unhappy,
you will be free to leave.

In respect of your question regarding ownership of data, at no time does
Virgin Media make any such assumptions : should we deploy Webwise in the
future, customers will be fully informed and will not be forced to use
the system. We take seriously the privacy concerns of our customers
therefore would never pass any details, or browsing history to any third
party without the customers' acceptance.

We will be communicating our intentions openly and transparently and
will be letting all our customers know before rolling out the Webwise
solution and we'll clearly explain how the system works .

You can also be assured consumer concerns around privacy and data
protection, not to mention any adverse impact on Virgin Media's
reputation, are (and will remain) an important element in our
deliberations, dependant upon implementation we will advise any impact
to customers terms and conditions.

This allays one of my fears (that they'd find some way to pretend that this wasn't enough of a change in the service to allow me leaving penalty-free), and kind of suggests that they might be looking into not going ahead with the whole system. Nothing, however, on my question as to whether my opted-out data would still be passing through the Phorm systems if it did go ahead.

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by Tharrick

Well, I just got a response from VM's customer complaints department:



This allays one of my fears (that they'd find some way to pretend that this wasn't enough of a change in the service to allow me leaving penalty-free), and kind of suggests that they might be looking into not going ahead with the whole system. Nothing, however, on my question as to whether my opted-out data would still be passing through the Phorm systems if it did go ahead.

That's good stuff - each time I see a statement from VM they're being more and more cagey about it: I'm actually considerably cheered up by that. Time for a new letter, methinks, I'd like to have something like that statement in writing myself.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

That's good stuff - each time I see a statement from VM they're being more and more cagey about it: I'm actually considerably cheered up by that. Time for a new letter, methinks, I'd like to have something like that statement in writing myself.

That was the statement read to me when VM phoned me. Seems a bit different to what Lynne Millar is claiming. How does The Guardian's rejection fit in with that statement? And does the financial community know about Phorm being exposed when it tried to edit the Wikipedia entry?

Phorm - Inphormation which prefers to delete already known facts. Straight out of the Mugabe school of thinking...

[jelv]

I may have missed this but have people listened to the interview with Richard Clayton on the Guardian Tech Weekly podcast:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...weekly.podcast

It starts at 14:30

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Damn, the financial stuff happened just after I'd sent this e-mail to the Earl Of Northesk... And grateful thanks to the folk who keep this discussion thread going - you've helped word this and my earlier e-mails.

"Dear Lord Northesk,

Thank you for replying even though you are overseas. I and others appreciate your response. There are many others who share my confusion over why the Home Office has not acted to initiate investigative proceedings into the BT secret trials which could now have involved some 108,000 customers.

It has been suggested that the Home Office is not an investigatory body and that it is the role of the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception. This suggestion may well be true but the Home Office has an obligation to ensure that the police appropriately investigate crimes that are reported to them.

Given that the Metropolitan Police refused to issue a crime number when Alexander Hanff attempted to report the tests as a crime, the full details being at http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/2008/0...ort-crime.html, there is now at least one example of the Police being obstructive and failing to do their duty. That surely comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Chris Williams of The Register has also highlighted the Home Office's failure to act in a report at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...horm_shambles/ some of which I quote for your reference:

"The government has refused to investigate BT's covert wiretapping of thousands of its customers in 2006 and 2007, despite its own expert's view that without consent Phorm's advertising targeting technology is a breach of criminal law.

Whitehall's willingness to turn a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people were spied on by big business in order to serve up targeted marketing has angered web users. "I'm absolutely sickened and appalled," Pete John, who has tried to interest authorities, told The Register this week.

BT customers who have attempted to report the secret listening and profiling experiments to the police have been told to approach the Home Office. One was subsequently told over email by an official: "It is important to remember that private companies such as ISPs are allowed to do certain things under section 3 of [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] that Law Enforcement Agencies cannot do without permission."

A number of CableForum users and The Register readers have used government online chat forums to put questions to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary but our questions have been ignored.

A public meeting was held in London on Tuesday as a forum to discuss many of the issues surrounding Phorm. Organised by 80/20 Thinking, attendees were publicly invited via CableForum to bring cameras. I was able to attend some of the meeting and filmed the presentations of Simon Davies (80/20 Thinking), Kent Ertegrul (Phorm CEO), Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University and FIPR) and Alexander Hanff who has worked extensively towards the campaign against Phorm. I saw nothing at that meeting to dissuade me from my beliefs that Phorm is illegal under RIPA, it offers nothing in the way of value to me as a customer and that if this business model is allowed to go live as it is now it threatens privacy and lacks any kind of audit trail and accountability.

In the interests of keeping the discussions open and honest these videos are now posted unedited at http://tobymeres.net for people to see, as the professionally filmed versions are not yet online. By posting these unedited versions there is a record of what was actually said in the presentations, the intention being to prevent Phorm's PR from attempting to spin them.

I and others yesterday received an e-mail response from the Information Commissioner's Office informing us that the complaints we had made dated the last week of February had finally been allocated case numbers. The ICO claims that they are "currently dealing with large volumes of work", hence the nearly seven week delay in responding.

I sincerely hope that your question to the Home Office gets a substantial and meaningful response. There are many people who are very interested in what the Home Office has to say about what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of action.

Thank you again for your reply. If I can be of further assistance please contact me and I will endeavour to be of service.

I remain sincerely yours,"

I would be very interested in commencing a serious dialogue with the Earl of Northesque, could you politely ask his permission to pass his email address on to me so I can do this?

Thanks

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

By the way I know I have been quiet on the forums today, but please don't take this as a sign that I am not doing anything. I caught up on a little sleep today (after being up all night again last night) but I am still very much actively engaged in this campaign. My workload has basically tripled since the meeting on Tuesday and I am being hit with enquiries from all sides at the moment so I apologise if it takes me a little longer to address concerns on this forum.

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by R Jones

3 partners? I can only see 2 logos on the Webwise site! My ISP BT and TalkTalk.

The VM logo was there originally. It just disapeared 3-4 weeks ago with no explanation.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by jelv

I may have missed this but have people listened to the interview with Richard Clayton on the Guardian Tech Weekly podcast:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...weekly.podcast

It starts at 14:30

Thanks for this jelv.

Paraphrasing ...

BT were "wicked".
"Whether anyone goes to gaol or not is up to the courts"

Good stuff Richard

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

By the way I know I have been quiet on the forums today, but please don't take this as a sign that I am not doing anything. I caught up on a little sleep today (after being up all night again last night) but I am still very much actively engaged in this campaign. My workload has basically tripled since the meeting on Tuesday and I am being hit with enquiries from all sides at the moment so I apologise if it takes me a little longer to address concerns on this forum.

Alexander, I am sure many will echo my sentiments when I say that you owe us no explanation as to why you haven't posted as much today. Your contribution to the cause has been above and beyond the call of duty and I am very grateful for it as I am of all the contributions being made.

[AlexanderHanff]

I just want to say, to all the people who have bought me books from the Amazon Wish List to help me with my Masters in Law, I am deeply touched by your generosity. I have been quiet on the subject simply because it is very difficult to find appropriate words to respond to such generosity and charity, the entire process has moved me at the deepest level.

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Just noticed we passed the 4000 posts mark a bit ago too.