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

[CaptJamieHunter]

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwi...rl_of_Northesk

And from his e-mail to me:

"I currently have a question for written answer on the matter awaiting a response from the Home Office. And, if I may say so, your e-mail provides me with fertile material to scrutinise the issue with even more depth and diligence, albeit that I am currently overseas and so a little constrained.

I am uncertain as to how much reassurance it may offer you but, as I have done for some ten years now, I intend to continue to prosecute the case for individual data security and privacy as strenuously as I can."

I have also directed the Earl's attention to the video footage posted online.

Just to note my professional input has been sought for various project groups not because I am a yes man but because, in the words of one colleague "You've got a critical line and you're an awkward [censored word] who points out areas of weakness."

[OF1975]

On a slight different note i have to say I am getting more and more frustrated with Safari for Windows. I love the browser but the GUI is ugly as sin and there don't seem to be any skins/themes out there to change its appearance. I wish I was a programmer as then I could try do something about it!

[AlexanderHanff]

I am not going to get into yet another fruitless debate about 80/20 Thinking doing the PIA for Phorm. I have made my opinion on 80/20 Thinking quite clear already and I don't see any reason to keep rehashing the same thing over and over again when the issues we should be focusing on are stopping Phorm and holding BT to account for their covert trials in 2006/2007.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I am not going to get into yet another fruitless debate about 80/20 Thinking doing the PIA for Phorm. I have made my opinion on 80/20 Thinking quite clear already and I don't see any reason to keep rehashing the same thing over and over again when the issues we should be focusing on are stopping Phorm and holding BT to account for their covert trials in 2006/2007.

Alexander Hanff

I think the whole 80/20 thinking, while important, is a nice little distraction from what we really need to be concentrating on. While we are concentrating on that we lose time to deal with the other issues.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I am not going to get into yet another fruitless debate about 80/20 Thinking doing the PIA for Phorm.
Alexander Hanff

If you read my posts, you'll find I have suggested for quite some time that the focus for action should not be on the PIA or Phorm. I am simply marking up that the Earl is an advisor to 80/20 Thinking who are as much up to their necks in this fiasco as Phorm itself. The Earl's advice therefore appears to have carried little weight when the decision was taken to accept a commission for this insidious venture and he is associated with 80/20 T whichever way it is dressed up.

[SpinyNorman]

Hi All
Another long time lurker coming out of the woodwork.

I have a question about the opt in/ opt out thing.

My son gets home from school before I finish work and likes to go on the internet, now he could get the page about terms and conditions and unbeknown to him opt in to it. Surely as I pay the bill and the contract is between virgin and me it should be me that has to give authorisation?

On another note I know what OF1975 means about safari being ugly been trying it out recently, it isn't actually too bad a browser though.

Andy

[OF1975]

SpinyNorman

The issue you raise is an excellent one and one that I have not seen Phorm/BT/VM deal with at all. I know its been mentioned here many times over the last few months.

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Of course it would be easy for Phorm/BT/VM/ to make webwise an account level opt in. You login to your ISP account and switch it on there but we all know that isn't going to happen as it would cripple Phorms business model which is predicated on opt-out and the masses being too lazy or uninPhormed to care.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by SpinyNorman

On another note I know what OF1975 means about safari being ugly been trying it out recently, it isn't actually too bad a browser though.

Andy

to the forum SpinyNorman

You're the third person I've seen say that Safari is ugly - are you using the Windows version? I use it on my Mac and I think it's much slicker-looking than Firefox (that just looks like a Windows 98 version of Internet Explorer -on my Mac at any rate). I wonder if the styling of Windows Safari is different to the Mac version?

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by SpinyNorman

Hi All
Another long time lurker coming out of the woodwork.

I have a question about the opt in/ opt out thing.

My son gets home from school before I finish work and likes to go on the internet, now he could get the page about terms and conditions and unbeknown to him opt in to it. Surely as I pay the bill and the contract is between virgin and me it should be me that has to give authorisation?

On another note I know what OF1975 means about safari being ugly been trying it out recently, it isn't actually too bad a browser though.

Andy

In short yes he could. This question was asked at the PIA meeting on tuesday .

And it would appear from the blustering by Kent Ertegrul that the is no way to stop this happening.

I assume he think that the only way children should be allowed on the net is if their parents turn the computer on for them and start the browser session for them!

[Bonglet]

would this then not fall somewhere into the child protection act? phorm seem to take the attitude that children dont also use computers and they dont seem to realise that they will be profiled also.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Kursk

If you read my posts, you'll find I have suggested for quite some time that the focus for action should not be on the PIA or Phorm. I am simply marking up that the Earl is an advisor to 80/20 Thinking who are as much up to their necks in this fiasco as Phorm itself. The Earl's advice therefore appears to have carried little weight when the decision was taken to accept a commission for this insidious venture and he is associated with 80/20 T whichever way it is dressed up.

In the same way that my advice was often ignored by the decision makers of the groups I had been co-opted to. My presence on a particular advisory group did not mean that I agreed with the final decisions, as I invariably did not. Advice can be followed or ignored, it is not a mandatory instruction.

As I've said before, judge the PIA when it is published and not before. If it is as comprehensive a document as it should be then the names of all who contributed to it should be included.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I don't see any reason to keep rehashing the same thing over and over again when the issues we should be focusing on are stopping Phorm and holding BT to account for their covert trials in 2006/2007.

Seconded. So keep on pressuring MPs, challenging Phorm when its staff or PR posts distorted facts, pointing people to the videos from the public meeting and doing whatever you can to keep this campaign alive.

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

would this then not fall somewhere into the child protection act? phorm seem to take the attitude that children dont also use computers and they dont seem to realise that they will be profiled also.

This has been a concern of mine too for a while now. I did ask on the BT board (got no answer, of course) about my concern at targetting ads at my seven year old daughter.

I know this has been in the news in the past where TV adverts have been concerned, and that OFCOM has previously looked at it. See here: http://www.childwise.co.uk/softdrinksarticle2006.htm The link is a bit old, but it does give the idea that some European countries have expressed concerns about this.

Any thoughts on the legality of targetting ads at/profiling children, Alexander?

OB

Edit: Found something a bit more up to date; this one does mention web adverts. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...en-763944.html

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

In the same way that my advice was often ignored by the decision makers of the groups I had been co-opted to. My presence on a particular advisory group did not mean that I agreed with the final decisions, as I invariably did not. Advice can be followed or ignored, it is not a mandatory instruction.

As I've said before, judge the PIA when it is published and not before. If it is as comprehensive a document as it should be then the names of all who contributed to it should be included.



Seconded. So keep on pressuring MPs, challenging Phorm when its staff or PR posts distorted facts, pointing people to the videos from the public meeting and doing whatever you can to keep this campaign alive.

Fine. Seems a waste of time meeting with him and writing to him then.

And, as I've said before, the PIA is bought and irrelevant; it won't include a list or the opinions of millions of people who feel their privacy is invaded so it can't be comprehensive.

Btw, you did know he was on the 80/20 advisory group didn't you?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OldBear

This has been a concern of mine too for a while now. I did ask on the BT board (got no answer, of course) about my concern at targetting ads at my seven year old daughter.

I know this has been in the news in the past where TV adverts have been concerned, and that OFCOM has previously looked at it. See here: http://www.childwise.co.uk/softdrinksarticle2006.htm The link is a bit old, but it does give the idea that some European countries have expressed concerns about this.

Any thoughts on the legality of targetting ads at/profiling children, Alexander?

OB

It is a difficult one to be honest. As a student of sociology I have looked at consent in a lot of detail as a mandatory requirement under research methodology. Also, I have been bound by the Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association. I have also covered consent in two papers I wrote one on a controversial scheme in the US known as Teen Screen and one on the biometric fingerprinting of school children in the UK and both papers looked at the ethical requirements with regards to the consent of minors.

I mentioned Gillick's Competence yesterday in reply to a post in this thread; which is the relevant precedent with regards to age of consent in the UK.

Certainly it would seem appropriate at an ethical level and most likely at the legal level to consider issues involving the consent of minors and I am sure this will become a policy issue should Phorm be permitted to deploy in the UK as schools and public sector services providing Internet access to minors would have a responsibility under law to protect the rights of those subjects.

But, there is a fairly expansive opinion in the UK that parents should be more responsible for what their children are doing online so there is no doubt Phorm would use this in another PR battle. So it is a very tricky situation.

Do I think age of consent and informed consent are important issues when dealing with minors? Yes I certainly do and have argued this point academically as mentioned above.

Do I think it is an incredibly complex issue that will take a great deal of time and effort and possibly even changes in public policy to address? Again yes I do.

If you have concerns over this issue, I would recommend you write a letter (not an email) to your MP expressing them; it is a serious issue and it needs to be addressed at the highest level so your MP is the best equipped person to do that on your behalf.

Sorry if I haven't been very clear but it is a very complexly faceted issue.

Alexander Hanff

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

<snip>
Sorry if I haven't been very clear but it is a very complexly faceted issue.

On the contrary, Alexander, your answer is very clear and is most appreciated. I have already written to my MP about the Phorm/Webwise issue and did point out my concerns re targetting children but, as yet, no reply.

OB