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

[Florence]

Just how many people are there that are small shareholders can we not get a fighting party of shareholders to question this path.

[Bonglet]

Thats all the phising scam is just a load of hogwash to tide sheep who dont know what phorm/webwise does till it hits.

All of our data can already be viewed by secret services if they wish via ripa so the argument about tin hat's dosnet exist as its already there, damn if im going to let kent the spyware thinker get to see any of my posts, comments thoughts or buying prefrences not in this lifetime anyhow.

Glad to see some bt staff really hate this idea too just goes to show that those above some are pulling the strings for there fat cat bonuses and profit margins at the expense of ordinary people (hint you cant sell people on paper).

Once the great unwashed i.e all the ordinary joe's get a broader picture of phorm/webwise if it gets the go ahead when all the inphormed leave the isp's will be left with the less tech savvy then by simple word of mouth alone even the sheep that are left will leave or be left with 2nd tier internet access.

Any of my data hits ANY phorm kit thats where i bow out, as for us virgin customers i still belive i was intercepted from in between my join date on this forum (hence the joining looking for answers) may and july 2007 i even know i saw the same thing as bt customers and unresolving dns sysip.net (virgin still havent sent me my writen reply yet as i asked) but thats a long story thinking at the time it was a browser hijack, so i take everything vm say on the issue with the same take as bt users (get lied to).

Let the isp's go ahead with there illegal trials or there implementation they will find out what users of the internet really feel about this and the great inet slides more into 4th world (were already a 3rd world country according to k*nt dont forget).
Some suppliers will prosper some will die i wonder who .

Originally Posted by vicz

In fact MI5 or whoever wouldn't need something as sophisticated as phorm to spy on your data stream.

Maybe not, but wouldn't they need a warrant?

All they'd need to do the same thing using Phorm's kit is a cheque book!

[flowrebmit]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Maybe not, but wouldn't they need a warrant?

All they'd need to do the same thing using Phorm's kit is a cheque book!

No. The state only requires a warrant when they are doing things legally.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Maybe not, but wouldn't they need a warrant?

All they'd need to do the same thing using Phorm's kit is a cheque book!

Given the recent case in Poole of council employees being granted a warrant to spend 3 weeks spying on a couple to try to prove they did not in fact live where they said they did (although they did!) to uphold a schools admissions policy this should not prove too difficult an obstacle!

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by HaveToBeAnon

Guys,
Just a quick word of thanks from a BT employee, Broadband user and shareholder. Rest assured that the vast majority of BT employees are also very aggreived by this. It came as a complete shock to us, just as it did for you. Its a real puzzle why we are continuing with it - it strongly stinks of corruption, although I have no evidence whatsoever, it just 'feels' odd.

Also dont be too hard on any call centre folks who give you mis-information. Its pretty certain they are in the dark as much as anyone.

Good luck with the fight - and don't forget you have allies in all sorts of unexpected places.

Anon. (For obvious reasons)

Good to hear from you. We know you're there.

I've long been aware that the BT strategy is to release critical information to the press long before it even THINKS about updating the support scripts. It has happened so many times, with each major development.

Let's reconfigure the mail servers - got the press release? Good.
Shouldn't we tell customers?
Why?
They need to know.
Why?
Because this reconfiguration will break their email.
So what?
They will ring support - have we told support?
Why?
Because they need to know
Why?
So they can help the customers sort their broken email
Sorry - what was those words you used?
Which ones?
I think you said "Help the customers"
Well - isn't that what the support desk is for?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! - you're new round here aren't you?
Yes
Well hurry up and get that press release written "in order to improve our customers' online email experience, we are upgrading the security on our email servers. It will be fantastic and will make our email servers the most secure in the world." Got that? And when you've done that, don't forget to send the letter to the shareholders explaining the increased dividend.
Yes sir. Shall I add that bit we usually put in about being a customer focussed company?
Of course.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

Originally Posted by vicz

Given the recent case in Poole of council employees being granted a warrant to spend 3 weeks spying on a couple to try to prove they did not in fact live where they said they did (although they did!) to uphold a schools admissions policy this should not prove too difficult an obstacle!

I know - they're wonderful aren't they. That's my local council.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by vicz

There is a separate debate to be had about individual freedoms v national security. In fact MI5 or whoever wouldn't need something as sophisticated as phorm to spy on your data stream.

They already can -- that's what was behind RIPA.
But co-opting Phorm would enable them to detect keywords or access to specific websites across the entire datastream from participating ISPs.
(Some of which they allegedly can do already using the NSA's Echelon.)

[Bonglet]

No-one find it weird how when ripa is used in a way by the council front page news for political reasons, yet when an isp flaunts it and thinks it has every right to legally break it (affecting a hell of a lot more people) nothing is said on the front pages and no one from PI or elsewhere puts backing onto it and it gets hushed up?.

More going on in this whole matter than people think and not for obvious reasons.

[Florence]

There are two different battles here even if you exclude 80/20.

!st is our internet we pay for the service, ISP are supposed to supply the carrier for where ever we decide to visit, they have no right to intercept this function. Regardless of what the 80/20 report says this is breaking our laws and as such should be allowed to go to trial.

2nd. The governments lack of action on those who are already guilty of this law breaking. Lack of action points to some phorm of hidden ajenda ( trojan horse) on our PCs we virus kill trojans and remove them I see no reason to stop this now.

3. 80/20 I had hopes they would be somewhat in line with their history of fighting for the small man being manipulated having their privacy invaded. Now I am not so sure what to trust my faith is shrinking as the time passes. Things that have happened since the public meeting shows Kent to be still the same arrogant smarmy individual that placed rootkits on as many pcs as he could. Links to Russian scripters do not help to lay those fears. 80/20 should have completed this for free for the safty of the community at large, peoples rights to be allowed their freedom, privacy, human rights. Once 80/20 loses track of the path they started and becomes diverted then more will use the 80/20 system to gain reputation.

With something this powerful in the hands of someone who is not reputable needs to have a privacy check by an totally independant company one that has no links tied into phorm, BT, VM.

To finish this VM have said they are only looking but the recent changes in T&C would imply more than just looking.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by vicz

This would concern me far less than being profiled in order to line the pockets of spyware **** and incompetent ailing ISPs.

There is a separate debate to be had about individual freedoms v national security. In fact MI5 or whoever wouldn't need something as sophisticated as phorm to spy on your data stream.

I agree with this comment. I have nothing to hide but I certainly don't wish to be wire-tapped for the financial gain of others. This Phorm technology is an absolute disgrace and any ISP's who are examining this as an option must want their heads seeing to! Do they honestly think the outrage will go away once it was in place if they were to go ahead?

I honestly think it could put some ISP's out of business when they eventually have to respond to market forces (or the lack of them due to migration) and rip out all their expensive equipment and get out of all their expensive contracts.

Perhaps Kent can't lose. Either we pay up or the ISP's will in the end.

Then again, if Kent and the ISP executives were to be in Prison due to breaking certain laws, perhaps they could settle up with each other during a few card games to pass the time of day as they serve out their time.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

No-one find it weird how when ripa is used in a way by the council front page news for political reasons, yet when an isp flaunts it and thinks it has every right to legally break it (affecting a hell of a lot more people) nothing is said on the front pages and no one from PI or elsewhere puts backing onto it and it gets hushed up?.

More going on in this whole matter than people think and not for obvious reasons.

Simple really. Two words: Patricia Hewitt.

[warescouse]

As a footnote to my last comment.

If Phorm were to go ahead, I don't think it would help the security services one bit. Everyone will eventually be using JAP and TOR and HTTPS sites when they are browsing and the security service will end up with an even more difficult job. Once everybody realises they are being tapped, everybody will react in many ways to this! All Phorm/Webwise is doing is making everybody aware of this fact.
I am surprised the powers that be do not realise this.

Originally Posted by warescouse

As a footnote to my last comment.

If Phorm were to go ahead, I don't think it would help the security services one bit. Everyone will eventually be using JAP and TOR and HTTPS sites when they are browsing and the security service will end up with an even more difficult job. Once everybody realises they are being tapped, everybody will react in many ways to this! All Phorm/Webwise is doing is making everybody aware of this fact.
I am surprised the powers that be do not realise this.

Perhaps the powers that be underestimate the ability of the average Internet user to understand the technology (possibly because they have such a hard time grasping it themselves and have to rely on the likes of Kent to explain it to them)

[Bonglet]

Have any anon vm employee's came out with any posts on the matter anywhere? by the looks of things must be a big internal memo out at vm towers with a big URGENT do not mention phorm/webwise to customers on it.
Strange really as most of the ones with inside knowledge post about such matters as upgrades, stm without problem but phorm/webwise seems ohh so quiet for some reason and all the cogs and gears were nearly inplace.

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

... You are tainted; you are in bed with the enemy. ...

With all due respect, when I last spoke to you regarding police action against BT you said you were biding your time for certain reasons. You are one of the few people with hard evidence of Phorming and also have good arguments to show how you were personally affected in terms of lost time and a new computer.

Meanwhile I have been in contact with 2 other individuals who had no evidence of Phorming who have literally had their allegations ignored by the police, given the lack of evidence, the lack of personal loss and access to sufficient resources to investigate (public interest argument).

If you haven't since approached the police, might I ask why not? Whilst I can see some of your point with respect to Simon at the end of the day we live in a commercial society and I have no problems with whom individuals chose to work with (with one criticism in the case of SD that I have already posted).

In my view you'd be better targeting your energy in fighting for a police case, which you may well be, than pinning your hopes on 80/20 to fight our cause.

You'll be in good company asking for some action against BT, Don Foster MP wants at least the company to issue an apology to all customers who could have been affected (i.e. all customers) and the Earl of Northesk apparently wants some action.

I was affected but don't have any proof, so I have written several carefully-worded letters to several MPs, the ICO, BT and the BBC, as well as other high-profile members of the internet community about my belief that ISPs and the infrastructure of the internet should be protected against this kind of (ab)use, no specifically by Phorm but by any data profiling company.

I guess what I'm trying to say to everyone who wants to fight this is to try and take some (legal) direct action in writing, spreading the word through leaflets, bumper stickers, petitions... Whatever it takes rather than attacking individuals associated with Phorm and BT, especially where these people only became involved many months after the second trial. It's not as if SD wrote the software or introduced the happy couple of BT and Phorm.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Originally Posted by OF1975

Simple really. Two words: Patricia Hewitt.

What the former Secretary of State for Health and BT board member has got to do with current policing decisions or influencing newspaper editors I don't know.

From what I know about politics a political party is a party of strong-minded individuals and equally strong-minded senior civil servants who wouldn't be at the beck and call of a colleague who has been out of office for the best part of a year.

I would however look to other high profile members of the media, including some Phorm directors, and view the issue as simply one of money talking.