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

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Thank you for the primer on InfoEthics 1.0.1

However I wouldn't go around publishing presumptions about my priorities with regard to stakeholderage. You may end up feeling sheepish.

Simon

Cant you just make a definitive statement about the screening process and the criteria and compliance checking met for the PIA? There is little to be gained by an " I know something you don't know" attitude. I'm not really concerned about the PIA content, I'm fairly confident of what I think it will say.

I'm more concerned with the framework applied to the process and would hope that you might offer up information about that, in the interests of openness and transparency of course? I'll be happy to accept your own ( perceived by me from your last comment ) view that you will have met the stakeholder criteria and if so then well done. All I ask is you tell me who the stakeholders are, how they were identified and why no poll of the public who are the biggest stakeholder outside of Phorm?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by SimonHickling

And there in lies the problem. I'm at a friend's house and I use there PC. I don't have the option to over-ride their opt-in, so my traffic is illegally intercepted.

I don't think we are on strong ground trying to create scenarios of multiple people using one PC on a single PC login - as it can be argued (and surely will be argued) that PC's aren't meant to be used like that. Each user should be logged on with their own account, or on a "guest" account. That way they can control their own security preferences.

But even if that was the scenario - it IS possible in the model, for the user to simply go to Webwise while logged in as the other person, and turn it OFF. Then when they have finished, if the other person wants it on again, they can turn it ON again.

I'm not in favour of doing that - I don't think anyone should use Webwise, it's not legal. But I think the "single login/multiple user" scenario is not good ground to choose to battle on. Sure we can argue about it, but I'd prefer to discuss things much more fundamental - like its basic illegality with regard to ISP customers and the misuse of website content/intellectual property.

[James_Firth]

Simon, another thought. Profiling is needed for better-targeted and more relevant content. I can accept that argument. Data in profiles needs to be secure and protected, and I accept your expertise in advising companies in how best to achieve this.

Why not work with browser manufacturers to implement a unique browser ID function (that can be turned off and on) or talk about allowing true global cookies (with the user’s permission) to operate across all domains?

Profiling can then be achieved by paying website owners to insert a simple script that classifies the content being visited and reports this alongside the unique ID back to the profiler, and webmasters get paid a small sum per report.

The problem of course being that browser manufacturers, the W3C etc have all resisted any calls on the grounds of privacy.

So instead the net effect is that Phorm will still provide the unique ID, which can be solicited anyway, and on top of that introduce unknown performance and security risks by installing kit in to the ISP.

I can see the logic, that by limiting the players to those who can get kit into ISPs allows the privacy impact to be manageable, but this assumes a flawless implementation, not one that leaks UIDs.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by SimonHickling

And there in lies the problem. I'm at a friend's house and I use there PC. I don't have the option to over-ride their opt-in, so my traffic is illegally intercepted.

The line "When in Doubt, Opt out" was there for your hypothetical friend - not you.

I honestly don't know any people who when enlightened of the true 'zero' benefits of the Webwise/Phorm system would actually Opt in. Its illegal, intrusive and written by an organisation who used rootkits to install their spyware/adware products, so I don't trust them.

What would a person get as a benefit if someone were to opt in - Nothing at all in most cases in my opinion. The anti Phishing filter (written by coders who have previous very good experience of writing applications that install on your PC - aka SPYWARE) is already built in IE7. Firefox also has this capability.

OK someone opts in and they apparently get targeted adverts (Benefit?). Big deal, as far as I am concerned I don't want any adverts so why would targeted Ads benefit me or most other people. OK I want to buy something on-line. What do I do. I look for the best price from a reputable company. Anyone who has Phorms OIX system in place is in my opinion far from reputable so I would not be buying from there either as they would be attempting to steer me away from my best possible purchase choice. I could go on but I am beginning to bore myself so I should stop there.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't need to see any content which shows how damaging Phorm is - I already made my mind up when I realised their business which is basically 'Spyware'. Phorm is damaged goods with or without the video.

Virgin Media if they role this out will be damaged goods as well, And certainly will not be worthy of my continued use of there service.

My feelings towards Phorm will never ever change due to there past history, Its as simple as that.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by warescouse

The line "When in Doubt, Opt out" was there for your hypothetical friend - not you.

I honestly don't know any people who when enlightened of the true 'zero' benefits of the Webwise/Phorm system would actually Opt in. Its illegal, intrusive and written by an organisation who used rootkits to install their spyware/adware products, so I don't trust them.

What would a person get as a benefit if someone were to opt in - Nothing at all in most cases in my opinion. The anti Phishing filter (written by coders who have previous very good experience of writing applications that install on your PC - aka SPYWARE) is already built in IE7. Firefox also has this capability.

OK someone opts in and they apparently get targeted adverts (Benefit?). Big deal, as far as I am concerned I don't want any adverts so why would targeted Ads benefit me or most other people. OK I want to buy something on-line. What do I do. I look for the best price from a reputable company. Anyone who has Phorms OIX system in place is in my opinion far from reputable so I would not be buying from there either as they would be attempting to steer me away from my best possible purchase choice. I could go on but I am beginning to bore myself so I should stop there.

Agreed all adverts are blocked on websites I visit, any that do manage to show through are soon killed by Opera with the content blocker.

On another note if you are targeted with adverts for like he said on click a pony. This sort of advert would be so rear that if you used the advert to aproach and possibly buy something. They can start to build a profile Phorm number had targeted ads for a pony, this IP number contacted to arrange to see the pony. This person name and address bought it.. Suddenly no longer anon.

The holes in this system is so big with it being ISP side it is scarey I am glad I moved..

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Ban me by all means, no matter I'll leave you armchair warriors to your own devices. It's pathetic to be accused of infighting when only trying to uphold one's comments.

Yes you may uphold yourself but I will not put up with people being offensive and coming out with unhelpful remarks like the one in bold above.

Originally Posted by Kursk

I don't think Mick will ban you (or me for that matter ). It would be a travesty if he did. Mick started this thread and it is vibrant through its many differing views. I've probably been a little bit woah! today and I apologise for that.

See herein lies the issue - people jumping to conclusions I haven't even mentioned anyone being banned and this is not how the team operate here. Members who breach our sites terms of use will get a series of warnings and infractions, which persistant offenses will lead to a banning. But before it even gets to this stage, we should be reaching a compromise and get back to focusing on the discussion of Phorm without the falling out.

I have simply asked that people calm down and stop falling out with other posters and spoiling what has been a good debate.

[80/20Thinking]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

Why not work with browser manufacturers to implement a unique browser ID function (that can be turned off and on) or talk about allowing true global cookies (with the user’s permission) to operate across all domains?

....

The problem of course being that browser manufacturers, the W3C etc have all resisted any calls on the grounds of privacy.
.

You'll understand, I'm sure, why I'm resisting saying anything that could fuel speculation, but you've hit the nail on the head. If we're in the business (at least in part) of finding possible solutions, the browser manufacturers are massively relevant. But talk about a hornet nest....

Simon

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Thank you for the primer on InfoEthics 1.0.1

However I wouldn't go around publishing presumptions about my priorities with regard to stakeholderage. You may end up feeling sheepish.

Simon

Sorry. I was trying to return to a bit of constructive debate, and overlook the recent events because people tell me to trust you.

Sheepish? I doubt it.

I'd be delighted to find your report considers the priorities of web creators. So far you haven't mentioned the interests of content providers in your documents. Your initial PIA 'Consent and Participation' completely overlooked the interests of content creators.

Phorm seem to believe this method of conducting business has limitless boundaries on the content side. All content can be stolen without regard to the interests of content creators. I think Phorm will find it has surprisingly firm boundaries, technical, commercial, and legal.

Sheepish? I just hope you're not trying to pull the wool over my eyes like K*nt. I certainly won't be around when the sheep hits the fan. Shear determination will see Phorm off.

Otherwise its content creators who get fleeced... That's baad news for everyone.

Pete

[socnsum1]

Hi folks.

Long time lurker here. I have read every single post in this thread and have found it a great aide to understanding all the issues, not to mention inspiring that people are fighting for what they believe in. Our strength is in numbers and the variety of viewpoints is a good thing. However, let us all remember our common goal, which is defeating Phorm, Webwise OIX and highlighting BT breaking the law and fighting to ensure that they are punished for their actions.

People obviously have their different views about Simon Davies. Me personally I am glad that there is somebody with a history of fighting for civil liberties at the table. One may argue about whether Simon is too close to Phorm or not, but the way that I see it there are two options available to him. Either to fight for civil liberties from the outside like we are doing, or by having a seat at the table he can limit the potential damage that companies like Phorm could do.

I don't know the guy, so like you I am basing my opinion of him on what I have read in this thread. His wording certainly gave the impression that 80/20 thinking was recording the Phorm meeting that Alexander and a good few of you attended. However, I would remind everyone that once something is written down it cannot be taken back or edited. When Simon said that "we" will be recording the event it may have been a slip of the tongue or he may have been speaking for Phorm.

I'm not defending the guy, just pointing out that we have a common enemy, and right now that common enemy is rubbing its hands at the infighting that is going on. I would hate anyone to leave the thread as they felt they could not longer express their view, but please lets all remember who we are really fighting.

[jellybaby]

And welcome to the site

[80/20Thinking]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

Cant you just make a definitive statement about the screening process and the criteria and compliance checking met for the PIA? There is little to be gained by an " I know something you don't know" attitude. I'm not really concerned about the PIA content, I'm fairly confident of what I think it will say.

I'm more concerned with the framework applied to the process and would hope that you might offer up information about that, in the interests of openness and transparency of course? I'll be happy to accept your own ( perceived by me from your last comment ) view that you will have met the stakeholder criteria and if so then well done. All I ask is you tell me who the stakeholders are, how they were identified and why no poll of the public who are the biggest stakeholder outside of Phorm?

Two points here. The first is that Phorm is a somewhat unusual (though not unique) case in terms of PIA screening. In isolation (having regard to the ICO guidance) it appears to be either compliant or exempt from conditions relating to the UK DPA. This does not apply to overall privacy criteria though, as we pointed out in our interim PIA. So, we actually adopted a broader screening than the one suggested by the ICO. This is why we can include environments outside Phorm itself (such as the ISP's).

In terms of stakeholders, we accept the definition adopted by the ICO, which is "a collective word for the various groups and individuals who have a significant interest in the project and its outcomes, because they are participating in it, or may be affected by it." That, of course, is clearly the public.

However, polling does not offer a solution. As an activist I always found polling to be intellectually dodgy. Results are used when it suits, and ignored otherwise. We don't accept privacy intrusion on the basis of polling (CCTV is a good example) because principle is a far more robust basis to run an argument. If we down the years relied on a majority verdict to determine our position we would be immobalised on hundreds of privacy issues. In the case of targeted advertising, I wouldn't want to presume how the results would pan out. We always thought mandatory fingerprinting would be widely opposed, then discovered most of the population were in favour.

Simon

[Florence]

Hello socnsum1 and to cableforum and mainly the ranks of anti phorm.

You do sometimes need an insider to watch over things this tends to help Simon I still trust and hope Phorm do not tarnish him with their bad reputation..

I would suggest t many if you feel strongly enough about phorm being ISP side let the ISP know send in the letters ets which are posted earlier in this thread. Or do as I did and decide the time has come to leave.

As for the content of websites, phorm really should request this especially since they are hijacking the website cookie and using their cookie. If the phorm trend is allowed then the whole WWW could end up losing as many fall foul of phorm or totally block IP ranges from the ISPs that are tarnished with phorm. Either way this might be the end of internet as we know it and of freedom to surf anywhere.

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Thank you for the primer on InfoEthics 1.0.1
Simon

Oh, there goes another rib..

Meanwhile back on planet Earth, may I suggest the following phrases to win over the ubiquitous man on the Clapham omnibus?

My feeling is that dissemination is key at this time.

"Webwise=Webspies"

"Phormic acid...don't get stung"

If you put these on T-shirts, geeks will wear them.

Geeks talk to lots of end users to solve problems.

The end users will read the T-shirt and ask what it means.

Broadcast is needed, rather than the circular debate that is developing here.

On a side note, can the BBC be persuaded to hand over the complete footage of Mr Hanffs' valiant performance? If not as license payers (we own it) and if not that, under the Freedom of Information Act?

[Florence]

I have decided to bring this post over her Mel has agreed I can quote any posts I wish of his on ISPr..

Originally Posted by Mel

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to post it here. The SVG is available from the downloads section of Badphorm (misc - compressed files) if anyone wants to improve it





Note that even if you "opt-out" your traffic is still messed with in the same way, so that you still get one forged cookie for every single site you visit (except with a value OPTED_OUT). Some complete opt-out huh?

Surely the minuet Phorm pretends top be the website we wish to visit they are breaking that sites copyright?

Examples

ISPr = Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy & Website Rules).

Aquiss = © 2006-2007 Aquiss - http://www.aquiss.net. All Rights Reserved

ebay = Copyright © 1995-2008 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Aria = This web page is Copyright 1995-2007 Aria Technology and protected under UK and international law. All rights reserved.
Aria Technology Ltd. | Registered in England. | Company No. 3404773 | google checkout integration and emarketing by visions new media

BBC = image below.

Well I could go on for ever but with each one Phorm would pretend to be the site this is something google doesn't do is that a big enough difference for Kent.