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

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by socnsum1

Earlier on this week I emailed Virgin Media Customer Services and asked if PC Guard software that they supply would detect spyware such as Phorm, Webwise and OIX. This is the reply that I got from one of their agents on Friday 2 May 2008.

Hi
**** EMAIL REF: ******

Thanks for getting in touch with the Virgin Media Support team.

snipped off topic material

If there's anything else we can help with, please let us know.

Kind regards,
***** ********
Econtact Support Team
Virgin Media
**** EMAIL REF:******

Don't you just love the skilful way they avoid the question you asked? (about whether their PC Guard would detect Webwise as spyware?)

Dear despised Customer
Thank you for your awkward question. We value our profits highly and we will be avoiding your question as answering it might damage our dividend.
If we can ignore any other questions you might stupidly wish to ask us, please do get in touch.
Kind regards etc. etc.

[80/20Thinking]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Did Ray know of Phorm before he joined 80/20?

You stun me. Are you suggesting that Phorm is so momentously important as an issue that he would lie in wait until being invited onto the AB of a privacy organisation that had no connection with Phorm, then capitalise on a 5+ year relationship in the hope that we might at some point in the future be asked to do a PIA on Phorm? Hardly.

[Florence]

Simon I did send you a PM but never had a reply even though I had said it wasn't going to be posted public.

[80/20Thinking]

Originally Posted by Florence

Simon I did send you a PM but never had a reply even though I had said it wasn't going to be posted public.

Sorry. I haven't checked my PM's for a couple of weeks. I'll do that now.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Don't you just love the skilful way they avoid the question you asked? (about whether their PC Guard would detect Webwise as spyware?)

Dear despised Customer
Thank you for your awkward question. We value our profits highly and we will be avoiding your question as answering it might damage our dividend.
If we can ignore any other questions you might stupidly wish to ask us, please do get in touch.
Kind regards etc. etc.

Ya know, as daft as it sounds, I would have a lot more respect if that was the letter that was sent out by VM as at least it would be honest. This constant spinning by Phorm, BT, VM etc is just tiring. The whole description of this as a "service" is laughable in the extreme. It provides no benefits whatsoever for end-users. Its highly debatable about the issue of content providers too imho.

On another matter though I would like to thank Simon for his continued engagement with us on these boards. I have been highly critical of Simon at various points since finding out all about Phorm and their plans. Although I would prefer he not to be working with Phorm it is better that someone with his background and proven track record work from the inside rather than some new start-up with absolutely no track record and no ethics.

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

You stun me. Are you suggesting that Phorm is so momentously important as an issue that he would lie in wait until being invited onto the AB of a privacy organisation that had no connection with Phorm, then capitalise on a 5+ year relationship in the hope that we might at some point in the future be asked to do a PIA on Phorm? Hardly.

Whilst I agree there is a lot of 'tin-foil hat' around Phorm, I do think that the move from BT to Phorm by

http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_scleparis.php

has made people wary of ANY connections between ex-BT staff and ANYTHING to do with Phorm.

On a more general point, you do seem to regard Phorm as a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. For example, I think you raised the issue of mass finger-printing. Speaking purely for myself, I see a massive difference between an 'invasion of privacy' for the greater good (prevention/detection of crminality) and invasion of privacy for pure commercial gain. I suspect you won't agree with this perspective, but I think it explains just why Phorm has created such a backlash, whereas other 'privacy' issues haven't.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Florence

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



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 =

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.

I have requoted my own post since there was no answer to the copyright of the servers phorm give to the ISP and the phishing of the websites VM customers wish to visit that phorm software complets to place a false cookie on the customers machine?

Originally Posted by Bonglet

I see virgin media has already changed there T&C's to suit phorm

G Your details and how we look after them

2. By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions.

Pity vm dosent say what there instructions are and if they ever leave the country .
All this data to share with phorm yay (not) starting to get really peed off with events and people.

Can you provide a link to this so others can check it with their copies of the T&C incase others have changed.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Whilst I agree there is a lot of 'tin-foil hat' around Phorm, I do think that the move from BT to Phorm by

http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_scleparis.php

has made people wary of ANY connections between ex-BT staff and ANYTHING to do with Phorm.

I completely agree. Especially as this said executive was most likely involved in the illegal BT/Phorm trials of 2006 and 2007 where no attempt was even made at obtaining consent from those involved.

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

On a more general point, you do seem to regard Phorm as a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. For example, I think you raised the issue of mass finger-printing. Speaking purely for myself, I see a massive difference between an 'invasion of privacy' for the greater good (prevention/detection of crminality) and invasion of privacy for pure commercial gain. I suspect you won't agree with this perspective, but I think it explains just why Phorm has created such a backlash, whereas other 'privacy' issues haven't.

Again I am in complete agreement. There is a huge difference between issues of privacy where the intent is to combat crimes such as child pornography, terrorism, organised crime and invasions of privacy for pure commercial profit. Its very clear where Phorm sits in that spectrum.

[Bonglet]

Sure florence http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...ble/terms.html

I agree with johnhorb and qf in that people dont mind with privacy if it is with regard to public protection and stuff but for a spyware company to rewite there code and place it into a box at isp's for financial and commercial profit is insane, no way anyone would want it if told the whole truth lots of people with there fingers caught in pies influencing any decissions made.

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

On a more general point, you do seem to regard Phorm as a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.<snip>

Originally Posted by OF1975

<snip>
Again I am in complete agreement. There is a huge difference between issues of privacy where the intent is to combat crimes such as child pornography, terrorism, organised crime and invasions of privacy for pure commercial profit. Its very clear where Phorm sits in that spectrum.

Originally Posted by Bonglet

<snip>
I agree with johnhorb and qf in that people dont mind with privacy if it is with regard to public protection and stuff but for a spyware company to rewite there code and place it into a box at isp's for financial and commercial profit is insane, no way anyone would want it if told the whole truth lots of people with there fingers caught in pies influencing any decissions made.

I also agree with John. Simon, you do seem to be treating Phorm as a minor matter which puzzles me immensely considering you were the man who said about Google.Doubleclick on the PI site here: http://www.privacyinternational.org/...]=x-347-560886

"This single reprehensible action by the Commission represents this decade's greatest threat to online privacy. The EU will rue the day that it allowed a near monopoly market to be controlled by this company. Online privacy will now be a hostage to fortune, inevitably suffering death from a thousand cuts".

I've asked before for an answer about this, but you didn't answer, so I'll ask again.

How can you say what you said above, while (seeming to be) treating Phorm as a minor matter?

OB

[serial]

Has anyone seen any comments on Phorm by Privacy International other than with regards to distancing themselves from the 8020 edorsement fiasco?

Is Phorm such a minor issue that no-one at Privacy International has even looked into it(with a PI hat on)?

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

They also have the Earl of Northesk on their advisory board who has been very outspoken against Phorm in his official capacity as a peer in the House of Lords.

So no I don't see a problem with 80/20 Thinking having influential and important people on their advisory boards.

I'm afraid I do, at least with some of them - if some members of the advisory boards are also parties to Webwise, i.e. working for or affiliated with BT, surely that's a conflict of interest?

On the other hand, having an Earl onboard is definitely a plus.

[Bonglet]

ofc they havent thats how phorm done the creep by employing simon in a role so he wouldnt jump on there backs and its less unwanted attention on there behalf.

Originally Posted by serial

Has anyone seen any comments on Phorm by Privacy International other than with regards to distancing themselves from the 8020 edorsement fiasco?

Is Phorm such a minor issue that no-one at Privacy International has even looked into it(with a PI hat on)?

Unfortunately, a google on Phorm and Privacy International will show numerous entries indicating that PI have endorsed the technology. In spite of subsequent clarifications (that PI have NOT endorsed the technology), you can't remove historical info from google.

[serial]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Unfortunately, a google on Phorm and Privacy International will show numerous entries indicating that PI have endorsed the technology. In spite of subsequent clarifications (that PI have NOT endorsed the technology), you can't remove historical info from google.

That was exactly why I posted the question, it's become almost impossible to find any such comments if they exist.