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

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Apologies, fellas; I missed the point about this 'side forum' as a method of discussing this one point (Alexander and the Earl), and thought you were suggesting an elite task force to take over the whole issue on the forum's/public's behalf, something I and, I'm sure, other members would not be too happy to see.

It was not my intention to start any sort of division in the ranks, as I do think we need to stand together against these people.

OB

No apology necessary as far as I am concerned Oldbear.

---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

{ snip }

It seems our Lords and MEP's are far more interested in the effects of Phorm than the majority of our MP's.

Sadly, I have to concur. My MP didn't even acknowledge my letter yet two MEPs did respond. One quite favourably.

[dav]

Originally Posted by OF1975

No apology necessary as far as I am concerned Oldbear.

Ditto

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

I have noticed one webdesigner is desparate to stop phorm phishing his website and going as far as gathering IP banks fro BT to block them all from his webspace using .htaccess he is plannig on doing the same with Talktalk and VM.

This is drastic action but as he says his website has pages that ppl login on and he doesn't want anyone piggy backing on the members connectioin reading the pages.

The stuff I have read from BT states that Webwise/Phorm will NOT be going past login pages. BUT - along with a number of other replies, about ignoring "sensitive" areas, (religion, medicine etc.) they have not explained HOW, and until they do, I don't trust them. Others have indicated that avoiding sensitive areas could just mean that there aren't any "channels" at the Phorm end for ads for those areas, doesn't mean they aren't profiling those religious or medical sites in the first place. And who'se to say they might not decide that they will introduce such channels later - it wouldn't be difficult once they had got legal approval for the basic system - it would be very difficult to stop them simply creeping it to include more ad channels. Where would the Rubicon be there?

My bottom line is still that each of the unique data exchanges between my EACH of my individual site users and my site is unique, personal, and not Phorm/Webwise's property. They are not entitled to intercept it, redirect it, snoop on it, mirror it, categorise it or profit from it.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Well done manxminx! I note that:

Originally Posted by manxminx

BT has now said that its trial was a purely technical one and that no personal information was processed, stored or disclosed.

In fact under RIPA it is the unlawful interception of data which is the offence (unless that interception has lawful authority), not how the interceptor uses or intends to use that data.

We need to keep this point on the agenda.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Well done manxminx! I note that:



In fact under RIPA it is the unlawful interception of data which is the offence (unless that interception has lawful authority), not how the interceptor uses or intends to use that data.

We need to keep this point on the agenda.

I've said this a number of times. They probably are compliant with DPA, it is RIPA and the rest of the mining process to come up with the data they keep that is the problem. Phorm consistently spins back to what they keep, not how they obtain it to try to obfuscate the issue.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Well done manxminx! I note that:



In fact under RIPA it is the unlawful interception of data which is the offence (unless that interception has lawful authority), not how the interceptor uses or intends to use that data.

We need to keep this point on the agenda.

Agreed it desnt matter what BT did with it they intercepted your data, browsing without lawfull consent.

[Wild Oscar]

Afternoon all .. just thought I'd chime in here!

I've been following this thread for a couple of weeks now I suppose .. first I have to say a big thank you to certain folks who are doing a fantastic job here, especially Alexander for his magnificent efforts and others such as OF1975, Portly_Giraffe, Florence, dav ... many more too (sorry if I've missed anybody out, but you know who you are!!)

I've been posting at various forums I frequent as I go around, spreading the word .. some people seem to be quite happy, thinking with a tweak here or there everything will be fine .. completely missing the main point! .. sad really ..

Yesterday I used the writetothem.com site to send a message to both my local councilors and MP .. and guess what!! .. got this in the mail this morning

.................................................. ..................................
Thank you for your email to my office, received yesterday.

I wanted to drop you a short note to let you know that I have raised this issue with John Hutton, the Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform and I am hopeful that John will be in a position to reply very soon.

It’s obviously quite a complicated issue and I have to admit it’s not something that I am all that familiar with!
Nonetheless, I will certainly chase it up for you and see what response we can get. Recent problems at HMRC et al really ought to be a wake up call to everyone about data security, so you’re absolutely right to raise the issue. The idea of one company having unlimited access to such huge amounts of potentially sensitive data is terrifying. We let people order prescriptions online, bank online, buy a house, sell a car; it seems madness to potentially expose these details to a private operation that exists simply to sell online advertising.

Please rest assured that I will be in touch when I receive a reply from John Hutton or another member of his ministerial team. BERR are not always the quickest department to reply, I’m afraid, so if you haven’t heard back in a few weeks then please let me know and I will give them a push.

Thanks again for getting in touch. I look forward to receiving (and hopefully understanding!) John Hutton’s reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Clark MP
.................................................. ................

Paul Clark is not only our MP here in Gillingham, Kent .. he is also Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ed Balls, MP, the new Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families .. so there may be another avenue of approach there! .. hats off to Paul for possibly the speediest reply from a minister ever!!

[fidbod]

My god,

that is a hell of a reply from Paul Clark - lets hope his actions match his words.

[Ravenheart]

Well that's certainly a positive reply Wild Oscar, it's a pity some other MP's don't see the Phorm threat the same way.

[jelv]

Would it be possible to have some code added to a website page which checked if the spoofed Phorm cookie was present for our websites domain? If it is possible, we could pop up a message such as "Security Alert: Do you realise your ISP is recording details of every webpage you visit in order to provide you with targeted adverts". We could use own own cookie to make sure visitors only received the message once per session and only BT/VM/TT visitors who had not opted out would receive the message.

If it's possible to do this it would be more effective than blanket blocking all users of the ISPs.

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by R Jones

The stuff I have read from BT states that Webwise/Phorm will NOT be going past login pages. BUT - along with a number of other replies, about ignoring "sensitive" areas, (religion, medicine etc.) they have not explained HOW, and until they do, I don't trust them. Others have indicated that avoiding sensitive areas could just mean that there aren't any "channels" at the Phorm end for ads for those areas, doesn't mean they aren't profiling those religious or medical sites in the first place. And who'se to say they might not decide that they will introduce such channels later - it wouldn't be difficult once they had got legal approval for the basic system - it would be very difficult to stop them simply creeping it to include more ad channels. Where would the Rubicon be there?

The words they keep using with regard to sensitive / private web traffic is 'WILL NOT' - not CANNOT. Reading through their system patents (the link is on here somewhere) it is clear that their system allows them to do far more than they currently openly admit.

You can guarantee that once they're up and running, function creep WILL happen. The interception won't be limited to http on port 80. The number of advertising channels will increase to include more lucrative products, porn, pharmacuticals etc.

You can bet your life that long term, if there is money to be made, phorm WILL explore EVERY avenue,regardless of privacy or legal issues.
Unless they are stopped NOW

Welcome Wild Oscar
Is Paul Clark MP the first Labour MP to give a meaningful, positive reply?

[OF1975]

Good work Wild Oscar. Thats a fantastic response especially with regard to speed of reply. Its been a full calendar month since I wrote to my MP and I have had zilch in response. Something I am most displeased about in all honesty. While my letter wasn't the best I have ever written (poor grammar in abundance, I am sure) the issues I raised should warrant the minimum of an acknowledgement of having received my letter.

Sadly I am still waiting for a response from Liberty but I have a vague recollection of someone on this thread recently saying that Liberty state that because of the large amount of correspondence they get that it may take up to 8 weeks to get a reply. Oh well only 4 weeks to go LOL

Road Runner, not sure if Paul Clark is the first Labour MP to respond but I will go as far as to say that my MP is Labour and didn't respond. Patricia Hewitt issue? Yes I know. Black helicopter time.

[Tharrick]

I, for one, have never been happier that my MP is a Conservative.
Not that I've heard back from him yet, but theyworkforyou.com shows him as responding to 'a very high' number of communications via writetothem.com - something like 84%.


Of course, I'm registered to vote in one constituency and living in another (university student)... that might just give me two possible avenues of approach anyway. May have to look into this. Just a shame that the Nottingham MP is labour and never rebels against the party line

[Ravenheart]

I found a link to a site called Justice from the Taking Liberties website. I'm going to send them an email, including the information that EU Information Commissioner Viviane Reding gave regarding the human rights implication of Phorm.

I'll keep you posted.

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Road Runner, not sure if Paul Clark is the first Labour MP to respond but I will go as far as to say that my MP is Labour and didn't respond. Patricia Hewitt issue? Yes I know. Black helicopter time.

No reply from my MP either, Bob Ainsworth (Lab).
I'm not into conspicacy theories but....I was starting to wonder. It's certainly the first labour MP i can remember giving a worthwhile reply.