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

[Tharrick]

Hmm, maybe somebody should contact them and point that out :P

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by bigsanta11

http://www.phormdesign.co.uk/
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

I don't know if this is an official site of phorm, if it is I got bad news for them it doesnt comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, under Part 3 Discrimination in Other Areas under sekshon:

19 Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person�
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
(b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service;
(c) in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or
(d) in the terms on which he provides a service to the disabled person.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
(1) (a) (b) (c) (d)

(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21�
(a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities;
(b) a person is “a provider of services� if he is concerned with the provision, in the United Kingdom, of services to the public or to a section of the public; and
(c) it is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
(2) (a) (b) (c)

(3) The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply�
(a) access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter;
(b) access to and use of means of communication;
(c) access to and use of information services;
(d) accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
(e) facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance;
(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;
(g) facilities provided by employment agencies or under section 2 of the [1973 c. 50.] Employment and Training Act 1973;
(h) the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
(3) (a) (b) (c) (f) (g) (h)

(4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
I am not shuwre on this one, it may or may not apply

(5) Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, this section and sections 20 and 21 do not apply to�
(a) education which is funded, or secured, by a relevant body or provided at�
(i) an establishment which is funded by such a body or by a Minister of the Crown; or
(ii) any other establishment which is a school as defined in section 14(5) of the [1992 c. 13.] Further and Higher Education Act 1992 or section 135(1) of the [1980 c. 44.] Education (Scotland) Act 1980;
(b) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport; or
(c) such other services as may be prescribed.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
I am not shuwre on this one, it may or may not apply

(6) In subsection (5) “relevant body� means�
(a) a local education authority in England and Wales;
(b) an education authority in Scotland;
(c) the Funding Agency for Schools;
(d) the Schools Funding Council for Wales;
(e) the Further Education Funding Council for England;
(f) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales;
(g) the Higher Education Funding Council for England;
(h) the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council;
(i) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales;
(j) the Teacher Training Agency;
(k) a voluntary organisation; or
(l) a body of a prescribed kind.

under this sekshon I believe the folowing apply:
Dosunt apply

Originally Posted by This is the official site of phorm

http://www.phorm.com/
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

This is the official site of phorm, I got bad news for them it doesnt comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, under Part 3 Discrimination in Other Areas.

Got yer phorm by the unmenchabuls

[AlexanderHanff]

I think you would be hard pressed using the DDA against a web site. I am not saying it isn't possible but DDA generally refers to physical restriction to access services such as not having wide enough doors in your place of business to allow wheel chair access etc.

If DDA applied to web sites 99.999999999% of the websites out there would be non-compliant.

Alexander Hanff

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Tharrick

Hmm, maybe somebody should contact them and point that out :P

Done.
The WHOIS fits the page, shows the registrant located in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, and the company address is Sheffield. Somehow don't think that is Ertugrul's outfit!

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

If DDA applied to web sites 99.999999999% of the websites out there would be non-compliant.

Hi Alexander, the DDA duz apply to web sites, I know this for a fact, me ben dyslexic I am entitled to take them to cort, under the DDA.

See this Eventure Internet

Disability Discrimination Act - Disability non-compliance

As of October 2004, both private and public companies should be aware of part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act. This act requires websites to meet a required standard to allow effective access to the information contained within a website to the 8.6 million disabled British people.

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), establish in April 2000 to protect the rights of disabled persons by Parliament, will be able to take action for disabled individuals who feel they are discriminated against. This means that the images and text in a disabled discrimination compliant website should be supported by the spoken word.

These and other issues regarding the Government Guidelines and the Disability Discrimination Act will be advised by your account manager at the start of your project to ensure you are aware of any current or future issues.

For more information on these and other legal issues please view Latest News.Various processes and development standards are put in place to ensure that all clients are offered a full solution for any possible issues.

See the Royal National Institute of Blind People as well

[oblonsky]

Posted this over at Badphorm apologies if you seen it alread. p32 of the Charles Stanley report was interesting to me:


This document is a marketing communication.

This research has not been prepared in accordance with regulatory requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research.

[Bonglet]

Just got off the phone with vm who rang me to see what problem i had with phorm.

I explained what was happening why i didnt trust them and the guy was denying that they had undertook any trials with phorm then i pointed out that phorm had said themselves that all the 3 isps had undertook trials, then he changed story and said it only did trials on ex ntl area's (im ex-telewest) and they were fully inphormed about it before taking part.

Any ex-ntl'ers here who undertook or saw such a trial because first i have heard about it?.

further into the conversation he said if any future trials or deployment of phorm was done i would be fully inphormed i said he wouldnt need to as id be cancelling it straight away.
He also said that they have had lots of phone calls about the subject and were noteing and putting our points across to more senior positions.

The whole phone call just seemed a phone call to assure the customer that if anything happens you'll be inphormed, just wasnt reassuring enough for me sorry to say .

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Just got off the phone with vm who rang me to see what problem i had with phorm.

I explained what was happening why i didnt trust them and the guy was denying that they had undertook any trials with phorm then i pointed out that phorm had said themselves that all the 3 isps had undertook trials, then he changed story and said
it only did trials on ex ntl area's (im ex-telewest) and they were fully inphormed about it before taking part.

That's earth rocking news. However we need to get that in writing. Once we have it in writing, then VM will be in as big a dog poo as BT.

Someone needs to alert the Register about this. . .

Ali.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Just got off the phone with vm who rang me to see what problem i had with phorm.

I explained what was happening why i didnt trust them and the guy was denying that they had undertook any trials with phorm then i pointed out that phorm had said themselves that all the 3 isps had undertook trials, then he changed story and said it only did trials on ex ntl area's (im ex-telewest) and they were fully inphormed about it before taking part.

This is not news to me see #4779 by bold that bit is Rubbish they tested the system in Scotland.

[dav]

As with BT there needs to be full disclosure about any trials that have been carried out. What kind of and how was informed consent obtained (easy for BT; none), who was tracked, how many were tracked, how long the trials were, what was the user feedback etc.
Drip-feeding information just looks as if they have something to hide. The smart money is on that they do have something to hide.
A question for the more legally literate...if people find that they live in a trial area, can they submit a DPA request to find out what information on them was harvested? If the ISP replies that we don't know if you were Phormed or not, is it legally possible to make the case that the law has to assume the user was subject to this invasion of privacy? Furthermore, by extension, does the law then have to assume that every user in that area was subjected to data interception and processing simply because the ISP cannot fulfill the requirements of the DPA request?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by dav

As with BT there needs to be full disclosure about any trials that have been carried out. What kind of and how was informed consent obtained (easy for BT; none), who was tracked, how many were tracked, how long the trials were, what was the user feedback etc.
Drip-feeding information just looks as if they have something to hide. The smart money is on that they do have something to hide.
A question for the more legally literate...if people find that they live in a trial area, can they submit a DPA request to find out what information on them was harvested? If the ISP replies that we don't know if you were Phormed or not, is it legally possible to make the case that the law has to assume the user was subject to this invasion of privacy? Furthermore, by extension, does the law then have to assume that every user in that area was subjected to data interception and processing simply because the ISP cannot fulfill the requirements of the DPA request?

Good post dav. It is the legal approach that will stop Phorm or bring its plans to a grindingly slow pace. Share holders will continue to get the jitters and before you know it noone will touch this Company with a bargepole. In fact, if the penny hasn't dropped yet with potential investors that this is one very hot potato, then they deserve to lose all that they hoped to gain.

Let's not waste any more effort or energy on Phorm. The ISP's are respectable Companies that should respond to their customers wishes. They can remain solvent through our subscriptions, there's no need to be greedy and attempt to sell that which doesn't belong to them.

[Bonglet]

Just wrote a reply to todays phone call.

Today i recived a phone call from one of your customer support representitives regarding a query i had about the phorm system and any sort of secret trials and my concern at the matter. your represetitive said no trails had been held on virgin media yet when i pointed him to proof i have that phorm say that all 3 isp's with them have done
testing he said ahh yes we it was on ex-ntl (im ex telewest) and all customers were informed.
can i have written conformation by e-mail or hand that i was not affetected anytime in 2007 .
Can i also ask the area and time of this trial as i have resonable grounds to belive i was in some unknown to myself trial in 2007.
Many thanks.
(I have saved a copy of this and await your reply)

[Ratastic]

I highly doubt that any Virgin Media customers who took part in the tests were informed about it, if that was the case, with all the publicity Phorm is getting right now, someone would have come onto these forums and mentioned it by now, plus its unlikely any ISP would roll out a system they hadn't fully tested first.

I don't think it should come as a complete surprise, other than in the fact that they are finally admitting what most Virgin Media customers have suspected for some time.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was just the tip of an iceberg and that their testing mirrored the tests carried out by BT, i imagine that the Carphone Warehouse did the same.

[Kursk]

But a covert trial by a third party albeit complicit with the network operator is tantamount to hacking isn't it? Hacking is illegal; or has everyone become free to intercept everyone else provided they legitimise it by calling themselves a forward thinking business?

Originally Posted by Tharrick

Hmm, maybe somebody should contact them and point that out :P

As a Yorkshire-man I have contacted the South Yorks based company and alerted them to the issue. I don't see why they should risk being tar'd with the same brush!

Dunno if there's anything they can do, but they might want to add a note to their website...

Hank

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------

Well, I contacted my MP again following the release of the excellent legal analysis document. I enquired if she would consider signing Early Day Motion (EDM) 1311.

Now what I was not aware of, was that EDMs are used by backbench MPs to put pressure on the Government, and I was also ignorant of my Labour MP's role in this governemnt as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to one of the Cabinet.

So she is considered a member of the Government and as such it would be inappropriate for her to sign the EDM.

That said, she does put this in writing:

"I fully support the sentiment of EDM 1311 and share your concerns over the Phorm [Webwise] system."

She is awaiting a reply from DfBERR (since 10th April), in common with several people then (including the Earl of Northesk - they are very late replying now aren't they?)

More to follow then...

Hank

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

As a BT customer for my internet connection, should I not be able to request my local Police force carry out an investigation into whether or not I was the subject of a crime by BT in 2006 or 2007?

I don't have any evidence, save for the fact that BT said they did do it, so although I do not have any evidence myself, surely the fact that they admit they did it is enough to suggest the police should interview someone from BT about it?

Comments anyone?
Hank