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

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Done

Can people post the Digg link to other sites they are active on which are covering this issue as well. The extended web edition is much better than the broadcast edition so we need to try and make sure people are aware of it and see it. Encourage your friends to sign up for Digg and digg the story.

Alexander Hanff

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

One thing that I'm not clear on here - is there any obligation on Phorm to actually publish the final PIA in full? Presumably, as they have commissioned it, they will own the copyright?

The ICO don't go so far as to say MUST be published, but strongly hint that it should be.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...26-report.html

A PIA Report should be written with the expectation that it will be published, or at least be widely distributed. If so, the report can fulfil the functions listed above: accountability, post-implementation review, audit, input into future iterations of the PIA, and background information for people conducting PIAs in the future.

Some of the information gathered during a PIA process may be subject to security or commercial sensitivities. In such cases, it may be appropriate for the detailed information to be in confidential, or closed, appendices. Such information suppression, however, needs to be limited to only that which is justified. Sufficient information needs to be included within the PIA Report to ensure that the arguments and assessments are complete, informative and comprehensible

[declanh]

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Like hell I am!
All I've done is ask that people consider the implications of wildly (by which I mean, in an exaggerated, unwarranted or unreasonable manner) criticising the report, the methodology or the authors before publication because that will surely be used to denigrate it's conclusions.
(The quoted post suggested that the PIA would be of little or no value and that 80/20's ethics weren't "worth the pixels its written in" (that I presumed to be black humour) hence my description of it as derision.)


If I suggested that it's not a good idea to shoot the messenger or declare that the message has no value before you find out if it's good news, would it make more sense?

Now I am insulted. And I mean really insulted.
At first I was going to correct your misunderstanding of my posts but now I am wild and unreasonable?

At no point recently have I derided Simon Davies or 80/20 thinking. Nowhere have I suggested that their reputation is anything less than it is.

At no point have I speculated on the contents of the upcoming PIA and then discussed content I could not possibly know anything about.

I have simply stated my view that given there is a specific framework in place for the management of such tasks I fail to see how certain areas of the process could have been followed and that If upon publication of that PIA it proves to be the case that certain criteria have not been met ( and given the subsequent information posted it would appear this will be the case ) then questions should be asked about the whole of the document regarding the screening process, the criteria followed and the people who have authored the document and their qualifications for doing such a task.

I was pointing out areas that may need to be questioned so that anyone concerned about it might know where to look to start that questioning.

And yes. I did use the term "not worth the paper it is printed upon" but if you bother to understand the context I said that I would suggest that in response to R Jones pointing out that 80/20 had already stated that the PIA was started too late and they were disappointed with that. If you can't do it properly then what value does it hold? I think that is a valid question.

Seriously I just raised questions about something that I feel I have every right to question and to be accused of making wild accusations against people and their reputation just won't do.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

One thing that I'm not clear on here - is there any obligation on Phorm to actually publish the final PIA in full? Presumably, as they have commissioned it, they will own the copyright?

80/20 website front page says:
"A final version of the PIA will be published by the end of April 2008"

I'm sure both statements were made in good faith by 80/20, but the website also says:

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

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by declanh

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

I think he may have been referring to one or all of:

Search engines, who store all SEARCHES

ISPs and the data retention obligations. Logs, especially call records, must be kept for a year, and this is often taken to include DNS lookups (where available), as well as email sender, recipient etc. So your ISP may well have a copy of your entire clickstream of sorts.

What it shouldn't have however is a copy of the actual PAGES visited on any website, because this wouldn't be included in the DNS lookup. However I don't know how e.g. Hitwise works to get traffic stats.

Basically, the debate is a complex legal one between what constitutes "traffic data" and what constitutes content.

Any attempt to reconstitute the HTTP request to read the content of the GET request should in my opinion be covered by RIPA, however some people wrongly believe because this is in a HTTP header that this is header information and therefore traffic information and therefore up for grabs.

Strictly speaking under RIPA, traffic information is the information necessary in routing the data communication, so IP address, DNS lookup, email recipient etc.

PECR (Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations, EC Directive, 2003) regulates how ISPs can process traffic information, including consent issues. RIPA deals with disclosure.

You may be surprised to hear that any one of hundreds of government bodies, including local councils, can request under RIPA without order from a Judge your traffic information!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by declanh

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

No he means presumably that most web sites keep logs of their traffic which include IP address and also things like tracking cookies and search engines retaining your search terms.

The point he doesn't seem to get is whereas this is true this is extremely distributed. This data is held by millions of individual web sites and not linked together, nor is it under the control of a single entity, nor can it be seen usually by anyone but the web site owner.

So whereas we do have a digital footprint, it is broken into millions of pieces and scattered everywhere, Phorm on the other hand glues all those pieces back together to "Phorm" the full picture and give them a very clear facsimile of your entire browsing behaviour. This much data is a gift to marketing and advertising companies. The individual shards scattered across the web are -almost- useless on their own (I say almost because they do provide useful statistics for the web site owner), but Phorm conveniently ignore the point that they see everything, individual web sites only see what you do on their site and if referrer checking is used the site you came from. Tracking cookies don't fall under the same argument because they are bad and many are blocked by anti spyware/adware/virus or browser/OS based tools.

Alexander Hanff

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by declanh

Can someone clarify something for me -
in the BBC interview with Alexander and Kent the interviewer (and Kent) states that everything you do when online is stored against your IP address (already - pre Phorm)

Can someone elaborate a little more on this - does he mean proxies or what ?
Does he mean search engines ? If its search engines that not everything ?

It is just Kent loosely referring to his view that everywhere we go on the web is followed closely by google and that they store all that information against our IP for eons. His view is also that because google do 'this' then Phorm should be allowed to do 'that' even though 'this' and 'that' are chalk and cheese.

That really is what Kent's attitude boils down to. He's annoyed that we accept google and won't accept Phorm. He thinks because Google merely exist that everything his company does is valid and he has a little bit of a hard time coping with the fact that nobody outside of Phorm sees things that way.

Trotting out Google and its practices with the advertising tech it deploys is his favourite thing. Given that there is no correlation between what Google do and what Phorm proposes beyond the word 'advert' I must admit I admire his gall. He must have a huge set of nads to keep repeating stuff even he must know is pig swill.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I have simply stated my view that given there is a specific framework in place for the management of such tasks I fail to see how certain areas of the process could have been followed and that If upon publication of that PIA it proves to be the case that certain criteria have not been met ( and given the subsequent information posted it would appear this will be the case ) then questions should be asked about the whole of the document regarding the screening process, the criteria followed and the people who have authored the document and their qualifications for doing such a task.

I was pointing out areas that may need to be questioned so that anyone concerned about it might know where to look to start that questioning.

And yes. I did use the term "not worth the paper it is printed upon" but if you bother to understand the context I said that I would suggest that in response to R Jones pointing out that 80/20 had already stated that the PIA was started too late and they were disappointed with that. If you can't do it properly then what value does it hold? I think that is a valid question.

Seriously I just raised questions about something that I feel I have every right to question and to be accused of making wild accusations against people and their reputation just won't do.

You have every right to state your opinion and I agree with it. Unfortunately, I said much the same a little while back and got shot down in flames. It's a hard knock life. It's good though .

[AlexanderHanff]

Can we please stop this ridiculous infighting it is driving me berserk. I logged off early last night because of it and now today it is continuing, lets get a grip this is just silly.

Alexander Hanff

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

I'm sure both statements were made in good faith by 80/20, but the website also says:

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

It might have been prudent of Simon Davies, who made such a statement here, and who's reputation is so wonderful and glowing to his fanboys to mention then that the video content was in fact not being filmed by anyone connected to 80/20 thinking and given that fact any claims made regarding such a video could not be relied on as fact.
I believe that the information that Phorm were handling the video must have been made available to Simon and as such he may possibly ( sorry fanboys ) have been aware that what he was saying may possibly have been misleading and untrue. Possibly. Maybe.

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:12 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Can we please stop this ridiculous infighting it is driving me berserk. I logged off early last night because of it and now today it is continuing, lets get a grip this is just silly.

Alexander Hanff

I don't feel that defending myself angainst insults is in-fighting. Just like to have things correct and above board and I'll continue to maintain MY reputation when spurious comments are made against me but thanks for your concern. Sorry you don't like it.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Can we please stop this ridiculous infighting it is driving me berserk. I logged off early last night because of it and now today it is continuing, lets get a grip this is just silly.

Alexander Hanff

Geez Alexander be cool, don't have a baby. People like to express opinion on forums. It's not hurting anyone is it?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Kursk

You have every right to state your opinion and I agree with it. Unfortunately, I said much the same a little while back and got shot down in flames. It's a hard knock life. It's good though .

yes, but you get angrier at least 32.7% faster than me and that does not help your debate

I wasn't criticising Simon, merely pointing out that statements made IN GOOD FAITH by 80/20 may well be dependent on the (sadly lacking) good faith of Phorm. This includes the publishing of both the film and (potentially) the PIA itself.