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

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

This is an important point although not directly related to the 2006/2007 covert trials, because it qualifies my concerns regarding putting users at risk of being complicit, despite it being unlikely that a user would be prosecuted.

A bit like the Prices & Markings/Trade Descriptions Acts. If a shop displays a price which is HIGHER than the price they accept in tender for the goods, it is in law an infringement of the law, just as if they displayed a lower price and charged more. Which local authority would take them to task for that? None - it'd be crazy. The principle is there, it's wrong, but not really going to be punished - as in your point Alexander.

Hank

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Hank

Earl of Northesk to ask Her Majesty’s Government which law enforcement agency, Department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of (a) the Data Protection Act 1998, (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and (c) the Computer Misuse Act 1990. [CO] HL3267

- "CO" - Which department is that then?

Cabinet Office?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by 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

They do apply to web sites to though most get around it if third party tools like screen magnifiers or readers work with it to enable those with a disability to use the site

see http://www.smallbusinesssuccess.biz/...bility_act.htm

not sure whether the phorm site does or not as i havnt visited it yet

[Dephormation]

Please can someone post a link to the new questions asked by the Earl of Northesk? Esp. HL3267

Can't find it listed anywhere.

[Phormic Acid]

Originally Posted by bigsanta11

http://www.phormdesign.co.uk/



http://www.phorm.com/

They know. I wrote about Phorm’s logo, on BadPhorm. I’m not sure if phorm design mind all of us asking them, “do you know that your logo looks like…?â€ÂÂ� It’s certainly raised their profile though.

At that time, I thought they were both using variations of the Horatio typeface. That’s a fairly common font; it was a standard for Letraset’s dry-transfer letters. Having taken a longer look, I realise that both of them are significantly different to Horatio. The relative letter widths differ noticeably and Horatio has much longer ascenders and descenders. phorm design’s logo seems to have been inspired by Bloomindales’ in-house font, with its particularly wide ‘m’. Phorm’s logo is vaguely similar to Bayer Sans, with the narrow ‘r’ variant. But, once again, the letter widths don’t match. The ‘p’ is unnaturally narrow compared to the following ‘h’ and ‘o’. Because of this, I don’t think it’s any standard typeface. As soon as you get a word with ‘po’ in it, it’s going to look odd. But, I’d be grateful if any one can tell me otherwise.

However it came about, Phorm’s logo looks like an adaptation of phorm design’s. The major difference being the narrower first and last letters and the idea of taking a chunk out of the ‘m’, originally to accommodate the ‘©’, copied to more places.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at any copying. When Phorm first made an appearance, it seemed like a shocking and completely new concept. It turns out that Phorm are just one of a number of companies who have been planning their onslaught of very similar technologies, for the past couple of years. Following a New Jersey court ruling that IP addresses constitute personal information, NebuAd may find it necessary to copy Phorm’s cookie trick.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Please can someone post a link to the new questions asked by the Earl of Northesk? Esp. HL3267

Can't find it listed anywhere.

http://www.publications.parliament.u..._2140_wad.html may list the question in a few days time? Last date is 21 April
http://www.publications.parliament.u...08042112001130

Info here about HL3267 (obtained by a site search on Phorm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl - enter "Phorm"
then second link)
http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/ldcumlst.htm - in Cumulative list of unanswered Questions for Written Answer
then page search for Northesk - two hits

Earl of Northesk to ask Her Majesty’s Government which law enforcement agency, Department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of (a) the Data Protection Act 1998, (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and (c) the Computer Misuse Act 1990. [CO] HL3267

Earl of Northesk to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any official or Minister in the Home Office has offered written or oral advice to any executive of the company Phorm as to the legality of their targeted advertising software product; if so, what was the advice; in what circumstances was it given; and what was the justification for giving it. [HO] HL3268

There's another link on the search age about a further question in Publications, but when clicked it doesn't reveal any of the searched text
http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/ldordpap.htm
nor does the google cached version.

That's the best I can do! HTH

He's doing the stuff!

[Mesmer]

There's an interesting new post on www.iii.co.uk from a poster called "Professional Party" that claims to "have had some involvement with BT regarding the Phorm business model."

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Mesmer

There's an interesting new post on www.iii.co.uk from a poster called "Professional Party" that claims to "have had some involvement with BT regarding the Phorm business model."

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

As for how could BT do this legally, it is simple (with regards to out going communications) and his comment that there is no current technology to do this is completely wrong. If it was an option assigned at the auth level all users who have a Phorm flag on their ISP account could be assigned to a specific IP block which in turn can be custom routed to go through the Phorm kit. This is not difficult and can be done without BT needing to bring in any extra equipment, it is merely a case of configuration of existing network management tools.

This method would of course resolve all issues on the "way out" of BTs network, but would not resolve issues relating to RIPA, PECR, CMA, TG, CDP and FA with regards to the interception/copying/alteration/masquerading aspects of the technology with regards to data coming into the network from an external web site which has explicitly denied consent or indeed not opted-in (as defined by the law).

Of course the flaw in this technique is that it would pretty much decimate Phorm's revenue forecasts as very few people are likely to "Opt In" if they are given all the details of the surrounding issues (such as why they have to give informed consent in the first place and which rights they are giving up by doing so).

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Mesmer

There's an interesting new post on www.iii.co.uk from a poster called "Professional Party" that claims to "have had some involvement with BT regarding the Phorm business model."

It's a strange place for a 'network designer' to post.

Could anyone with posting rights there ask him to come over to CF for a discussion?

[windowcleaner]

Originally Posted by mark777

It's a strange place for a 'network designer' to post.

yes, and i hope he is not designing my network. As alexander said it could be done at the auth level by IP address. I dont know how it works exactly but maybe it could also be done at the DSLAM to send opt-in users down a different virtual channel.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by windowcleaner

yes, and i hope he is not designing my network. As alexander said it could be done at the auth level by IP address. I dont know how it works exactly but maybe it could also be done at the DSLAM to send opt-in users down a different virtual channel.

As far as I am aware the BT DSLAMs (or rather the software controlling them) can't currently do this which is why many BT Wholesale ISPs can't effectively load balance their pipes. Entanet have discussed the problems with BT's load balancing at length on the thinkbroadband forums but we are probably talking 16 months or so ago now so it might be hard to find the discussions. I could email Enta directly next week if people want but I don't really think there is a need given that IP address based routing would seem to be the most obvious and probably most efficient method of routing opted in people through Phorm's kit.

Alexander Hanff

[windowcleaner]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

As far as I am aware the BT DSLAMs (or rather the software controlling them) can't currently do this which is why many BT Wholesale ISPs can't effectively load balance their pipes. Entanet have discussed the problems with BT's load balancing at length on the thinkbroadband forums but we are probably talking 16 months or so ago now so it might be hard to find the discussions. I could email Enta directly next week if people want but I don't really think there is a need given that IP address based routing would seem to be the most obvious and probably most efficient method of routing opted in people through Phorm's kit.

Alexander Hanff

No need for load balancing - the pipe would only need to be extremely small to cater for the opt-ins

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by windowcleaner

No need for load balancing - the pipe would only need to be extremely small to cater for the opt-ins

Oh I wasn't referring to that, more the point that BT's current kit is not very good at custom routing as demonstrated by the load balancing problems faced by BT Wholesale ISPs.

I expect a single ISDN channel would be big enough for all opted in customers (and let's face it BT have plenty of them spare...oooo low blow!)

Alexander Hanff

[warescouse]

I had an email today from E-Contact Team Telewest Broadband (I'm in the VM Ex NTL Manchester cable area)

It said the normal "We will soon be working with a company, Phorm, to provide some new online protection and enhancement features for our broadband customers."
It seems that VM have a few inconsistencies on the Phorm issue. Anyhow I have a direct telephone number to someone in the Dept. now so I will be asking some more questions on Monday.

Incidentally, I am fairly certain I had traces of sysip.net a long time ago in an ethereal trace I was doing to try discover why my line speed was so slow. The trace is gone and I cannot really date it accurately now. At a guess I would say late 2006 but I could wrong.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by warescouse

I had an email today from E-Contact Team Telewest Broadband (I'm in the VM Ex NTL Manchester cable area)

It said the normal "We will soon be working with a company, Phorm, to provide some new online protection and enhancement features for our broadband customers."
It seems that VM have a few inconsistencies on the Phorm issue. Anyhow I have a direct telephone number to someone in the Dept. now so I will be asking some more questions on Monday.

Incidentally, I am fairly certain I had traces of sysip.net a long time ago in an ethereal trace I was doing to try discover why my line speed was so slow. The trace is gone and I cannot really date it accurately now. At a guess I would say late 2006 but I could wrong.

warescouse

I don't suppose you could post an (anonymous) copy of the e-mail?