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

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ok, that's fair. But answer me this, what do you know, really and reliably know about Simon? Why is everyone so prepared to believe in the self-proclaimed these days?

I don't know him personally but the organisations he represents goes a long way to vouching for his credentials. PI is not just some ramshackle protest group who employ anyone they can get. They have briefed parliament and they have done this because their view is respected; because they have taken time to study and prepare opinion as learned individuals.

That's not to say I agree with all his views, just that I respect his background and prominence. Simon believes Phorm can provide a secure and safe way of delivering targeted advertising, I say the issues are wider than Phorm.

I don't represent any group so when I spoke out about Phorm back in mid February, the BBC, El Reg, etc ignored my view. That's not to say my, or your, or Alex's opinion is any less valid than Simon's, just that Simon is in a position of trust representing the organisations he does.

I believe from your posts that you agree with Fipr's view that Phorm is illegal and should be banned. If so, why is it you trust Nicholas Bohm's or Richard Clayton's view? Self-appointed defenders of electronic privacy? The O.R.G.?

That was intended to be a rhetorical question, but obviously you're in your rights to answer. At the risk of putting even more people off I'll leave this here.

[80/20Thinking]

Thanks everyone for your valuable comments.

As before, I can't respond to each and every point made (that's shorthand for saying that I'm overwhelmed with work and don't have enough minutes in the day to do everything I'd like to).

I will however respond to one specific point about the video of the public meeting. We did arrange to have the meeting filmed. That was entirely within our brief. We did not accept liability or responsibility for its broadcast, which would have been a role outside our brief. I apologise if I raised expectations that the footage would be imminently published, but I did genuinely believe it was to be immediately published.

The fact that almost every member of the press had recorded the event in full and that other participants were filming it made me a little more comfortable about the issue of transparency.

Simon

[Frank Rizzo]

Why has it not been released?

What is the delay?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

I don't know him personally but the organisations he represents goes a long way to vouching for his credentials. PI is not just some ramshackle protest group who employ anyone they can get. They have briefed parliament and they have done this because their view is respected; because they have taken time to study and prepare opinion as learned individuals.

That's not to say I agree with all his views, just that I respect his background and prominence. Simon believes Phorm can provide a secure and safe way of delivering targeted advertising, I say the issues are wider than Phorm.

I don't represent any group so when I spoke out about Phorm back in mid February, the BBC, El Reg, etc ignored my view. That's not to say my, or your, or Alex's opinion is any less valid than Simon's, just that Simon is in a position of trust representing the organisations he does.

I believe from your posts that you agree with Fipr's view that Phorm is illegal and should be banned. If so, why is it you trust Nicholas Bohm's or Richard Clayton's view? Self-appointed defenders of electronic privacy? The O.R.G.?

That was intended to be a rhetorical question, but obviously you're in your rights to answer. At the risk of putting even more people off I'll leave this here.

Simon may well yet turn out to be my hero. I hope so. I really do. You're right, let's leave it there or someone will run out of headache pills
p.s. I trust my own views based on my own assessments.

Originally Posted by Kursk

Simon? Simon who? Why should I be interested in what Simon Says? This is a forum. People can express their opinion can't they? imho

Simon "2 Hats" - the guy who doesn't sit on the fence - he has a foot in both camps which he manages to do without rupturing himself...

I'm sorry - I still can't work him out -

Being involved with various trade unions in my career there are only 2 sides yours and the opposition.

You negotiate with the opposition using trade union legislation you don't try and bend that legislation in order to match their agenda.

You'd be first up against the wall come the revolution


brother

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Thanks everyone for your valuable comments.

As before, I can't respond to each and every point made (that's shorthand for saying that I'm overwhelmed with work and don't have enough minutes in the day to do everything I'd like to).

I will however respond to one specific point about the video of the public meeting. We did arrange to have the meeting filmed. That was entirely within our brief. We did not accept liability or responsibility for its broadcast, which would have been a role outside our brief. I apologise if I raised expectations that the footage would be imminently published, but I did genuinely believe it was to be immediately published.

The fact that almost every member of the press had recorded the event in full and that other participants were filming it made me a little more comfortable about the issue of transparency.

Simon

Thanks Simon.

As I've pointed out recently it has been unfortunate that you were not a little clearer on the matter beforehand but it is done and you have responded to the questions in that area. I doubt it does any of us any good to further question this area.

Given that it has been me that has brought up questions regarding how the PIA has been worked and how close to the ICO framework it has been ( trust me, I'm aware it is not a legal document or undertaking and in fact the ICO only offer guidelines for the creation of such documents, I'm not confused there ) do you think it would be possible to engage in a q&a regarding the screening. full scale assessment and compliance issues. either in private or open in a place such as here.
I have no wish o trip you up or rip apart anything regarding the PIA. I am genuinely interested in the process. I will of course, use any answers to assess the validity of the PIA in my opinion should Phorm try and spin it's content in the future. Given I've said that do you think it may be possible for discussion ( because if not I shall waste no more of our time on it )

Regards

Craig

A reminder, in case anyone has not yet signed:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

This will be at No. 3 by the end of next week, in spite of only being started two months ago.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

A reminder, in case anyone has not yet signed:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

This will be at No. 3 by the end of next week, in spite of only being started two months ago.

It's a shame that Webwise will likely be up and running before the government even has an obligation to look at that.

....but it helps counter Phorm's argument that only a small clique are anti.

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

We did arrange to have the meeting filmed. That was entirely within our brief. We did not accept liability or responsibility for its broadcast, which would have been a role outside our brief. I apologise if I raised expectations that the footage would be imminently published, but I did genuinely believe it was to be immediately published.

The fact that almost every member of the press had recorded the event in full and that other participants were filming it made me a little more comfortable about the issue of transparency.

Simon

Thank you for your reply Simon, and your apology. It is obvious that Phorm lied to you about publishing the film, as they have lied to us and everyone else.

Even though there's many full copies of the meeting lying around, it is very saddening that we have yet to be able to see it. Up till now I have put off watching the excerpts posted as I have been waiting to see the whole unedited version. I'll go watch the excerpts . . .

Ali

[Florence]

Originally Posted by R Jones

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

Sadly there is a common denominator in this and that is Kent and Phorm and the words publish or/and be damned might have been the latter is which case he didn't say who would be damned him or us..

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Simon "2 Hats" - the guy who doesn't sit on the fence - he has a foot in both camps which he manages to do without rupturing himself...

I'm sorry - I still can't work him out -

Being involved with various trade unions in my career there are only 2 sides yours and the opposition.

You negotiate with the opposition using trade union legislation you don't try and bend that legislation in order to match their agenda.

You'd be first up against the wall come the revolution

Originally Posted by ceedee

Check out Simon's background.
Drop him a PM if you have any doubts about his previous record.
Email him and ask for a chat (but recognise that he's kind of busy right now and probably won't want to discuss the PIA conclusions until they're published).

I'm confident that you'll find it extremely difficult to find a single candidate that you'd rather have conducting the PIA.

[serial]

If it was 8020 that arranged for the event to be filmed, then why didn't the people that filmed it give you a copy? Are you under some legal limitation that prevents you from distributing that copy?

Also to Alex, could you request the unedited footage from the Click recording under a DPA request? I know that you can request CCTV footage under a DPA request but don't know if being filmed for TV is covered.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Check out Simon's background.
Drop him a PM if you have any doubts about his previous record.
Email him and ask for a chat (but recognise that he's kind of busy right now and probably won't want to discuss the PIA conclusions until they're published).

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Have a read of the interim report?

So we substantiate his credentials through a source that can be self-edited or ask him if he's a nice person? Is there any other way please?

[Florence]

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

Have to agree with Alexander here infacr if the infighting carries on the winner is phorm devide and conquer..

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Why has it not been released?

What is the delay?

This was answered earlier by Simon he is waiting on something from the ISPs perhaps they are scared of releasing daming information...