Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 344

Florence · 30-04-2008, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

Just passing through and I echo Florence - it had been about a week since PhormUKPRteam had logged in. I was wondering where you were, there had been a marked silence from you here and elsewhere.

Seems they have been gaged or just become spies only.. Shame...

OF1975 · 30-04-2008, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Seems they have been gaged or just become spies only.. Shame...

Either that or they were given an ASBO for their appalling spinning and obfuscating

jelv · 30-04-2008, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

We do have a body to deal with this maybe we should now bring in the monopolies commission since if all ISPs are forced to take this webwise coz our labour government want to become the new russia and know where what and who we speak to 24/7. Then Phorm/webwise will hold the monopoly which is bad for trading in the free world.

Is a referral to the monopolies commission a runner? If they go ahead with BT, should they be allowed to do the same with the other major ISPs? Consumers should have a reasonable choice of ISPs who do or do not use Webwise.

vicz · 30-04-2008, 14:22

Yes you have 'New Labour Choice', ie take it or leave it.

Dephormation · 30-04-2008, 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

This is what worries me too. The one thing I have heard nothing from BT about, is the question of giving webmasters information about how to selectively block Webwise access with a robots.txt user-agent string. They have absolutely ignored that question, and insisted that the only thing they will respect is a total robots.txt ban on robots.It's not good enough, both legally and morally. Even looking at it on a purely PR basis,their stance can be made to look really grubby if we focus on how poorly they compare with search engines.

Be very careful here. You risk complying with a business model K*nt wants to impose on us.
A content providers explicit consent, as a party to a communication, is required in advance for interception to be legal. Its not up to you to take technical measures to prevent them breaking the law (but of course if you can I'd recommend you do anyway). Complying with the law is their problem.
Its up to Phorm/BT to make their business operations legal. Not you.
In particular, if you explicitly deny them consent for interception, the law is clear. All you have to do in that instance is put the appropriate words on your pages (even as an html comment). Any interception of your transmissions is a crime if you can show they did not have your consent.
I'm working on a script that will allow content owners to capture detailed evidence for a RIPA complaint if content provider consent for interception is ignored.
Pete. (IANAL)

CaptJamieHunter · 30-04-2008, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by OF1975

Either that or they were given an ASBO for their appalling spinning and obfuscating

Perhaps some poor hassled county cricketer got tired of being told his spin was worse than Phorm's so he took them to court under the Trades Descriptions Act...

But there is a serious point here - Phorm's PR and spin machine has been unsusually quiet recently. Come on guys, what's eating you?

Rchivist · 30-04-2008, 14:48

Just posted over on beta forums - compare and contrast these two reports about the SAME news article featuring Ben Camm-Jones, news editor of Web-User magazine

http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk/ne..._18573918.html with its strap-line "Phorm could be a good thing" and

http://www.equimedia.co.uk/Cookies-n...2008-04-29.htm
with its strap-line "Cookies not a great source of concern".

They are well worth a visit just to see how different the spin is from the two reporters. The first suggests that Camm-Jones is in favour of Phorm, the second suggests he is comparing Phorm's model UNfavourably with Google's cookie system from a privacy point of view.

Thanks to Peter N over on BT Beta forums. I can't locate the original comments from Ben Camm-Jones in the online version of Web-User magazine but it seems to be focussing on the Phorm cf Google element of Mr Kent Ertugrul's recent spin, mentioned in my post above.

AlexanderHanff · 30-04-2008, 16:09

I am going to be fairly quiet for the next couple of days as I need to finish up some work here. Only 4 weeks left until the end of my degree and I have 8 pieces of work to finish up. Dissertation is due in (bound) on the 9th so it will be finished tonight.

I will still be keeping an eye on things and answering questions, engaging the relevant bodies etc.

Alexander Hanff

Rchivist · 30-04-2008, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Be very careful here. You risk complying with a business model K*nt wants to impose on us.
snip

Pete. (IANAL)

Point taken, but I'm not sure there's much harm in pointing out the fallacies in Kent's comparison of Phorm with Google. And it IS strange that they won't give us a user-agent string. I would have thought if they were trying to use that as an leverage argument for Phorm/Webwise's legality on the basis of presumed Webmaster consent if we didn't use the user-agent string, they would have done that a long time ago. It would seem there are two things they are worried about - one being the whole legality issue in the first place, and the second, being forced into an opt-IN model thus messing up all the bean-counter arithmetic of the advertising revenue model.

Dephormation · 30-04-2008, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

I'm not sure there's much harm in pointing out the fallacies in Kent's comparison of Phorm with Google. And it IS strange that they won't give us a user-agent string.

I think this tells you a little about the ethics of their organisation, but probably a lot more about the insanity in their methods.

They can't present a different user-agent string; its your requests and your user-agent they are meddling with. They are pretending to be you, to obtain keywords from web sites by deception (Alex H, I guess you might be thinking what I'm thinking? ).

As for the robots.txt. Lets suppose that when Phorm request your robots.txt they could look for a Phorm specific instruction. There's no reason why they couldn't. They simply don't want to. Their business model is already in peril due to user opt in. Giving web sites a way to stop Phorm isn't in their plan.

I'm sure, their whole business is on the brink of an abyss.

Either that or we're all about to get sold as spyware fodder by HMG and Regulators.

AlexanderHanff · 30-04-2008, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I think this tells you a little about the ethics of their organisation, but probably a lot more about the insanity in their methods.

They can't present a different user-agent string; its your requests and your user-agent they are meddling with. They are pretending to be you, to obtain keywords from web sites by deception (Alex H, I guess you might be thinking what I'm thinking? ).

As for the robots.txt. Lets suppose that when Phorm request your robots.txt they could look for a Phorm specific instruction. There's no reason why they couldn't. They simply don't want to. Their business model is already in peril due to user opt in. Giving web sites a way to stop Phorm isn't in their plan.

I'm sure, their whole business is on the brink of an abyss.

Either that or we're all about to get sold as spyware fodder by HMG and Regulators.

Even if they do give us a user-agent string, it doesn't mean they will obey robots.txt they could choose to completely ignore it.

Alexander Hanff

SMHarman · 30-04-2008, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Even if they do give us a user-agent string, it doesn't mean they will obey robots.txt they could choose to completely ignore it.

Alexander Hanff

Well the user agent is the browser you are using to view the site.
This links back to if you are using a non phorm compliant browser such as safari it cannot profile.
What other user agent can they send?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post4626.html

30-04-2008, 19:09

Anyone going to the official launch of 80/20 Thinking next month?

Anyone know what the two important and exciting global initiatives that the company will manage over coming months are? I guess unlikely as they have not been announced.

Wonder if one of the two global inititiatives has anything to do with spying on internet users by ISPs using Phorm and/or Webwise. What are the chances of that do you think?

I see Ray Stanton, global head of business continuity, security & governance at BT will speak...

http://www.8020thinking.com/events.html

Hey, wonder if the the entire event will be recorded and placed unedited on the Web shortly afterwards? Will that take the same amount of time, less or more? (Sorry Simon)

Anyone seen the PIA yet? Can't find any trace of it, but I did see that someone said it was out today... Where?!

Hank

Rchivist · 30-04-2008, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I think this tells you a little about the ethics of their organisation, but probably a lot more about the insanity in their methods.

They can't present a different user-agent string; its your requests and your user-agent they are meddling with. They are pretending to be you, to obtain keywords from web sites by deception (Alex H, I guess you might be thinking what I'm thinking? ).

As for the robots.txt. Lets suppose that when Phorm request your robots.txt they could look for a Phorm specific instruction. There's no reason why they couldn't. They simply don't want to. Their business model is already in peril due to user opt in. Giving web sites a way to stop Phorm isn't in their plan.

I'm sure, their whole business is on the brink of an abyss.

Either that or we're all about to get sold as spyware fodder by HMG and Regulators.

I understand the first point, and the problems it presents. But the second point - does that mean it is a good idea or a BAD idea to press them about their attitude to robots.txt and an anti-Phorm statement in it? Bearing in mind your earlier caution, which I understand, doesn't this suggest they are a bit vulnerable on this issue?

AlexanderHanff · 30-04-2008, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Well the user agent is the browser you are using to view the site.
This links back to if you are using a non phorm compliant browser such as safari it cannot profile.
What other user agent can they send?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post4626.html

One of the issues raised by Dr Clayton in his analysis on FIPR's web site was that if Phorm were to provide a unique user-agent content owners could add them to robots.txt specifying which (if any) areas of the web site they are permitted to access.

Of course Phorm don't want to release a unique user-agent because it just devalues their product even more if they give content owners a way to block them.

This of course follows the Opt-Out route instead of the Opt-In route (which is required under law) so there is a question of whether it is a necessary step but it does offer a limited compromise as Phorm have stated they will adhere to robots.txt

My argument is that any Opt-Out solution people agree to only helps to create an attitude that Opt-Out is ok when in fact the Law requires Opt-In.

The point I made above is that robots.txt is not a control mechanism in and of itself, it is an honour based rule set which can simply be ignored if Phorm so choose. It will not enforce access restrictions, we only have Phorm's word that they will adhere to it; which frankly is not good enough for me.

Alexander Hanff