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

[diddy1]

Just found this on the VM newsgroups....


have just been contacted by a Virgin media rep on my mobile - whilst out
shopping so not particularly convenient - he confirmed that Virgin Media
would soon be implementing Phorm (no date given). When I asked if it was to
be opt-in or opt out - he said everybody would be automatically opted in and
he didn't think there was a way to opt out. He also professed no knowledge
of the recent statement from the Information Commissioners office. No time
for a long discussion as I was in the supermarket - but does anyone have any
comments?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by diddy1

Just found this on the VM newsgroups....

have just been contacted by a Virgin media rep on my mobile - whilst out
shopping so not particularly convenient - he confirmed that Virgin Media
would soon be implementing Phorm (no date given). When I asked if it was to
be opt-in or opt out - he said everybody would be automatically opted in and
he didn't think there was a way to opt out. He also professed no knowledge
of the recent statement from the Information Commissioners office. No time
for a long discussion as I was in the supermarket - but does anyone have any
comments?

Has the original poster got the name of this rep? Time to start collating a few salient points for when I get a response from Neil Berkett's office. That must, I think include naming VM staff who say things which go against what we have been assured by Neil Berkett and Ian Woodham.

I was assured by NB's office that the BBC were wrong with their recent tech report but VM didn't bother to correct them. Now this - has something changed?

[diddy1]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Has the original poster got the name of this rep? Time to start collating a few salient points for when I get a response from Neil Berkett's office. That must, I think include naming VM staff who say things which go against what we have been assured by Neil Berkett and Ian Woodham.

Either the BBC were wrong with their recent tech report (but VM didn't bother to correct them. That says something in my book.)

I just cant get my head around the fact.why would a virgin rep ring a mobile and say that phorm is going live, if you go the the VM Newsgroups you will find it in discussion and feedback....

[mark777]

Originally Posted by diddy1

I just cant get my head around the fact.why would a virgin rep ring a mobile and say that phorm is going live, if you go the the VM Newsgroups you will find it in discussion and feedback....

I just wonder if they are doing this randomly by 'phone to judge people's reactions. No e-mails or letters to leave any evidence?

Of course, it could just be people telling porkies. Without any verifiable evidence, it does not mean a lot, unfortunately.

When I go through their e-mail complaints system, I always state that they may not contact me by 'phone.

You always see the guff about calls being recorded. Does this mean we can record them?

-------

"Calls may be recorded for training purposes". Can I take that as a statement? i.e. if I'm training myself to be careful in my communications, it's ok to record the call?

[JHM]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Has the Virgin Media Webwise statement & FAQ been updated lately?

http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise-faqs.php

In particular it now says;

Has Virgin Media ever deployed the Webwise system?

No. As part of an early evaluation of the system to understand how the technology works we have run a small technical lab test on a private internal network, not connected to the internet. We have never deployed the system, either as a trial or otherwise, and would never do so without informing our customers first.

When was that test then? Hope it wasn't prior to Feb 2008, because that's when VM's Director of Customer Relations told me they first considered working with Phorm.

Personally, I'm not convinced by anything VM say now. Why has it taken them so long to produce this new FAQ, and why haven't they answered any of the questions VM customers put to them?

Pete

I hope you don’t mind but I passed on your posting to virginmedia.feedback and asked that if it had been changed, then when.

Alex Brown replied as follows:

Approved the change on Thursday, so it was likely rolled out on
> Friday.

> Alex
> --
>
> Alex Brown
> Senior Product Manager
> Product Management, Virgin Media

So yes it is a recent change – thanks for spotting it.

--John

[popper]

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/084640.html
"
Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Nicholas Bohm ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:39:13 +0100
Previous message: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Next message: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Biggins wrote:
> Ah,... yes. Provided of course that the system was opt-in.

FIPR and the ICO agree that only an opt-in can provide the requisite
consent under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive)
Regulations 2003, and I don't think the Home Office has suggested
otherwise. (See
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm for PECR.)

I doubt if Phorm is happy about this, although no doubt putting a brave
face on it; but I doubt if the ISPs will feel they can ignore it. They
may not yet have taken on board the clear distinction drawn in PECR
between a subscriber and a user, and may be thinking they can make do
with a deemed consent derived from a change to contract terms.

But a deemed consent of this kind isn't the real consent required under
PECR; nor can a subscriber's consent amount to consent by another user
unless the subscriber has first got that other user's consent. So there
are challenges ahead for ISPs even if an opt-in business model works.

> If on the other hand it was opt-out, which seems to be Phorm's
> preference, would that affect the issue of apparent consent? So far,
> only Carphone Warehouse seem to have made any explicit commitment to
> making it opt-in.

Failing to opt-out isn't giving consent; but what a prosecutor or a jury
would make of it under the CMA isn't easy to be sure about.
Nicholas
--
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK
Phone 01279 870285 (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile 07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)
PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF. Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of
>> Nicholas Bohm
>> Sent: 24 April 2008 12:44
>> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> Subject: Re: Phorm and the Computer Misuse Act...
>>
>> The main obstacle to a CMA prosecution would be apparent user
>> consent, depending on the adequacy of the information given
>> to the user as the basis for the consent.
>>
>> Nicholas

[jelv]

I may have missed this on here - but there's an interesting point been made on the BT forums:

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/th...essageID=19483

....and what about laptop users who connect from home via a Phormed ISP, thus acquiring the Webwise UID cookies, then connect from work via a non-Phormed ISP, thus bypassing the cookie stripper?

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 ----------

Opting out for websites

Following exchange of a number of emails with Emma Sanderson at bt.com I was invited to send her a list of the websites I wished to have excluded. I have just sent her the following reply:


Emma,

I have given your message some considerable thought.

1. I wish my websites to be excluded from profiling by Phorm or any similar organisation used by any ISP - it is therefore pointless just providing BT with URLs as this will not achieve the desired result.
2. The URLs of my websites will not be staying the same - I already have planned one sub-domain change. I am not prepared to have to notify any number of organisations every time a change is made.
3. I am not a BT user. If you were to place my website on a list of opted out websites I would have no way of verifying that this had been done and that it was effective. Likewise I would have no way of verifying a similar opt out for any other ISP utilising a similar system. I would also need to periodically check that the opt out was still effective - I am not prepared to do this.
4. I have placed a notice on the home page of my main website - it is your problem to determine how you will implement systems to observe the conditions of that notice. I will be placing similar notices on my other websites.
5. I will be adding client side code to my website which will detect illegally added or modified cookies. As a minimum this will alert the end user that this has happened and that they have a problem - it will also suggest that their ISP is the most likely cause.

I will therefore not be providing you with a list of URLs to be excluded.

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------

Ha,

I wonder if the stress of the current situation prompted this?

Out of Office AutoReply: [Fwd: Re: Preventing interception of website traffic by Webwise]

Please note that I am now on holiday until Tuesday 6th May.

My delegated authority is Ciaran Astin [Admin Edit:E-mail address deleted].

If you are unclear who to contact in my absence, or for access to my diary, then please contact Debbie Cooper [Admin Edit:-E-mail address removed].

Still, I cc'd Ben V. - he can deal with it!

[Portly_Giraffe]

Someone else to write to (on Richard Clayton's recommendation):

Ed Richards
Chief Executive Officer
OFCOM
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA

A sample letter is at:
http://www.inphormationdesk.org/Samp...y_Giraffe).pdf
linked from http://www.inphormationdesk.org/sampleletters.htm

[Ravenheart]

I wonder if this Lords proposal could help stop Phorm, we know they "claim" that they don't get private info, but AOL claimed the same. I'm thinking it could be used against the ISP's.

The House of Lords has proposed making it a criminal offence to disclose personal information intentionally or recklessly. The Lords passed an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, defeating the Government.

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

[unicus]

I had another reply from my MP the other day after I asked him about signing the EDM. He says he can't sign it because EDM's are for backbenchers (which I didn't know) but he will continue to raise his concerns and says "especially as I'm a PPS in BERR, the relevant department" which is a positive thing.

I know what BERR is (The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) but what does PPS stand for?

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

I have noticed that the amount of posts has reduced recently but that's not such a bad thing as having read all of this thread and just about everything else related to Phorm it infiltrated a dream the other night . And Alexander is partly to blame (sort of). In short I was trying in vain to to tell this guy some facts but he just kept on talking rubbish and I just couldn't get through to him. This guy was a shady character - one of those dodgy auction guys where they won't let you film - and he was wearing a trilby (like Alexander's spy guy) with Phorm on the front (like a seaside hat) do you get the picture? Not a pleasant dream.

[jelv]

Wikipedia: Parliamentary Private Secretary

[Florence]

Originally Posted by unicus

I had another reply from my MP the other day after I asked him about signing the EDM. He says he can't sign it because EDM's are for backbenchers (which I didn't know) but he will continue to raise his concerns and says "especially as I'm a PPS in BERR, the relevant department" which is a positive thing.

I know what BERR is (The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) but what does PPS stand for?

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

I have noticed that the amount of posts has reduced recently but that's not such a bad thing as having read all of this thread and just about everything else related to Phorm it infiltrated a dream the other night . And Alexander is partly to blame (sort of). In short I was trying in vain to to tell this guy some facts but he just kept on talking rubbish and I just couldn't get through to him. This guy was a shady character - one of those dodgy auction guys where they won't let you film - and he was wearing a trilby (like Alexander's spy guy) with Phorm on the front (like a seaside hat) do you get the picture? Not a pleasant dream.

Dream you mean nightmare :P

Ok just posted a rant on ISPreview to the news of BT trying to work without cookies, worrying since the cookies is what will help us know who is compromised on our websites.. Then had a PM from a member about it which made me laugh so going to copy and paste my reply here...

Well the BT new CEO was Retail CEO when the secret trails were held someone who was high on the technical side moved to phorm just after the trails and then we have labour in at the top of BT so would be more than one in the pie.

MPO for what it is worth is this is some scam either the government are helping it in as they wish to turn UK into the new Russia/China where FREEDOM is a banned word. Or Kent is scamming them all since every UK computer infected with a Trojan to make them work in the swarm when needed is worth £100 to websites that can infect the PC's that visit the site what is the BT, talktalk and VM customers computers worth to the swarm.

Since it has been already announced that the ISPs will have no control over the system that is snooping on us we don't know what is actually being gathered we only have the words from someone with past history in spyware/adware using rootkits that were hard to move from your PC once on. He avoids answering questions just keeps spouting sales pitch answers.

Patent on Phorm is so good this thing could actually log everything from your PC and ability to track you link IPs to your phorm number, all it takes is owner or one of his Russian scripter’s to update the right script telling the system what to harvest. No one would know what was being harvested and used or what it was being used for..

Would make another good spy thriller where the front shop looks legal while the spies worked behind the scenes unnoticed.

I will not have this system anywhere near my PC.

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by jelv

Opting out for websites

Following exchange of a number of emails with Emma Sanderson at bt.com I was invited to send her a list of the websites I wished to have excluded. I have just sent her the following reply:


Emma,

I have given your message some considerable thought.

1. I wish my websites to be excluded from profiling by Phorm or any similar organisation used by any ISP - it is therefore pointless just providing BT with URLs as this will not achieve the desired result.
2. The URLs of my websites will not be staying the same - I already have planned one sub-domain change. I am not prepared to have to notify any number of organisations every time a change is made.
3. I am not a BT user. If you were to place my website on a list of opted out websites I would have no way of verifying that this had been done and that it was effective. Likewise I would have no way of verifying a similar opt out for any other ISP utilising a similar system. I would also need to periodically check that the opt out was still effective - I am not prepared to do this.
4. I have placed a notice on the home page of my main website - it is your problem to determine how you will implement systems to observe the conditions of that notice. I will be placing similar notices on my other websites.
5. I will be adding client side code to my website which will detect illegally added or modified cookies. As a minimum this will alert the end user that this has happened and that they have a problem - it will also suggest that their ISP is the most likely cause.

I will therefore not be providing you with a list of URLs to be excluded.

Excellent, I can't wait for her reply! I totally agree with you. Putting our website URL's onto opt-out lists is not the way to go.

Ali.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

I wonder if this Lords proposal could help stop Phorm, we know they "claim" that they don't get private info, but AOL claimed the same. I'm thinking it could be used against the ISP's.



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

Yeah, this is basically taken from Scottish version. It was left out of the England/Wales version as far as I am aware so the House of Lords are trying to get it included.

I thinks that's the case anyway, I touched on it when I was reading up on the Computer Misuse Act which has amendments to Section 3 as a result of Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which cover similarly "reckless" behaviour.

Alexander Hanff

[manxminx]

BT Seeking to Drop Phorm Cookies

Adam Liversage, BT's chief press officer, has confirmed that the operator is seeking to avoid using cookies in its implementation of the controversial Phorm system.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpAuVukuVwRJunjrr.html

See also: BT to Test Phorm, Search for Cookie Alternatives

Well! Wow! This will really shake things up. Another BIG nail in Phorms coffin me thinks.

Ali