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

[vicz]

This is really good: Charles Arthur grills K*nt http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...s.arthur.phorm

(Found on Badphorm, apologies if I missed it ref'd earlier)

[mark777]

Originally Posted by vicz

This is really good: Charles Arthur grills K*nt http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...s.arthur.phorm

(Found on Badphorm, apologies if I missed it ref'd earlier)

Unfortunately it's March 11th. But it does go to show how far things have moved.

Not even Kent would try to swing that now. "RIPA is not designed for advertising".

HMG is reeling in the polls. The Home Secretary is in a marginal seat.

Kick 'em.

[vicz]

Yeah I spotted that, somehow it passed me by, must have been doing my day job. Good reminder though of some key stuff - his refusal to see the distinction between Simon D and PI, squirming over his spyware past, the dodgy stock dealings "all these important people wouldn't do anything unlawful" - never heard of Enron then? - and the fact that phorm is virtually a joint development with BT 'over several years'. Cracking stuff!

[serial]

Hi guys, just popping on to have a little rant as Simon is back:

<rant>
Regarding the meeting video, when you let us know that we could bring cameras etc I thought fantastic, I dug out my old cam, hadn't been used in a year and wasn't working. I checked with a few friends, and no luck. Was going to send a message around on the work intranet requesting a camera when I saw Simons message:
"You may have seen that we're filming the whole event for the Web. Unedited."

Cool, I'll not bother then I thought.

Now you say that it wasn't 8020, it was Phorm who were responsible for the filming. I almost smashed my monitor when I saw that. No wonder the delay, there better be not a single cut from either camera when it is released.

I don't care if the audio is slightly out of sync or a bit crackly, I want 100% unedited footage from both cameras.

Everyone who couldn't make it deserves to see this in full unedited as promised.
</rant>

Sorry for popping on just to rant but this made me extremely angry.

[manxminx]

I am Angry. Actually, I'm fuming. Not only have BT been telling lies, not only have Phorm been telling lies, now 80/20 Thinking have been telling us lies.

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

You may have seen that we're filming the whole event for the Web. Unedited.

From the 80/20 website:

Please note: we have arranged for this meeting to be professionally filmed. The entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly.

And now the truth has come out:

Just to reiterate what Alexander reported, 80/20 had no role in recording the public meeting

Why did you tell us that you were arranging the recording? Why did you tell us that you would be recording the meeting? Why have you been telling us lies???

Why has Simon not apologised for lying to us? (he has apologised for his absence of late, so he does know how!)

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Depends whether you can trust us to do the right thing.

Trust? Sorry Simon, but any trust I had in you has vanished.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Of course there is still a chance the video will be released. [ . . . ] Thanks for the update Simon.
Alexander Hanff

What's this, Alexander believing that Phorm will do the right thing? Alexander having faith in Phorm?

Thanks for the update ????? Thank you Simon for telling us you lied? That makes it alright does it?

Does it heck!

Simon, you said that "the entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly". Well, we're still waiting. I couldn't care less who recorded it, or what your excuses are, I'm looking to you to fulfil your promise.

I'll leave the last word to Alexander:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff to Simon from 80/20

I am deeply disappointed in you and I am sure I am not the only one.

Alexander Hanff

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by serial

Hi guys, just popping on to have a little rant as Simon is back:

<rant>
Regarding the meeting video, when you let us know that we could bring cameras etc I thought fantastic, I dug out my old cam, hadn't been used in a year and wasn't working. I checked with a few friends, and no luck. Was going to send a message around on the work intranet requesting a camera when I saw Simons message:
"You may have seen that we're filming the whole event for the Web. Unedited."

Cool, I'll not bother then I thought.

Now you say that it wasn't 8020, it was Phorm who were responsible for the filming. I almost smashed my monitor when I saw that. No wonder the delay, there better be not a single cut from either camera when it is released.

I don't care if the audio is slightly out of sync or a bit crackly, I want 100% unedited footage from both cameras.

Everyone who couldn't make it deserves to see this in full unedited as promised.
</rant>

Sorry for popping on just to rant but this made me extremely angry.

this made me extremely angry





Carm down serial! We know you're angry but threatening to kill Kent is a step too far dude

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Just to reiterate what Alexander reported, 80/20 had no role in recording the public meeting. Our job was simply to organise the venue and speakers. I'm afraid I can't tell you any more about the video or any schedule for its release or otherwise.

You are joking of course.

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

We do need to have the PIA finalised soon

Given the paragraph above I think I can save you the effort. I wouldn't bother if I were you. Put down your pen and walk away.

Your first report didn't even reference the Phorm DPA registration. DPA registration is not required if a firm does not process personal information. Phorms DPA registration purpose 2 "Advertising Marketing & Public Relations For Others" states that data subjects are "COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND CLIENTS END USERS" and data classes are "Personal Details, Financial Details, Goods or Services Provided" and recipients may include "Traders in personal data" transfers "Worldwide".

But you didn't refer to that in your first report.

You allowed Kent Ertugrul to claim an endorsement from PI for days without contradiction.

You arranged a PR event for Phorm and told the people attending you would publish the film.

You owe us an apology and an explanation.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by jca111

I'm afraid I just don't agree! I love what your doing, I really do - but we obviously just don't see eye-to-eye on this one. Sorry Alex.

I trust 80/20 to do a good job on the PIA, and I want to see the finished product. Hang in there Simon.

---------- Post added at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was yesterday at 23:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Makes perfect sense to me.

snip

I reiterate though that this current proposal by Phorm is a non-starter and if the PIA says anything different I expect I shall be the first to cry foul. I especially will be getting my ICO PIA handbook out and requiring answers to questions regarding the framework of the PIA, the initial screening process and especially asking to see that all ICO criteria for a full scale ( which is required seeing as this is a high risk privacy area ) PIA were rigorously adhered to. ( something I doubt as I have seen no mention of any polling of the people most affected by this. i.e. Us, the ISP consumers.

I certainly feel that the stakeholder analysis criteria will not have been fully met.

regards

Craig.

Simon already pointed out in the interim privacy report that a proper PIA was not in fact possible, owing to the late stage at which he was asked to do it. He points out that he will be following a PIA methodology, but for a proper PIA he should have been in there at the beginning, not after the technology had all already been designed and set up. He then gives a list of all the bad things that result from leaving the PIA till late in the process. Most of those bad things have indeed happened including frantic retrophitting of the technology by BT and a massive loss of trust by the public.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I trust 80/20 to do a good job on the PIA, and I want to see the finished product. Hang in there Simon.

I'm afraid I don't. Considering we don't have a single example of a consumer being contacted for their opinion on the effects of such a project on their internet experience.

"The following is a checklist of potential stakeholders whose interests may need to be considered.

* The organisation itself.
* Segments of the organisation that have a significant interest in the matter.
* Participating organisations.
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Information Commissioner's Office, but possibly others as well.
* The intended subjects of the project, which may include:
o incorporated business enterprises, of various sizes, in various roles;
o incorporated associations, of various sizes, in various roles, and
o individuals generally, in various roles, including:

as consumers or clients
as citizens
as employees and contractors
as small businesspeople
as people subject to regulation by government

* Possibly, the general public.
* Possibly, providers of relevant technologies and services."

I'd be very surprised if these criteria have been met and that's without me getting started on the responsibility of the people doing the PIA and their qualification for doing so.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I've said all along that targeted advertising will come.

Disagree.

The behavioural targetting model relies on the passive consent of the publishers.

If I don't want my content scanned by Phorm for keywords (why would I? I get no benefit from my readers being enticed away by keywords derived from my content) then I will act to prevent that.

I think it is possible the Government will eventually prohibit this technology. It might be legal elsewhere, but it certainly shouldn't be legal in this country without the consent of the content copyright owner being respected.

Otherwise its simply theft. It a disincentive to content creation and innovation. And that's not good for an economy.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Simon already pointed out in the interim privacy report that a proper PIA was not in fact possible, owing to the late stage at which he was asked to do it. He points out that he will be following a PIA methodology, but for a proper PIA he should have been in there at the beginning, not after the technology had all already been designed and set up. He then gives a list of all the bad things that result from leaving the PIA till late in the process. Most of those bad things have indeed happened including frantic retrophitting of the technology by BT and a massive loss of trust by the public.

So you admit then that any subsequent PIA is flawed by the nature of the fact it comes too late in the process?
I'd suggest then that the PIA whenever we see it is not worth the paper it is printed on and we as consumers have every right to ignore the findings.
There are strict guidelines for such important documents and if they are not met, either through impossibility or inadequacy then it results in nothing more than a statement of opinion.

---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Disagree.

The behavioural targetting model relies on the passive consent of the publishers.

If I don't want my content scanned by Phorm for keywords (why would I? I get no benefit from my readers being enticed away by keywords derived from my content) then I will act to prevent that.

I think it is possible the Government will eventually prohibit this technology. It might be legal elsewhere, but it certainly shouldn't be legal in this country without the consent of the content copyright owner being respected.

Otherwise its simply theft. It a disincentive to content creation and innovation. And that's not good for an economy.

I think I'm being misunderstood. I stand by the belief that this is an area of marketing that can and will only grow. I reiterate the belief that it will not happen inside of the currently proposed technology which you go on to describe.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Extended Web Interview on BBC Click???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/7380384.stm

Can someone tell me if that is less edited that the version in the show? Their flash break my browser.

Alexander Hanff

It's got more - it has your follow up to the "scaremongering" criticism with details about House of Lords etc. and the petition - a very nice use of the 12,000 statistic.

It has the discussion about Car and Fashion magazine adverts and Kent's claim that ISP's will get cheaper, and your rebuttal of there being no evidence of this.

Well done Alex!

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

We do need to have the PIA finalised soon.

.. and I forgot to mention the secret trials in 2006/7.

From your own ethics statement

"Any instance of deception or dishonesty by an 80/20 client during the course of our work will result in the termination of that relationship"

From your own privacy policy

"We strictly limit the processing of your personal information, and work only with other organizations who do the same."

Given you haven't terminated your relationship with Phorm, should we conclude they made you aware of those secret trials before your engagement commenced?

Or are you ignoring your own ethics statements and privacy policies?

If you were aware of those trials, or you ignore your own ethics... what value do you add to this?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

So you admit then that any subsequent PIA is flawed by the nature of the fact it comes too late in the process?

Yes, that's made very clear in the interim report - page 4.

However, despite our positive findings regarding Phorm’s
approach to privacy protection we are disappointed that the
company has not benefited from an earlier implementation of a
PIA. While we are encouraged that Ernst & Young were engaged
to perform a privacy examination, the full scope and influence of
an “early intervention� PIA has not been possible. At this late stage
of product development it will not be possible to fully exploit the
value of a PIA.

[Florence]

The fact that this recording hasn't been posted for the public to see is enough proof that you cannot trust phorm managment to do the right thing.. Suppose they had one chance to gain some respect and they blew it..