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

[Florence]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I don't actually WANT to keep google or phorm out of this test site by robots.txt - I want to use it as a test site - but IF I wanted to use the official declared robots.txt method of banning Phorm/Webwise, I can't see any way of doing it.

And if the official way of doing this, recommened by my Webwise-prone ISP is actually not possible on ISP webspace provided by the same ISP, don't THEY have a problem?

Anyway - I'll throw this at them and see what happens and keep you posted.

The free hosting with your ISP is not always thrown open to general public, many of those sites are family orinated with links only handed around the family due to idetifyable data in them.

With the why BT has this at present these will be harvested..

Over PM a friend suggested as a test to see if VM are running phorm if all VM customers started to visit websites like ISPreview ADSLguide and BT to amke it look like you are thinking of moving, then see if any adverts about specioal offers arive on your screen.

[Wildie]

with BT they can use opt in without cookies, they can use the hubs of the a/c holders like they do with their BT fon opt in, but clearly they don`t wont opt in do they.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by thebarron

See may post above : The sensative parts of my websites can only be viewed once logged on. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on and therefore cannot know the data has implied consent or not. I do not need meta tags or robots.txt to prevent Google from seeing this data as Google (other search engines) cannot see them. If I have to use meta tags or robots.txt then I am being asked to Opt-Out which is not legal!

BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.

[thebarron]

Originally Posted by R Jones

BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.

I do not think they can know if the user is logged on or not. They would have to be able to examine the status of the site cookies and be able to interpret them. Also a laptop owner could be logged on at one location (none phormed) and then take it to another location (phormed) still logged on.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by R Jones

BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.

one way round this then is to set up your first page as a brief outline of your plans and reason why they have to login thern website behind this login page.

Nothign Phorm can harvest once they login.

[AlexanderHanff]

Some big news in the press today re: DPA. Some may find it strange that an article about paparazzi taking photos of J K Rowling's son might be relevant to Phorm but let me explain why it is relevant.

The Judge has ruled that if other laws relating to privacy have been breached then as a result the DPA is breached as well as the processing of any data which has been obtained through a breach of a another law (such as RIPA, CMA etc etc etc.) that processing becomes unlawful under the DPA.

This is a pretty big story, it will be interesting to see more legal analysis coming out in the next few days on it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rivacy_ruling/

Now lets see ICO try to wriggle out of that one...

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by dav

What the fudge?!
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...IM+B1WTNC4PHRM

How can the trade of (edit)7000 shares bump the price up by 20-odd%?

Might we see the PIA today?

I fully expect the share price to jump on the back of that and maybe some small investors are thinking the same. A good way to make money on a short term blip.

[thebarron]

Originally Posted by Florence

one way round this then is to set up your first page as a brief outline of your plans and reason why they have to login thern website behind this login page.

Nothign Phorm can harvest once they login.

The problem is that there is no way that phorm can know if the page the user is viewing is behind a logon or not. So it will always profile the user's page if it is on http.
Search engines on the other hand will never profile the pages as they need the user to logon for them, so Phorms statement that they are better then Google is an outright lie.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by mark777

Might we see the PIA today?

I fully expect the share price to jump on the back of that and maybe some small investors are thinking the same. A good way to make money on a short term blip.

Just look at the size of the trades, it is blatantly obvious that there is a very serious effort to ramp the stock, very small trades selling at high prices.

I would suggest someone has a lot of shares they want to dump but they don't want to make a huge loss on them (bought them at 20+) so they are trying to get the price up in order to dump them again.

There certainly isn't any news I can find anywhere (not even on Phorm's site) which can otherwise account for today's market activity.

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

{snip}
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rivacy_ruling/

Now lets see ICO try to wriggle out of that one...

Alexander Hanff

And the author of the register piece is out-law.com!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by mark777

And the author of the register piece is out-law.com!

They often write articles for El Reg.

Alexander Hanff

[Dephormation]

Alexander (or anyone else interested in commercial exploitation of copyright content)

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a look at this thread on BadPhorm, and share your thoughts.

I think there may be a way to obliterate Phorm using a combination of UID leakage, copyright law, royalties and invoicing for unauthorised commercial exploitation.

Pete

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Alexander (or anyone else interested in commercial exploitation of copyright content)

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a look at this thread on BadPhorm, and share your thoughts.

I think there may be a way to obliterate Phorm using a combination of UID leakage, copyright law, royalties and invoicing for unauthorised commercial exploitation.

Pete

Pete, I will have a looksie later, I am up to my neck in work at the moment. I have two pieces to hand in in the next couple of hours.

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Alexander (or anyone else interested in commercial exploitation of copyright content)

I'd be very grateful if you'd take a look at this thread on BadPhorm, and share your thoughts.

I think there may be a way to obliterate Phorm using a combination of UID leakage, copyright law, royalties and invoicing for unauthorised commercial exploitation.

Pete

I like the idea and although I don't know enough about the legal side to comment, the thought of BT up before the beak for breach of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 puts a big grin on my face.

---

Just one thought. A week or so ago, I think it was R Jones who mentioned that BT had offered to exclude domains from the system (by opt out).

Presumably the first invoice they receive will show the domains of the participant, which they would then exclude and thus no more forged cookies to detect.

Leaving aside the issue of the invoice actually being paid, you would need to generate a lot of publicity to recruit new members for the following month.

I don't suppose that would be a problem though as there will be enough people who either hate phorm or would want a slice of any potential income.

I also think the invoicing, if done centrally, would need to be done in such a way as to allow each individual site owner to pursue payment through the small claims court. (rather than one action on behalf of all owners.)

Presumably an ISP deploying phorm would imply consent to being included in your system.

You should float this on AIM. It's a much more robust business model than Kent's idea.

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Not content with lodging the Early Day Motion to Parliament, Don Foster MP continues to ask awkward questions.
In his monthly newsletter, emailed to a huge number of his constituents (and available online), Don writes:



Rather proud to have Don as my MP.

Nice to see that Don Fosters Early Day Motion now has 46 MPs signed up (9th May 2008). I was disappoint to see that only 3 Tory MPs have signed it, I thought the Tories were trying to escape from "the nasty party" image of yesteryear? And what about Hague why hasn't he signed it, perhaps the original poster that brought Phormscum to Hagues attention should ask him.