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

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWashngo

Hey all,

Thank for this informative and interesting thread.
snip

My question revolves around the security policy I have for computers on my LAN. Simply put, the machines on my LAN all run Firefox or Opera and are setup to remove cookies and personal data when the browser is closed. This is great for me and has proved invaluable for people who use my LAN as it means that they are certain that any user credentials that are entered during a browsing session are removed from the machine when the browser is closed.

However, it would seem that this would mean that the phorm cookies which manage opt-in/opt-out preferences will be deleted each time the browser closes as well - no doubt making my vulnerable to their snooping or worse, forcing me to opt-in/opt-out each time I start a new browser session.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Sounds like it could be a pain for someone like myself. Not that I would stay with an ISP using Phorm for long once I realised what was happening

Good question. My experience as a BT customer is that my ISP have said they are "working on a cookie-free solution". (ie they haven't got one YET)

At present they seem to be running with a cookie-based opt-OUT solution for their forthcoming trials. What they have NOT made clear, is whether all the customer's web traffic will nevertheless suffer redirection anyway, if there is an opt-out cookie or if there is NO cookie. As they have indicated (apparently) that blocking the Phorm/Webwise related IP's and domains will break browsing, it does look at the moment as if intercepting and redirection is going to be universal, (without informed consent) but that you won't be getting a Phorm ID if you are opted out or merely not opted-in.

It's still a rather fuzzy area in terms of what they are planning, and I think they are remaining vague deliberately in the hope that what they have already designed is legal. If it isn't, then they have to go back to the drawing board. So they are obfuscating. I personally don't even think BT feel confident any more whether their proposed trials are legal, otherwise they would have started them already. They are a month late at least.

Originally Posted by mark777

New from The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...s_with_nebuad/

"Peter Smith negotiated WOW!'s contract with NebuAd, but he said that these negotiations carried on for months and that NebuAd's practices may have changed since the two companies first spoke."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that one of the prime concerns when Phorm first appeared inviting all and sundry to inspect their code which could easily be replaced with something completely different on the first patch / update! And so here we have a similar system running live where whatever was hammered out during lengthy negotiations prior to deployment suddenly doesn't mean Jack any more!

Is that scary or am I just reading to much into it...

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

"Peter Smith negotiated WOW!'s contract with NebuAd, but he said that these negotiations carried on for months and that NebuAd's practices may have changed since the two companies first spoke."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that one of the prime concerns when Phorm first appeared inviting all and sundry to inspect their code which could easily be replaced with something completely different on the first patch / update! And so here we have a similar system running live where whatever was hammered out during lengthy negotiations prior to deployment suddenly doesn't mean Jack any more!

Is that scary or am I just reading to much into it...

for those of us who are BT customers, the parallels are eerily close. almost EVERY element of that story has AREADY happened in the BT/Phorm relationship. secret implementation - cookies dropped and browser hijacking - ignorance by support - denials by ISP staff - admission by ISP staff - excuses and buck passing.

[JohnnyWashngo]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Good question. My experience as a BT customer is that my ISP have said they are "working on a cookie-free solution". (ie they haven't got one YET)

At present they seem to be running with a cookie-based opt-OUT solution for their forthcoming trials. What they have NOT made clear, is whether all the customer's web traffic will nevertheless suffer redirection anyway, if there is an opt-out cookie or if there is NO cookie. As they have indicated (apparently) that blocking the Phorm/Webwise related IP's and domains will break browsing, it does look at the moment as if intercepting and redirection is going to be universal, (without informed consent) but that you won't be getting a Phorm ID if you are opted out or merely not opted-in.

It's still a rather fuzzy area in terms of what they are planning, and I think they are remaining vague deliberately in the hope that what they have already designed is legal. If it isn't, then they have to go back to the drawing board. So they are obfuscating. I personally don't even think BT feel confident any more whether their proposed trials are legal, otherwise they would have started them already. They are a month late at least.

So it would appear that adding them to my hosts file, which I get from here http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm and which in turn ensures that I do not see the majority of the nonsense on the internet these days, will give me connection issues. Oh boy, this is just silly

Also, thanks for the links to the vids CaptJamieHunter, will have a watch of them when I get home.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWashngo

So it would appear that adding them to my hosts file, which I get from here http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm and which in turn ensures that I do not see the majority of the nonsense on the internet these days, will give me connection issues. Oh boy, this is just silly

Also, thanks for the links to the vids CaptJamieHunter, will have a watch of them when I get home.

Well I would recommend you specifically list the things you are adding to your HOSTS file, and formally ask your ISP what the result will be in each of these 3 scenarios:

a - you are opted IN to Webwise/Phorm
b - you are opted OUT of Webwise/Phorm with an opted-out cookie
c - you have simply blocked all Webwise/Phorm cookies and therefore don't have any of their cookies and have not either given or witheld informed consent for redirection.

Ask them for the effect on your browsing experience in each case with your list of HOSTS blocks in place.

They ought to be able to tell you, and if they can't it's significant. I'd be delighted to see their reply.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

"Peter Smith negotiated WOW!'s contract with NebuAd, but he said that these negotiations carried on for months and that NebuAd's practices may have changed since the two companies first spoke."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that one of the prime concerns when Phorm first appeared inviting all and sundry to inspect their code which could easily be replaced with something completely different on the first patch / update! And so here we have a similar system running live where whatever was hammered out during lengthy negotiations prior to deployment suddenly doesn't mean Jack any more!

Is that scary or am I just reading to much into it...

I don't think you're reading too much into it at all. Remember that the equipment Phorm want to put into the ISP's infrastructure is equipment that the ISP cannot access, monitor, report on, audit or manage.

So neither the ISP nor any other independent (i.e. NON-Phorm) auditor can see anything that the box is doing, has done, or any changes made to the box's configuration.

As an IT professional I find that last point obscene. Allowing an unaudited, and unmanageable presence on a network infrastructure is unthinkable in my eyes.

The ISPs are actually trusting Phorm. That's the scary bit. If I said to any of the IT Directors I know "I want to place a bit of kit on your network that you won't have any access to whatsoever" I know what the response would be. And it wouldn't be pleasant!

[Morden]

I agree completely, even allowing outside users access to a private network involves much form filling in and a method of restricting their access and monitoring wht they do whilst accesing the network.

To do what Virgin and the other ISP's are allowing, would be unthinkable on most companies networks.

They might as well put access passwords onto google !

[unicus]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

As an IT professional I find that last point obscene. Allowing an unaudited, and unmanageable presence on a network infrastructure is unthinkable in my eyes.

That, if I'm reading you correctly, is a nice polite way to say it is stupidity - which as an IT pro I'd totally agree with.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by unicus

That, if I'm reading you correctly, is a nice polite way to say it is stupidity - which as an IT pro I'd totally agree with.

If you're going to put something into your infrastructure you've got to be able to manage it, audit it and be able to provide audit logs. Especially when you're dealing with something as contentious (and illegal IMHO) as this. From a risk management perspective to leave yourself open to legal proceedings because you've accepted a company's word "trust us" when their history suggests otherwise...

It beggars belief.

[dav]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Neither do I nor the site admins. The person responsible for those offensive comments has now been permanently banned. Thanks to the admins for their swift action. A warning had been posted previously.

I'm not a mod here but I am elsewhere and will report anything I feel is inappropriate. Please can we keep posts at the very least civil? Venting offensive bile and deliberately obtuse comments achieves nothing positive and reflects badly on everyone here.

This topic does and will generate emotional responses. We get our message across better if we keep to professional language rather than profane.

Oooo, he didn't take that very well. He had just enough time before the ban-hammer hit to leave me a negative rep comment. Boo-Hoo
That really hurts

Anyway, thanks to Capt and the Mods for sorting that kind of silliness out so quickly.

EDIT: It's just struck me that this might sound like a cry for rep points...it isn't. I was just pointing out the childishness involved and thanking the mods.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by dav

Oooo, he didn't take that very well. He had just enough time before the ban-hammer hit to leave me a negative rep comment. Boo-Hoo
That really hurts

Anyway, thanks to Capt and the Mods for sorting that kind of silliness out so quickly.

EDIT: It's just struck me that this might sound like a cry for rep points...it isn't. I was just pointing out the childishness involved and thanking the mods.

And me, just checked!

Complete with the language you would expect.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

If you're going to put something into your infrastructure you've got to be able to manage it, audit it and be able to provide audit logs. Especially when you're dealing with something as contentious (and illegal IMHO) as this. From a risk management perspective to leave yourself open to legal proceedings because you've accepted a company's word "trust us" when their history suggests otherwise...

It beggars belief.

Phorm have made vague PR respones making references to a future independent examination of their source code, but so far it hasn't been examined, and they have not been specific as to how it might be audited, who would do that, and how often it would be done (like after EVERY single update?). The gap between the patent application's technical possibilities and what they say they are actually doing with UK applications of Webwise is quite wide, so I feel regular independent monitoring of the actual software source code and its operation is vital. speaking just as a non-IT person, merely an ISP customer.

BT have insisted the Webwise servers would be within their network and on their premises, and owned or at least leased by them, but the current BT Webwise site is NOT within the BT network and does not bear BT IP addresses. And BT have never claimed they would have control over, or access to the Phorm software, nor do they claim to have examined the source code.

So I agree - it beggars belief.

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by mark777

And me, just checked!

Complete with the language you would expect.

I'm glad to say he didn't leave me out either.

[dav]

Originally Posted by R Jones

<snip>

I'm glad to say he didn't leave me out either.

We should start a club

[thebarron]

Some positive financial stuff from Charles Stanley

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3eebfede-1...0779fd2ac.html

And on our side the advertising industry seems to be poo pooing the whole idea.

http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread....3044&from=1513

You need to be a member so a quick snip:


"My problem is the valuation and Phorm's lack of any quantitative evidence to back it up. How on earth do you justify a valuation of £175m if you're losing £12m a year? It's crazy and brings memories of 1999 when internet advertising was a bandwagon. Simply saying "internet advertising is the way forward" is not enough. This is not 1999.
Google was making money as soon as it got VC funding. This is no Google.

The entire UK internet advertising capex this year was £2bn of which 3/4 went into search based advertising. The rest mostly went into banners and Phorm related stuff. That's an addressable £500m market of which Phorm can realistically take 70% due to ISP partners or £350m as a maximum. That ain't a huge market even if it growing at 20%. Kent has share options at £500, which tells me he needs his head examined. That's £6 billion. "

[Deko]

Where are the 80/20 Video's ?

Hi PhormPRTeam ...

Maybe then can answer did you get your name from the phormation tool for php ?