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

[jelv]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

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.

That is a very dangerous line to take!

Suppose the PIA pulls the rug out from under Kent's feet. You're giving Kent the perfect excuse to ignore it - "If those opposed to Phorm were prepared to ignore the PIA if they didn't agree with it's conclusions they must consider that it carries little weight, they can't have it both ways and now complain if we chose to ignore it".

I suggest we all stop speculating about what it will or will not say and wait until it is published.

---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

.. 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?

Have you any evidence that Phorm engaged in deception or dishonesty during the course of 80/20's work? That they did so during 2006 and 2007 I would suggest is irrelevant to the current relationship.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by jelv

Have you any evidence that Phorm engaged in deception or dishonesty during the course of 80/20's work? That they did so during 2006 and 2007 I would suggest is irrelevant to the current relationship.

If 80/20 were aware of Phorms trials in 2006/7, their ethics/privacy statements suggest they would not work with Phorm.

If they were not made aware, then their ethics/privacy statements suggest they would terminate their relationship if that were revealed during the course of their engagement.

I can't reconcile the two.

The only satisfactory conclusion that leaves their ethics/privacy statements intact is 80/20 immediately walking away from Phorm. I can't see that happening on the basis of past performance. So I conclude 80/20 ethics/privacy statement isn't worth the pixels its written in.

If they aren't bound by their own ethics/privacy commitments, what value is their PIA?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by R Jones

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.

Then we are in full agreement and whilst the information provided in the PIA may offer us, as concerned individuals, further incite into the proposals it will actually offer Phorm no defence of its product.
Should Phorm roll out PR based upon the upcoming PIA we can simply counter such arguments with the fact that the PIA has not complied with the guidelines set out by the ICO because it was never a possibility. That is a comfort to me.

I'm not for a monute saying we should dismiss the PIA out of hand but rather that we have a platform to counter Phorm should they try and use the final PIA and it's content as any kind of affirmation of their product.

I keep reading back what I say and it seems I'm playing devil's advocate which is not my intention. I'm just a concerned individual with possibly a little more than a layman's knowledge but having many years of dealing with areas of business that are considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the HO and MOD and given that I've spent the last 20 years dealing with the official secrets act pertaining to my contracts ( I'm also an ex serving NCO in the British army although that's not too relevant ) I just want to be sure that the things we say are factual and honest given the information we have at hand.

I'm 110% behind anything I believe is wrong and will fight to my own personal detriment. I just want to be sure that others in my team are fighting on the same principle and not just 'scaremongering' because if we allow ourselves to get into a slanging match based upon personal feeling then we will play right into the hands of Kent. I believe 'scaremongering' will be the basis of his defence against us and truth will be our counter.

Regards

Craig.

[smcicr]

to steal from ferris - this thread moves pretty fast, if you stop and read a post once in a while you'll miss it... so that (and the time) is my excuse for the scattergun approach of this post. (I'm comforted by the fact that it'll be about 5 pages deep in a few hours anyway )

- Simon Davies - don't know the man but I believe his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good.

- The PIA - I think that a lot of people have had high hopes for this document and what it would mean for a while now and so it's somewhat uncomfortable to have to entertain the possibility that it may be (by Simon's own admittal) incomplete in the sense that has been noted above. As has also been noted I think this does call into question the value of the PIA. I would welcome input from wiser and more awake people than myself on this but it seems to me that anything which has any sort of wiggle room (apologies for the technical terms here - please try and keep up...) where Phorm are concerned is a potential liability. To try and clarify, lets say the PIA is damning - would anyone be surprised if Phorm made something of the fact that it wasn't a 'full' PIA regardles of who commissioned it and when...

- I'm not convinced by the notion that ISP's are not making enough money and therefore need to consider things like Phorm to top things up. I don't recall being responsible for setting the price at which my ISP sells me my connection - does anyone else? They are, as has been pointed out, in the business of making money - if they are incompetent enough to price themselves into the ground as it were then i fail to see why my personal data should have to bend over to bail them out. If someone offers you a service (whatever it may be) for a certain price - that is what you expect them to do - provide it - for that price. If they can't manage on the amount they're charging then to be entirely facile about it - charge more.

- I miss Bill Hicks on an irregular basis - this is one of those times - there was a passing reference to this quote (http://sennoma.net/main/edits/Hicks.html) about a hundred pages back or something like that. ***Warning - the opinions on that page are expressed using language that some people may consider extremely appropriate - others may be horrified***)

- I don't consider Kent to be the devil / prince of darkness either - he doesn't dress well enough, is not even remotely close to being cunning enough (I mean have you seen the click interview - he is extremely close to chinning Alexander imho - it's clearly getting to him. a lot.) and let's face it - if YOU were some sort of violently powerful demonic being, would THAT be the human form you chose to take? So at best I reckon he's an Imp - iirc they're pretty low down the demonic hierarchy. Right I'm terribly sorry - a decidedly low brow personal attack - I'm off to flagellate myself severely.

I knew I should have just gone to bed... ah well.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by jelv

That is a very dangerous line to take!

Suppose the PIA pulls the rug out from under Kent's feet. You're giving Kent the perfect excuse to ignore it - "If those opposed to Phorm were prepared to ignore the PIA if they didn't agree with it's conclusions they must consider that it carries little weight, they can't have it both ways and now complain if we chose to ignore it".

I suggest we all stop speculating about what it will or will not say and wait until it is published.

---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

I'm afraid that we can't change the facts to suit our purpose. That would make us liars. As Kent is fond of having Simon trot out for him
"publish and be damned"
then we too have to accept the facts of the situation and if it works against our cause then so be it, change tack.
To be fair though arguing about the content of a PIA that is not valid will not suit anyone. It's not legally going to change anything so if it does not suit us we can dismiss it and go on. If it does not suit Phorm they can dismiss it. It will have no impact on the legality of the technology.

Remember a PIA is still only an opinion of people who feel they have the ability to make one under the terms of the ICO guidelines. I could make one myself given an invitation and cooperation.

[OldBear]

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

As stated by others, yes, it's longer. I would have liked for that to have been the version that went out instead of the short version on the original show. It's important that people do get to hear that there is a petition, that MPs and MEP and Lords are asking, and being asked, questions about this.

Well done, Alexander, you did good, mate. (ps. Love the Sontaran look )

I find it interesting that Kent insists that his crap should be on by default, yet attacks Microsoft for having the phishing filter in IE7 off by default, thus giving the user the choice of whether to use the technology or not. Guy's a twit!

OB

btw. Another here who is still not 100% convinced by Simon Davies, moreso after tonights revelation. Sorry, Simon.

[serial]

It's also a disgrace that BT sent a parliamentary briefing to all MPs dated 4th April that stated that 80/20 had carried out a PIA when it hadn't even been published. Had 8020 Thinking agreed to this briefing?

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Snip...
I'm 110% behind anything I believe is wrong and will fight to my own personal detriment. I just want to be sure that others in my team are fighting on the same principle and not just 'scaremongering' because if we allow ourselves to get into a slanging match based upon personal feeling then we will play right into the hands of Kent. I believe 'scaremongering' will be the basis of his defence against us and truth will be our counter.

Regards

Craig.

In an ideal world I would 110% agree with you. Unfortunately not everyone plays by your fine rules. You only have to look at the daily tabloids and the educational offerings.

Its what politics is about sadly and if you don't fight fire with fire, you can walk away with you head held high but with your tail between your defeated legs.

[Pasanonic]

can I just selfishly lighten the thread a moment and ask you to look at my latest work.
I take commissions for no monetary gain.

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/4...89214/SPM2.jpg

sorry. I'm back on track now

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by serial

It's also a disgrace that BT sent a parliamentary briefing to all MPs dated 4th April that stated that 80/20 had carried out a PIA when it hadn't even been published. Had 8020 Thinking agreed to this briefing?

serial, that's not the only lie that BT has spun.

Emma Sanderson told me in an email (full version, with headers available, should anyone wish it):

Webwise privacy standards have been verified by external auditor Ernst & Young, Privacy International has also carried out a Privacy Impact Assessment.

As you can see, blatant lie! Simon Davies should not be working with anyone who lies like this IMHO.

OB

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by warescouse

In an ideal world I would 110% agree with you. Unfortunately not everyone plays by your fine rules. You only have to look at the daily tabloids and the educational offerings.

Its what politics is about sadly and if you don't fight fire with fire, you can walk away with you head held high but with your tail between your defeated legs.

As a veteran of two tours Northern Ireland, two tours Bosnia and having the honour of being in the group that fired the first shots in the ground offence during the liberation of Kuwait you can trust me when I say that if my high moral stance fails I'm able to fight dirtier than them

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by OldBear

As stated by others, yes, it's longer. I would have liked for that to have been the version that went out instead of the short version on the original show. It's important that people do get to hear that there is a petition, that MPs and MEP and Lords are asking, and being asked, questions about this.

Well done, Alexander, you did good, mate. (ps. Love the Sontaran look )

I find it interesting that Kent insists that his crap should be on by default, yet attacks Microsoft for having the phishing filter in IE7 off by default, thus giving the user the choice of whether to use the technology or not. Guy's a twit!

OB

btw. Another here who is still not 100% convinced by Simon Davies, moreso after tonights revelation. Sorry, Simon.

I Agree totally, and sadly my current thoughts on 80/20 are about 40/60, but I am truthfully hoping to be proved wrong as I quite like Simon on his past history and achievements. Sadly also I also felt very similar feelings for Mr T. Blair but he managed to get somehow lost in transit and it changed my viewpoint.

Alex hats off to you, the latest (longer click) video is a much better fly on the wall overall picture. My full respect to you.
As an aside, I knew my own haircut would catch on eventually to become a fashion statement :-)

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by warescouse

As an aside, I knew my own haircut would catch on eventually to become a fashion statement :-)

oh pish. Some of us oldies have been sporting that look for years. ( mainly from design rather than choice)
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[serial]

If anyone wants a copy of the scan of the 4th April BT MP briefing then PM me.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

oh pish. Some of us oldies have been sporting that look for years. ( mainly from design rather than choice)
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Better looking than I!