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

[mark777]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Isn't BBC meant to be a signed up member of OIX anyway?

Supposedly, but they can't serve ads to UK users. I don't know where they stand if their content is used to contribute to a profile to target ads on other sites.

Suppose someone uses the BBC site a lot. Their profile used to target ads on other sites would be largely based on interception of BBC content. This cannot be used for advertising purposes in the UK.

It would be interesting to know if the BBC has any arrangement to be excluded (i.e. no profiling of visits to the BBC site).

[Wild Oscar]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I'd be careful of getting too involved with Mr Farage - as you can see from his reply, his concern may not really be privacy, his concern is more likely to be anything that shows EU in a bad light. That is a separate issue.

Fringe political parties do have a record of using ANY issue to further their own interests - I would recommend supping with a very long spoon indeed if you go down that road.

Originally Posted by Bonglet

I agree with r jones and would stick to the big 3 in politics at least if you really want it heard.

Don't worry folks .. I know exactly what you mean!
Meanwhile lets see what the other MEP's come up with .. another 5 or so of them I think!

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

Supposedly, but they can't serve ads to UK users. I don't know where they stand if their content is used to contribute to a profile to target ads on other sites.

Suppose someone uses the BBC site a lot. Their profile used to target ads on other sites would be largely based on interception of BBC content. This cannot be used for advertising purposes in the UK.

Interesting points there and not sure what their stance would be.

[dav]

The BBC already serve ads to me here in the UK. The reason is that, at work, our external web routing exits in Holland. When I go to the BBC site, it thinks I'm a Dutch bloke and so sends me ads on their site. It's very annoying.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dav

The BBC already serve ads to me here in the UK. The reason is that, at work, our external web routing exits in Holland. When I go to the BBC site, it thinks I'm a Dutch bloke and so sends me ads on their site. It's very annoying.

Ha, wheras for me even though I am in the US, the Beeb thinks I am in the UK due to our internal data highway routing such traffic to the UK point of presence so I get no adverts and I can use iPlayer.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Just a quick thought as I pass through this evening...

Doesn't the BBC's Charter say something about the BBC not showing adverts? Not that that has stopped them from plugging Eastenders (*hurl*) on their radio stations.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Just a quick thought as I pass through this evening...

Doesn't the BBC's Charter say something about the BBC not showing adverts? Not that that has stopped them from plugging Eastenders (*hurl*) on their radio stations.

BBC Enterprises are allowed to show adverts to non-licence payers as a means of bolstering funding - for this purpose they assume that all UK-resident websurfers are licencepayers and all non-UK surfers are not.
Sadly, I think the latest incarnation of the BBC Charter allows advertising to be pushed at all non-licence payers (they justified it as "helping to keep UK licence payers fees down") and given that they've allowed this mission-creep, they're also likely to be okay with profiling of UK users for the purposes of targeted advertising on sites visited other than www.bbc.co.uk

My personal opinion: Roll-on all-digital TV, when they can do-away with the licence fee and charge those people who actually watch BBC (I'm one) by means of direct subscription, hence continuing the brilliant tradition of advertisment-free, high-quality television in this country.

Come to think of it - I think this is Kent Ertugrul's biggest miscalculation in the whole sorry Phorm affair: He assumed that UK citizens are, in consumer terms, the same as US citizens. What he failed to realise is that, unlike our US cousins, we have a great tradition of high-quality, advertisment-free media content which is funded effectively by subscription (OK - licence fee, but hopefully subscription in the future), This contradicts his business' premise that content services cannot survive without advertising (and therefore Phorm is a necessary evil), so he choses to ignore this inconvenient example of how good the internet could be.

[dav]

Yep, Brits don't like ads. This is neatly illustrated by the ad-break in popular TV programs that correspond with a jump in the demand for electricity as millions of kettles get switched on. Note to advertisers...if people are making a cuppa, who is watching the ads?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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.

Actually I don't believe they are compliant with DPA as DPA clearly refers to making operations on data as a definition of processing. The very act of making operations via DPI to detect what the data is (opt in cookie, opt out cookie, is the page blacklisted etc etc etc > profiler > channel server) these are -all- operations so I still firmly believe the system with it's current model breaches DPA.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

So on a legal side if a customer of VM was phormed (with or without informed consent) visited those sites and Phorm categorised the page logged and profiled the customer. This is where Pandora’s Box comes in as the person with or without Knowledge has just broken the rule on Amazon and now opened themselves up for possible prosecution.

I think I am becoming more legal minded in my thinking I need help..

Maybe Alexander could tell me if I am right or wrong the person that would be prosecuted would be the customer not the Phorm management in the case like Amazon?

I raised the issue of customer complicity some time ago now in the early days of the scandal. Yes I believe still that if a customer "Opts In" and then initiates a connection to a web site with explicit terms denying consent to intercept, process etc. then there is a serious concern that they could be seen as complicit and could face criminal action under RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

[vicz]

Interesting article in the Washington Post. Clearly this is also controversial in the US. Also clearly NebuAd has first mover advantage in the US (contrary to the views of 'Carol and Son') which is maybe the real reason Phorm jumped to the UK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040304052.html

[CaptJamieHunter]

In the interests of spreading the word I sought advice from a couple of friends and then advised Rainbow Network, Pinknews.co.uk and Stonewall about Phorm. Got a reply today from the editor of Pinknews who says he will be looking into it.

[mark777]

Seeing the Cap'ns link to his footage of the London meeting has reminded me. Has there been any news on the pro version, promised by 80/20, being released?

vicz

[AlexanderHanff]

I checked 80/20 Thinking's site last night and didn't see any news on it.

I will email Simon later and see if he can shed any light on it.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Florence

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

Indeed Florence.

Well, I got a reply from Patricia Hewitt today. It must be difficult being an MP and on the Board of BT (or it might not be, given the renumeration for it?!)

Anyway, she did not have to reply as I am not in her constituency, but unfortunately when she "Checked the position with BT" they just gave her the standard lines to trip out to me:

1. Contrary to what we all believe, no personal data involved in the secret trial interceptions, no customers identified, no data kept and no law broken (we disagree I think!)

2. The extensive customer research where more than half want phorm... (or something like that based on the questions that were asked by BT's market research which we all know will have been using questions that did not include words like "ISP spy on you", "Phorm Adware/Spyware/Rootkit stealth technology" etc!

Congrats Alexander on the response from the Earl Of Northesk. We still wait to see the answer to his written question eh? Wonder if they government will get around to answering that before he gets back here.

On the question of public vs private forum... please do keep updating this place here. It's good to see the size of the opposition to the Phorm system proposed. If too much of it goes into a private forum we might lose some momentum.

All the best to Alexander for the BBC Click recording

Hank

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I have emailed Simon about the video, hopefully have some news about it when I get back from London tomorrow night.

With regards the "private forum". Please let me reiterate it was never my intention to suggest that the Phorm debate be sandboxed. I was merely referring to a focused thread/discussion on questions we might like the Earl of Northesk to direct at the Home Office and Government in general. This thread is very busy and it would be easy to miss input on the questions being put together.

Alexander Hanff