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

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by tobes539

Can't promise to check in every day, but I'll watch this space.

Toby

Sorry Toby, missed it was your first post. Welcome to the discussion.

[popper]

ot but related, is chris now gunning for Ofcom
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...okcall_genius/
"
Ofcom swoops on caller ID-faking firm with... request for information

Your regulator: On top of the issues that matter

By Chris Williams
Published Wednesday 11th June 2008 12:44 GMT
Ofcom said today it has responded to the launch of a new service enabling scammers to spoof their caller ID by, erm, writing a letter to the firm responsible.

Yesterday we reported on how members of parliament have asked regulators to examine Spookcall, a new company that has brought the US practice of caller ID-spoofing to the UK. It's commonly used Stateside for identity theft, prank calling, fraud, voicemail hacking and by private investigators.

Reaction to the emergence of caller ID spoofing in the UK by the El Reg commentariat was negative, to say the least...."

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by mark777

The Ebbsfleet issue seems to be popping up. The first reference I saw to it was on iii by Johnney Arrowmaker at 14:39 today.

"My mate in the city overheard that Phorm may be bundled in with the Ebbsfleet optical cable trials approval being considered by OFCOM?"

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...lay=discussion

Could someone who posts there ask him to amplify before it starts getting quoted in letters to regulators?

Done. But won't be around to follow up. See replies to BTCustomer post about Ebbsfleet if there are any

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by tobes539

However, on a positive note, I do believe that there is room for Phorm et al on the Internet.

There is no room for Phorm on the net.

Here's why;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/video/copyright.wmv

If you can watch that video and honestly claim Phorm has an ounce of legitimacy I'll be gobsmacked. Particularly because you're in the publishing/journalism industry n'est pas?

That's before you even consider the effect of Phorm on ecommerce, and other applications that require the privacy assured by RIPA, Computer Misuse, Fraud legislation etc

Cmon, keep up.

Pete.

PS Welcome, glad you've joined us.

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Bear in mind too - the thing that makes the internet the valuable resource it is, is the content.

If you value that content, you need to demonstrate respect for the rights of copyright holders.

If you rip off copyright content wholesale, you effectively steal "the entire internet" to paraphrase Phorm. And s.107/s.110 of the copyright act makes that a crime (not just a civil offence).

Well, on the plus side. If this garbage ever launches, I plan to retire to the Bahamas on the proceeds from copyright claims against ISPs. And I'm taking the people here with me .They can have an island each.

Pete.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

If you rip off copyright content wholesale, you effectively steal "the entire internet" to paraphrase Phorm. And s.107/s.110 of the copyright act makes that a crime (not just a civil offence).

Well, on the plus side. If this garbage ever launches, I plan to retire to the Bahamas on the proceeds from copyright claims against ISPs. And I'm taking the people here with me .They can have an island each.

Pete.

Pete - don't spoil it. I found a good site here :-

http://www.computerweekly.com/

I was planning on copying it to markysplace,com

and charging people to read it!

That's OK isn't it? After all, I can read it so it must be in the public domain. I expect they allow Google in as well. I can do what I want with it.

Can't I?

Originally Posted by mark777

The Ebbsfleet issue seems to be popping up. The first reference I saw to it was on iii by Johnney Arrowmaker at 14:39 today.

"My mate in the city overheard that Phorm may be bundled in with the Ebbsfleet optical cable trials approval being considered by OFCOM?"

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...lay=discussion

Could someone who posts there ask him to amplify before it starts getting quoted in letters to regulators?

Sounds like someone is getting confused with their BT "Trials" and their Kents:

BT haven't carried out their weblies "trial" yet so how can they consider bundling it with their fiber-to-the-premises deployment at Ebbsfleet which is in Kent - not to be confused with the right k*nt who owns Phorm.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by mark777

Pete - don't spoil it. I found a good site here :-

http://www.computerweekly.com/

I was planning on copying it to markysplace,com

and charging people to read it!

That's OK isn't it? After all, I can read it so it must be in the public domain. I expect they allow Google in as well. I can do what I want with it.

Can't I?

Yes. That's fine Mark. But I wonder if I could interest you in the following.

You pay me a few hundred quid to put an ad for markysplace.com on my web site, and I'll give you a copy of every page on Computer Weekly. Don't worry about the "© Reed Business Information Ltd", I'll strip that crap out for you.

BTW its getting so expensive to invest in infrastructure these days isn't it?

I'll probably use that money to invest in a new 10 GBit fibre optic ethernet network for my house.

Pete

[Florence]

you guys are funny when you are getting bored with nothing to do.....

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Yes. That's fine Mark. But I wonder if I could interest you in the following.

You pay me a few hundred quid to put an ad for markysplace.com on my web site, and I'll give you a copy of every page on Computer Weekly. Don't worry about the "© Reed Business Information Ltd", I'll strip that crap out for you.

Sounds good, but we had better delete the last few posts about this and discuss on PM. That way nodody will know about it.

EDIT : But I bet you don't spend the money on your network!

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by mark777

Sounds good, but we had better delete the last few posts about this and discuss on PM. That way nodody will know about it.

EDIT : But I bet you don't spend the money on your network!

Too late, I have leaked the whole thing to the Register. Did you not realise that the PM pages are now hosted on DodgyDaddyHosts, over in Houston, and all your PM's are forwarded to me at ww3.phishing.com for analysis and profiling.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by mark777

Sounds good, but we had better delete the last few posts about this and discuss on PM. That way nodody will know about it.

EDIT : But I bet you don't spend the money on your network!

Wrong he [img]Download Failed (1)[/img] will know.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

Wrong he will know.

Ahh, but ...

not the ICO, Home Office, Parliament or anybody important.

(But if you could please keep the noise down so the trials can go ahead and the share price could recover I would be grateful. )

EDIT : Misread OP, so removed plod!

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by mark777

Ahh, but ...

not the ICO, Home Office, Parliament or anybody important.

(But if you could please keep the noise down so the trials can go ahead and the share price could recover I would be grateful. )

EDIT : Misread OP, so removed plod!

You wont get away with it. I am going to ask Mick to start another thread on the cable forum and we shall call it the mark777dephormation trials. After a couple of months of bad press and postings you can both forget about the 10 GBit fibre optic ethernet network and all the high value shares. Surely this can't be legal.

Alex???

[SimonHickling]

Google alerts has just popped this one up

Government warned on surveillance society dangers

From the report

50. The company Phorm has designed Webwise and OIX, services which track internet
users’ online behaviour in order to increase the effectiveness of advertising on the internet.
These services have been taken up by some of the UK’s biggest internet service providers
but have been criticised on the grounds that if they are activated without the consent of the
user, they infringe privacy and may fall foul of laws regulating the interception of
communications. Phorm has given assurances that:

the systems have been configured so that the company does not have a record of the
actual sites visited and search terms used by the user and in addition the advertising
categories exclude certain sensitive terms and have been drawn widely so that the
profiles that they hold for users will not inadvertently reveal the identity of a user or
return advertising of a sensitive nature ... the ISP does not hold or have access to
either the advertising categories users have been matched against or the user ID and
does not keep a lasting record of internet traffic for any reason other than it would
have originally.

51. In April 2008 the Information Commissioner took the view that Phorm could operate
Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) in a way which is in compliance with the
Data Protection Act and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations but must be
sensitive to the concerns of users.

Why does everyone who may matter miss the blatant interception and concentrate on the DPA issues? I'm now very angry at the world (present company excepted)

---------- Post added at 00:58 ---------- Previous post was at 00:56 ----------

Just noticed they (Phorm) say the ISP doesn't have access to the User ID?

So who sets the cookie then? I thought that would come from the servers in the ISP network to which no-one else has access. Fishy

[icsys]

Originally Posted by popper

ot but related, is chris now gunning for Ofcom
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...okcall_genius/
"
Ofcom swoops on caller ID-faking firm with... request for information

Your regulator: On top of the issues that matter

By Chris Williams
Published Wednesday 11th June 2008 12:44 GMT
Ofcom said today it has responded to the launch of a new service enabling scammers to spoof their caller ID by, erm, writing a letter to the firm responsible.

Yesterday we reported on how members of parliament have asked regulators to examine Spookcall, a new company that has brought the US practice of caller ID-spoofing to the UK. It's commonly used Stateside for identity theft, prank calling, fraud, voicemail hacking and by private investigators.

Reaction to the emergence of caller ID spoofing in the UK by the El Reg commentariat was negative, to say the least...."

As I said back in post #8637 I fear that OFCON are like the rest of the regulatory bodies in this country and will most likely state...
"we cant see anything wrong with the SpookCall system, so we'll just stand well back and watch from a safe distance.

OFCON: Whats all this about Mr SpookCall?
SpookCall: Our services are entirely legal in the UK. Just ask those nice chaps over at the ICO, they'd believe us!
OFCON: Oh, right. If it's Ok with the ICO it's OK with us. Carry on, we'll just watch for a while.

Is every day April 1st at the ICO and OFCON offices???

Communications watchdogs have today been pressed by MPs to investigate a new service that allows people to fool caller ID systems into displaying a fake number, amid fears it will be abused by ID fraudsters and other conmen.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...aller_id_fake/
Pitty they don't have the same balls when it comes to Phorm's webwise which fools web browsers by giving a fake cookie to profile your browsing habits. Could this not be abused by ID fraudsters and other conmen?

Originally Posted by SimonHickling

Just noticed they (Phorm) say the ISP doesn't have access to the User ID?
So who sets the cookie then? I thought that would come from the servers in the ISP network to which no-one else has access. Fishy

The whole damn thing is fishy. It positively reeks of rotting fish!
Can't you see the seagulls circling overhead?