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

[Paddy1]

Surely the removal of the cookie based opt-out raises many more questions.

If there is no id reference on the client side then how do they have a unique reference to associate with the anonymous profile? If this reference is stored server side, then it must be associated with the user profile in some way, be it based on IP address or modem mac id. I refuse to believe that they will be unable to make the link between the user and the phorm id, or that they will refrain from doing so.

If there are multiple user accounts on the home pc and no client side identifier then how do they distinguish between different users on the computer? Do this give rise to the risk of wife surfs up a few divorce sites and hubby gets ads for divorce lawyers type scenario? To my mind, they cannot avoid this without a client side reference based on user account. Where are they going to store it? Do browsers have access to the registry? Or rather, does the browser allow external access to the registry?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by manxminx

BT Seeking to Drop Phorm Cookies

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

Hmmm.... methinks BT are now starting to realise there are some very serious legal concerns here.

That's serious legal concerns Kent and any Phorm PR drones who might be viewing this anonymously, not frivolous.

[wecpc]

I have just received no less than 3 emails from the office of my MP Derek Wyatt.

In the first it was explained that he is unable to sign the EDM as he is PPS to The Rt. Hon. Margaret Hodge MP and incumbents of such posts are prohibited from so doing, during their tenure. The rest of the email was to inform me of recent developments about PHORM he was tracking on my behalf one of which was the recent important statement from the Information Commissioner, which he enclosed the link but we are already aware of that.

The second email was about a meeting him and the PHORM CEO which was regrettably cancelled and, instead, he had a conference call with the relevant personnel at the company and he attached a zipped demo from PHORM which I will not unzip.

The final email was to send me these links one of them being the Earl of Northesk's question - the first one - on the second link.

EDM: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...52&SESSION=891

PQ: http://www.publications.parliament.u...001.htm_spmin0

At least it appears something may be happening as I thought it was getting a little quiet at the moment and with PHORM shares starting to rise again.

After having written 2 letters to the BT Chairman's Office, the first on the 28th March regarding their position with PHORM and the second on the 17th April demanding my MAC because of no response. I then received on Saturday just an acknowledgement from the first letter (4 weeks later), so I sent 2 emails, one to Sir Michael Rake and the other to the administrator to the Chairman from their recent letter as the email link on their letter did not work (great for a communications company with dead email links), demanding an immediate response. The following day I received a call from the BT's Chairman's Office whilst I was out explaining that he was actioning my demand for my MAC so at least one of my emails worked. So it will soon be goodbye to BT.

Colin

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Surely the removal of the cookie based opt-out raises many more questions.

The cookie based opt-out is a flawed idea from the start because as I understand it, your browsing data still gets profiled/mirrored/processed to some degree by the Phorm system. We only have Phorm's assurances that nothing is done with or to that data.

To my mind there is only one valid and acceptable opt out implementation - a network based one where customers' data goes nowhere near any system such as Phorm.

That's what I've repeatedly pressed for in my correspondence with Virgin Media and would urge all BT, VM and TT customers to press for as well.

[BetBlowWhistler]

Something interesting for you to ponder..

BT have been looking at ways to implement this technology without the use of cookies for several weeks now. For them to say that are still looking at ways to achieve it simply says they haven't found a way yet, and I think I know why.

It can't be done without re-structuring their ADSL infrastructure. Want to take bets on whether they do that?

If the 10,000 random test users can't be identified (by their own admission) how are they going to ever be able to differentiate between an opted-in customer and an opted-out customer without DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) for something that identifies them ? Even if they could achieve this (I can think of one way but it's severely flawed - I'm not going to say it as they'll probably try it or at least use it for spin purposes) how are they going to re-direct the users data-streams accordingly so one goes to the profiler and the other doesn't without breaking RIPA?

I design networks for a living, and whilst I'm not 100% familiar with the DSLAM;s etc, I am very familiar with the IP infrastructure at BT and I say it can't be done without something major changing in BT Retails' network which will cost them more than they would gain from this deal.

Their best bet to get this thing off the ground is to get the law changed to allow them to do it. uk.gov hasn't been saying much recently has it?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Florence

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...

last night i watched the Dispatches, "The Mobile Phone Rip-Off" and it seems theres is infact a Govt official to champion the business in the EU.

this will tie into the mobile phorming of the new mobile data in the future it seems obvious to me at least...

The government is also singled out by the show, with one section pledging to ‘reveal how the government sided with the mobile networks against the British consumer.’

i cant find the video on the Channel 4 as yet and i didnt look on VOD (i dont use it much if ever...) and you need to see that as the news coverage so far hasnt mentioned the Govt minister part of the show or the EU ministers conmments on that part.....

this Phorm lark could be seen as an even bigger scandle if it turns out as the ISPs want it to happen and there seems to be unnamed as yet people in the Govt that want to help push this through... the same way as the mobile networks scandle, although this time we seem to have slowed its progress before it became widspread for now.

after all, the dispatches also mentions the fact the mobile networks are looking to the new WiMax wireless data charging
for their next even larger cash cow compaired to texting and implys thats why the Govt are pushing the sale of the analogue airwaves to these networks rather than give some back to the TV networks and allow DVB-T more leg room for far more more expansion.

we already know theres work afoot to try and install wireless phorm like system in the Orange mobile stories recently on ElReg, so we need to keep a very close eye on all this inter-related forward movement in the UK industry for a few months and years yet...

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...ripoff/2081247
"
Dispatches uncovers secrets about the mobile industry they would rather consumers not know.

The Mobile Phone Rip-Off

Business is booming for the mobile phone industry - the 66 million mobile phones in use in Britain outnumber the population by 10 million and netted profits of more than £13 billion last year.

But as profits soar, so have consumer complaints - reaching record levels and making it one of the most complained-about industries."
...
"Barnett reveals how the influence of the networks reaches beyond the high street - stretching to the heart of government.

Confidential documents, first-hand testimony and emails reveal how the networks have launched powerful lobbying campaigns, securing the support of the government which has sided with the industry over some of the more exorbitant costs imposed on customers."

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by wecpc

{ snip }
The second email was about a meeting him and the PHORM CEO which was regrettably cancelled and, instead, he had a conference call with the relevant personnel at the company and he attached a zipped demo from PHORM which I will not unzip.

Eek. I don't blame you for refusing to unzip that attachment. I wouldn't unzip any attachment that originated from Phorm either. In fact, if it weren't for the involvement of Simon Davies, I wouldn't touch the "professionally" recorded video footage either.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

The cookie based opt-out is a flawed idea from the start because as I understand it, your browsing data still gets profiled/mirrored/processed to some degree by the Phorm system. We only have Phorm's assurances that nothing is done with or to that data.

To my mind there is only one valid and acceptable opt out implementation - a network based one where customers' data goes nowhere near any system such as Phorm.

That's what I've repeatedly pressed for in my correspondence with Virgin Media and would urge all BT, VM and TT customers to press for as well.

totally agree with you on this infact no phorm at all would make it so we knew we were not being sneaked onto the phorm network my trust in the large companies has made me move to a smaller ISP..

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

Something interesting for you to ponder..

BT have been looking at ways to implement this technology without the use of cookies for several weeks now. For them to say that are still looking at ways to achieve it simply says they haven't found a way yet, and I think I know why.

It can't be done without re-structuring their ADSL infrastructure. Want to take bets on whether they do that?

If the 10,000 random test users can't be identified (by their own admission) how are they going to ever be able to differentiate between an opted-in customer and an opted-out customer without DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) for something that identifies them ? Even if they could achieve this (I can think of one way but it's severely flawed - I'm not going to say it as they'll probably try it or at least use it for spin purposes) how are they going to re-direct the users data-streams accordingly so one goes to the profiler and the other doesn't without breaking RIPA?

I design networks for a living, and whilst I'm not 100% familiar with the DSLAM;s etc, I am very familiar with the IP infrastructure at BT and I say it can't be done without something major changing in BT Retails' network which will cost them more than they would gain from this deal.

Their best bet to get this thing off the ground is to get the law changed to allow them to do it. uk.gov hasn't been saying much recently has it?

Actually it is perfectly feasible for people who want to be involved in the Phorm "system" to have a flag added to their user account details which will allow them to be assigned IPs from specific blocks of IPs which are routed through Phorm. If the flag is not set (it should be disabled by default) then the customer gets assigned an IP from the non Phorm blocks and routed directly to the Internet without going near Phorm's kit.

It is trivial in many respects, needs an alteration to a database table and trivial changes to some config files. It would keep all non conphormists away from the Phorm kit.

Of course it would still not be legal because they are still required under RIPA to get consent from all parties regarding interception, then there is the Fraud Act, PECR, Computer Misuse Act, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and Torts (Interference with Goods) Act on top of all that which all require consent as well.

So they may be able to fix the legal issues from the perspective of the ISPs customers, but I fail to see any way they can navigate the legal obstacles from the perspective of the rights of content owners.

Oh and

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

Something interesting for you to ponder..
{snip}

I you are who I think you might be, we all owe you a considerable debt of gratitude.

[Florence]

Well seems I need a little help on ISPreview guys to make more aware of the pitfalls of phorm.
News post just up http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpAuZEZZEVlsbyeKD.html

Need links to the video posting and might be worth plugging Alexanders hard work for thjose who are good readers.. I can't post links to this thread on ISPreview since Mark classes that as directing members away from ISPreview and in this case I think we need a presence on ISPreview also.

[jelv]

I wonder if the "cookieless" system will just be for the opt-in opt-out aspect only. Having read the description of how the Phorm system works I can't see how they could remove the cookies containing the UIDs without a very, very significant redesign of the whole system.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

Something interesting for you to ponder..

BT have been looking at ways to implement this technology without the use of cookies for several weeks now. For them to say that are still looking at ways to achieve it simply says they haven't found a way yet, and I think I know why.

It can't be done without re-structuring their ADSL infrastructure. Want to take bets on whether they do that?

If the 10,000 random test users can't be identified (by their own admission) how are they going to ever be able to differentiate between an opted-in customer and an opted-out customer without DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) for something that identifies them ? Even if they could achieve this (I can think of one way but it's severely flawed - I'm not going to say it as they'll probably try it or at least use it for spin purposes) how are they going to re-direct the users data-streams accordingly so one goes to the profiler and the other doesn't without breaking RIPA?

I design networks for a living, and whilst I'm not 100% familiar with the DSLAM;s etc, I am very familiar with the IP infrastructure at BT and I say it can't be done without something major changing in BT Retails' network which will cost them more than they would gain from this deal.

Their best bet to get this thing off the ground is to get the law changed to allow them to do it. uk.gov hasn't been saying much recently has it?

I will copy and paste this onto ISPreview since it brings into play the point that any alterations to what phormn planned could be to costly so it looks like thye will try to force a law change which will be another step into the dark for the public of UK and our freedom of speach, action and choice...

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by jelv

I wonder if the "cookieless" system will just be for the opt-in opt-out aspect only. Having read the description of how the Phorm system works I can't see how they could remove the cookies containing the UIDs without a very, very significant redesign of the whole system.

Yes it would be for non opt in customers only. If customers have given their illphormed consent then there are no issues with the customer with regards the cookies. There are still issues under RIPA, PECR, CMA, FA, CDPA etc. as I mentioned above.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

I will copy and paste this onto ISPreview since it brings into play the point that any alterations to what phormn planned could be to costly so it looks like thye will try to force a law change which will be another step into the dark for the public of UK and our freedom of speach, action and choice...

A law change is not a good idea either. It will alienate the public and privacy groups as well as political representatives/bodies in the EU and UK. It is likely the House of Lords would try to delay the process as long as possible too, and they would need to unratify (if that is even possible?) several EU Regulations/Directives and Conventions or they would most certainly be open to action from the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights/European Court of Justice.

The timeframe for legislative changes would be significant and BT etc. need to roll this out as soon as possible before someone does come up with a competing "legal" (or less illegal) model and Phorm+Investors+Partners end up with egg on their face and an unsellable product.

Alexander Hanff

[jelv]

I wonder if the opt-in will make sure the user is able to make a fully informed consent? As in:

"I wish to break the law by inciting BT/Phorm to intercept communications between my browser and a website when I visit a website where the owner has explicitly prohibited such interception".