Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 528

Wildie · 03-06-2008, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

And if an occasional Alert comes up on any Web Page that reminds you that Webwise is "on" or "OFF" it proves the Phorm System is still monitoring & "Occasionally setting ads", in particular the AD to tell you Webwise is "OFF"????.

Mentioned in the Video above!

we should be opt out by default no cookie no phorm ad`s peroid

they really should buy them selfs out of the what ever they signed up for, as the model has to be opt in and breaks the one they thought they was going to get all in and hush hush.

no mention of VM but sadly thats not going to help them with the new capping limits not giving the customers the speed they paid for when they need it the most.

icsys · 03-06-2008, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildie

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

And if an occasional Alert comes up on any Web Page that reminds you that Webwise is "on" or "OFF" it proves the Phorm System is still monitoring & "Occasionally setting ads", in particular the AD to tell you Webwise is "OFF"????.

Mentioned in the Video above!

we should be opt out by default no cookie no phorm ad`s peroid

they really should buy them selfs out of the what ever they signed up for, as the model has to be opt in and breaks the one they thought they was going to get all in and hush hush.

no mention of VM but sadly thats not going to help them with the new capping limits not giving the customers the speed they paid for when they need it the most.

Phorm has more spin than a waltzer at the fair!
No! Lets say phorm are the spinning plates and BT are twiddling the sticks to keep them from falling.

serial · 03-06-2008, 14:14

From the video:
Webwise...
"Click on any Ad and you can switch it on or off".

So how will that work, do they get paid a click through when you opt-out?

Berealwith · 03-06-2008, 14:20

Just a quick question..............is anyone trialing Phorm ? As it's got a lot of intrest

tarka · 03-06-2008, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by icsys

After watching that video, I noted several times the phrase 'webwise never knows where you have been'. Then, further on the video goes on to say 'user 123 has been to travel sites X or Y'. But I thought that 'webwise never knows where you have been'?. How then do you know I have been to website X or Y?

Also note this on their privacy page (http://www.webwise.com/privacy/best-privacy.html)

We will protect your privacy and any information that can identify you personally.

We will never collect or store any personally-identifiable information about you. We will not store IP addresses, URLs or search terms, or anything sensitive, and we have established industry-leading standards regarding storage, retention and deletion of data.

Followed by...

We will protect all data.

We keep all data secure on our servers taking all possible steps to ensure that the data collected is protected and that access to it is limited to employees with the need to review such information.

So they don't collect any data but they ensure the data they collect is secure. I appreciate they only mention PII in the first quote, but if that was the case what data would need to be secured?

NTLVictim · 03-06-2008, 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Another article:

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16105

I should be getting a link to yet another article later tonight.

Alexander Hanff

The site appears to be down?

Rchivist · 03-06-2008, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by icsys

After watching that video, I noted several times the phrase 'webwise never knows where you have been'. Then, further on the video goes on to say 'user 123 has been to travel sites X or Y'. But I thought that 'webwise never knows where you have been'?. How then do you know I have been to website X or Y?

Phorm claim (in advertiser oriented promotions) that they know what you were doing 3 days ago (looking at ads for a certain Canon camera model)

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Reply from Don Foster MP (signatory to Early Day Motion in Commons)

I've had a reply from my MP Annette Brook (LD) one of the EDM signatories, with Don Foster's response to my concerns (Don Foster MP is the intiator of the EDM). It does not make for happy reading.

He has met Phorm, and appears to have been given their standard talk, and believed it.

the points where he appears to have been effectively misled are:

1 - non https email. "There is no suggestion that Phorm would be able to scan individual emails for content because the system does not monitor `https' URLs which are used for secure access websites". This is sufficient for Don Foster to then go on and say "Ths should mean that it is unable to collect any personally idenfiable data". Again - serious lack of understanding of the system evident here.

This ignores the issue of the many non-https mail sites, security issues relating to the cookies, data handling by BT Webwise sites, and the issue of interception of Phorm UID by 3rd party websites.

2 - He appears not to be familiar with Dr Clayton's analysis as he says, "I am confident that currently and in the future, Phorm poses no risk to individuals' privacy and security".

3 - He makes absolutely no reference to webmasters intellectual property rights and the lack of webmaster explicit informed consent.

He has concerns about the previous tests and seems to confine his concerrn to the potential illegality of BT's 2006 and 2007 trials.

He states that - "the tests put the trust between BT and their customers at risk". You bet it does.

He states that he has met with BT and urged them to consult their customers before any further tests take place and to use an opt-in system. Presumably the closed Q&A thread on the BT beta forums represents this consultation - unfortunately the answers stopped coming as soon as the questions got difficult. He been "assured that this will be the case (opt-in) for any future tests or use of the service". Good, but even the ICO was saying that - just that BT have never confirmed up to now that they would abide by that. So - some progress.

He states that "there is no way of knowing whose data traffic was processed in these trials" (2006/2007). That will be news to those who already KNOW that they were included. He urges such people to "contact BT to discuss their experience." I would recommend those people who have evidence of being affected by the BT secret trials to contact Don Foster MP and relate what responses BT have given them, and what response they have had from the ICO. Don Foster has made his feelings (on the secret trials) "very clear to BT and hope that they will offer a full apology to all customers affected."

He has been informed by the ICO that "the ICO has ruled that the tests were technically legal". So presumably he does not agree with Nicholas Bohm of FIPR.

With regard to the website blacklist - he is informed by Phorm that "they have over 1000 known webmail websites on their blacklist." So that leaves one heck of a lot of the internet still to give or withold their explicit informed consent. No mention of all the other websites whose intellectual property is going to be copied, exploited and profiled. He has said he believes that "for the sake of transparency and accountability, Phorm should make public this blacklist. They have so far refused to do so, but I shall continue to pressure them on this."

He has no problems with the company Phorm, or what they do but does have problems with the way the product has been tested. He has had assurances from BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk that the system will be opt-IN across the board, along with demonstrations to support that. Great - all they need to do now is communicate with their customers?

He concludes:
"I am convinced the technology is safe to use, and believe that there are sufficient systems in place to notify customers of Phorm and for customers to choose not to use this system."

I'm very dis-satisfied with that reply but note:

BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk have committed to opt-in. Presumably BT can now confirm that to their customers? US?

Hope this sparks some further debate.

Dephormation · 03-06-2008, 15:06

BT News.

www.webwise.bt.com is back ... but

This time its the same IP as webwise.bt.com, and the same as bt.webwise.com, and the same as www.phorm.com, and the same as www.webwise.com.

Its located in the UK.

IP address is now 89.145.112.31, "PHORM IPV4 ASSIGNMENT". http://89.145.112.31 displays Phorm.com.

I've confirmed via netcraft.co.uk.

Rchivist · 03-06-2008, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

BT News.

www.webwise.bt.com is back ... but

This time its the same IP as webwise.bt.com, and the same as bt.webwise.com, and the same as www.phorm.com.

Its located in the UK.

IP address is now 89.145.112.31, "PHORM IPV4 ASSIGNMENT". http://89.145.112.31 displays Phorm.com.

Confirmations?

Looks that way to me to.

Note - the site is now fully repatriated - the Gyron host is UK.
All the sites use contact handling via custhelp.com and not Phorm/121Media

BUT - the fact that they have changed all this makes DPA reports to ICO about the way this BT Webwise site WAS operating well worth submitting - because it looks like BT have been caught napping and now have stopped what they have realised was dodgy practice (letting Phorm run BT webwise pages over in the States using non Safe Harbor companies, and even sending MORE PII data to Phorm/121Media through the old contact us pages.)

I've copied this info over on to BT Beta forums.

jelv · 03-06-2008, 15:34

Has anyone pointed out to Phorm that the advice given on http://www.webwise.com/privacy/can-choose-ON.html to the question "I am having trouble keeping Webwise switched off. What should I do?" is incorrect. It should say "Change ISP".

Fluffykins · 03-06-2008, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by iglu

Apparently you can switch it on and off at will

http://www.phorm.com/

How it works:

*Ntl gives phorm a random number and the web page you are looking

*Phorm gives NTl the relevant ad together with the number

*NTl pops the ads on your screen, they know your IP as it is associated with the random number returned by Phorm

Hang on - I thought Phorm wasn't supposed to track you as an individual (he asked innocently

)

SelfProtection · 03-06-2008, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

BT News.

www.webwise.bt.com is back ... but

This time its the same IP as webwise.bt.com, and the same as bt.webwise.com, and the same as www.phorm.com, and the same as www.webwise.com.

Its located in the UK.

IP address is now 89.145.112.31, "PHORM IPV4 ASSIGNMENT". http://89.145.112.31 displays Phorm.com.

I've confirmed via netcraft.co.uk.

Don't forget oix. sites are also on those two IP addresses.
a.webwise. & b.webwise. are on slightly different IP addresses.

I don't know whether this is relevant or will become relevant but phorm.net is on a different IP address.

Rchivist · 03-06-2008, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

Phorm claim (in advertiser oriented promotions) that they know what you were doing 3 days ago (looking at ads for a certain Canon camera model)

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Reply from Don Foster MP (signatory to Early Day Motion in Commons)

I've had a reply from my MP Annette Brook (LD) one of the EDM signatories, with Don Foster's response to my concerns (Don Foster MP is the intiator of the EDM). It does not make for happy reading.

He has met Phorm, and appears to have been given their standard talk, and believed it.
snip

I've emailed my MP back with a detailed explanation of why Don Foster's response is both inadequate, disappointing and politically weak. Anyone else willing to give him a prod too? I've told him about the demo and said he needs to meet opponents of Phorm and not just meet Phorm and BT.

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dephormation

BT News.

www.webwise.bt.com is back ... but

This time its the same IP as webwise.bt.com, and the same as bt.webwise.com, and the same as www.phorm.com, and the same as www.webwise.com.

Its located in the UK.

IP address is now 89.145.112.31, "PHORM IPV4 ASSIGNMENT". http://89.145.112.31 displays Phorm.com.

I've confirmed via netcraft.co.uk.

I've done some cookie checking today, and the two sites
webwise.bt.com
www.webwise.bt.com
both process the bt username cookie with the primary email address (appears in dephormation logs of visits to the contact.php pages)

The third bt.webwise.com site does not do this presumably because as a non bt.com site, it doesn't access the bt.com cookies.
The three sites are identical as regards content.
All use custhelp.com for their contact form handling (having mysteriously dumped the Phorm/121Media involvement in that process by last weekend)
So much for transparency on the part of BT.

Once again - it isn't what BT SAY but what they don't say, and what they do while they aren't saying it, that is revealing.

They have responded to exposure by repatriating the BT Webwise operation and by taking the data handling aspect of the BT Webwise contact pages from Phorm.com and giving it to their main Help agents custhelp.com

So anyone who wants to submit a DPA complaint about the old way those pages worked, who has emails with References: headers containing the string Phorm.com or 121Media.com or subject lines with FW in them, do complain to the ICO. He may ignore you, but all those ignored complaints eventually have to be accounted for to the EC. It's tedious but worth doing IMHO.

hOrZa · 03-06-2008, 19:38

Is anyone else seeing display problems with this forum? I'm using the latest Opera and the page formating is massive

tia

hOrZa

Dephormation · 03-06-2008, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

...do complain to the ICO. He may ignore you, but all those ignored complaints eventually have to be accounted for to the EC. It's tedious but worth doing IMHO.

Indeed... its vitally important you do this because at some point the Information Commissioner may be replaced (fingers crossed) by someone more capable who will act against BT.

Pete.