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

[Florence]

Who would like ot join forces with me to get Alexander the "The Law of Human Rights: 2-Volume Set: AND First Annual Updating Supplement (Hardcover)"
With postage £90
If 6 share it works out at £15.

Mick or a cable forum Moderator please be banker for us and order when you have the money from everyone please.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Florence

Who would like ot join forces with me to get Alexander the "The Law of Human Rights: 2-Volume Set: AND First Annual Updating Supplement (Hardcover)"
With postage £90
If 6 share it works out at £15.

Mick or a cable forum Moderator please be banker for us and order when you have the money from everyone please.

As I said above I can put the £20 gift voucher towards it that one of the users here sent. I already have the second supplement which someone kindly purchased, so this book will complete that set. It is probably the most important one for me to get too for long term use.

Alexander Hanff

[labougie]

Yes - put me down for £15 towards that.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

The big expensive one has come down to 87 quid. I will use the gift voucher one of the users here sent me and snag that one tomorrow whilst the price is so low.

Alexander Hanff

Could you pm me your email address so I can send an email gift certificate that you can also use to help buy this book

[Ravenheart]

I'll send an email certificate too for £15, please PM me your email address, this will help to wards that big un

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Florence

Who would like ot join forces with me to get Alexander the "The Law of Human Rights: 2-Volume Set: AND First Annual Updating Supplement (Hardcover)"
With postage £90
If 6 share it works out at £15.

Mick or a cable forum Moderator please be banker for us and order when you have the money from everyone please.

anyine wanting to help with this book please ask Alexander in the thread to PM you is email address then you can send him an email gift voucher for the money then Alexander can order the book using everyones gift vouchers.

Already sent mine as soon as Amozon sends it on but ordered hope that helps.

[AlexanderHanff]

Doh! Because the book was coming from a 3rd party I couldn't use gift certs with it. I have purchased it myself on my card as it is too good a price not to buy and will put the certificates towards some of the other remaining books.

Thanks everyone.

Alexander Hanff

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

People need to realise that it is not -their- responsibility to make Phorm's technology legal, it is the ISP's responsibility. They have to get your consent to intercept your communications, their rubbish about implied consent from web publishers is exactly that, rubbish. The only reason I am suggesting people explicitly deny consent on their web pages is to just guarantee that the ISP cannot even go near the implied consent argument for their defence.

Contacting the ISPs and asking to be added to a blacklist is insane. What are you going to do if the technology gets deployed by more and more ISPs around the world? Are you going to write to every single one to get added to yet another blacklist?

Alexander Hanff

I hear your point Alexander but I think a "confused" situation probably benefits US more than it benefits the Phorm/Webwise/ISP end.

For example, my sites have a text statement banning Webwise. Because I've been making a nuisance of myself with my own ISP BT, and told them they did NOT have my consent to profile my data exchange with visitors, they have voluntarily added me to their blocklist.

But I haven't told VM or Talk Talk. And I don't expect BT to tell them, I haven't given them permission to do so. So VM and TalkTalk will have to work out their own way of noting my body text ban on Webwise as no one is providing robots.txt or meta-tag methods of banning Webwise and no one is actually thinking of how to ASK webmasters for consent. So I can still watch out for Webwise visits when the system goes live (which I hope it never will).

I'm choosing not to correspond with VM or TalkTalk which is my choice. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I actually don't think BT can honour that offer to individually add sites to their blocklist - they'd be swamped and they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it - I'd love them to discover that quickly - I'm anxious for them to have a really stressful "Webwise ISP management and feedback experience".

but if you think there are genuine legal reasons to avoid this approach then fine - I'm not a lawyer. And I'm still grateful for your advocacy on this!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I hear your point Alexander but I think a "confused" situation probably benefits US more than it benefits the Phorm/Webwise/ISP end.

For example, my sites have a text statement banning Webwise. Because I've been making a nuisance of myself with my own ISP BT, and told them they did NOT have my consent to profile my data exchange with visitors, they have voluntarily added me to their blocklist.

But I haven't told VM or Talk Talk. And I don't expect BT to tell them, I haven't given them permission to do so. So VM and TalkTalk will have to work out their own way of noting my body text ban on Webwise as no one is providing robots.txt or meta-tag methods of banning Webwise and no one is actually thinking of how to ASK webmasters for consent. So I can still watch out for Webwise visits when the system goes live (which I hope it never will).

I'm choosing not to correspond with VM or TalkTalk which is my choice. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I actually don't think BT can honour that offer to individually add sites to their blocklist - they'd be swamped and they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it - I'd love them to discover that quickly - I'm anxious for them to have a really stressful "Webwise ISP management and feedback experience".

but if you think there are genuine legal reasons to avoid this approach then fine - I'm not a lawyer. And I'm still grateful for your advocacy on this!

I am not a lawyer either but BT would be foolish not to try and circumvent their responsibility by trying to show they have taken reasonable action by allowing sites to contact them to be added to a blacklist. Every site that does this simply adds weight to their argument that it is reasonable action (as the industry can be seen to be accepting it).

Furthermore, if you ask BT to exclude you but don't ask VM/TT to do the same and you do end up taking either of them to court, they can quite easily turn round and say that you should have asked them not to like you have with BT.

It is best to simply not give them even the slightest hint of an argument to use as part of a legal defence.

Remember, no matter how BT or Phorm try to spin it, they need to get your consent; it is their responsibility to obtain that consent, not your responsibility to deny it to them. The right to that privacy is already active under Human Rights law, RIPA and PECR so they cannot assume a default waiver of that right. Adding explicit terms which deny them consent on your web site merely clears up any doubt whatsoever, which is why I am suggesting people do that.

Alexander Hanff

[Portly_Giraffe]

I raised Phorm with my MP when I met her last Tuesday and had a positive response. From the former acquaintances who are now MPs I have received one positive response and one promise of a parliamentary question to the Attorney General over why there has been no prosecution of BT over the 2006 and 2007 trials. So some progress.

I will be updating http://www.inphormationdesk.org this week (last week I was too occupied with the day job, a funeral and the ongoing exchanges with the Home Office). I would like to add a page providing examples of letters. So I would be very grateful if people could email samples (which I can anonymise if necessary) for inclusion. Please send any offerings to action@inphormationdesk.org

[number6]

Originally posted by Alexander Hanff
Let's not forget that children are already regarded as susceptible to advertising which is why tobacco adverts have been banned and there have been restrictions placed on advertising for things like Alcopops. So the very concept of profiling children to target them with behavioural advertising is a serious concern before you even take age of consent into consideration

Hello all,

I am another lurker in the shadows who has been following the Phormgate affair, on this and other sites, for the last month but without any original thoughts to contribute. I still don't but this aspect of profiling children does open up a rich train of thought.

Many users would not give a second thought to the eventual consequences to personal privacy of the unholy alliance of Phorm and ISP and would happily accept the patronizing fluff put out by VM and the BT equivalent.

If, however an emphasis was put on the profiling of children they may well view Phorm in a different light. Would it be too strong a comment to say that targeting children would be a lucrative approach from the point of view of advertisers? All parents know the strength of pester power. Also (unworthy thought) this slant would probably appeal far more to the mass media than the more esoteric technical aspects on which much of the anti-Phorm case is based.

With, possibly, one or two exceptions the national dailies do not have the mindset nor a target audience to appreciate just what it is that Phorm is capable of with the ISP's connivance. A threat to children is another matter.

My two pence for what it's worth.


Martin

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Doh! Because the book was coming from a 3rd party I couldn't use gift certs with it. I have purchased it myself on my card as it is too good a price not to buy and will put the certificates towards some of the other remaining books.

Thanks everyone.

Alexander Hanff

Sorry Alexander my first idea was perhaps thje best to have got everyone to send the money one of the forum moderators. NM I am sure there is still plenty on amozon you can spend the vouchers on.

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I have some great news

I just received an email from the Earl of Northesk. He has explained that he will not be back in the country until early May but would be happy to meet me upon his return to discuss the Phorm "scandal" (his words ). He also said if we want to compile a list of relevant questions for him to put forward to both the Home Office and Government in general, he would be happy to do so.

In response I have told him I will put together a focus group in order to do this and forward the questions to him in due course.

So tomorrow (it is a little late now) we can start putting these questions together and anyone interested in taking part, please let me know.

It might be better to start a new thread so questions don't get lost in the daily flow of this thread.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Wooooooooooohoooooooooooooo Alexander! Thats fantastic news. Well done.

Regarding some kind of donation, as I said last time this issue was alive, I am absolutely stone broke this month but wont be next month. Can I have your email address so I can email you a gift certificate next month? Thanks.

[dav]

Is'nt it time to start keeping our cards close to our collective chests now?
Discussing this in open forum is great, but it does give Phorm an unfair advantage (not that they know how to operate in any other way)
Is it now time to create a private group to compile these questions that is comprised of trusted members? I realise it restricts the debate a little, but I think most people are of the view that a concerted, co-ordinated policy is now needed and a bit of rabble-rousing on a forum, whilst certainly cathartic, isn't necessarily the best way.
Once the group members have been decided upon, other members can submit suggested questions to them for inclusion via PM.