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

[popper]

Originally Posted by mant1s

I have been one of the lurkers here for several months now.

This campaign has got me spitting nails. Have been telling everyone i know about it and even got a reply from David Cameron after asking what he could/would do about it. Finally snapped this morning and cancelled my BB from virgin and going with adsl24 as of next week.

Thanks to everyone who has kept this alive and maybe see a few of you as the BT agm

mantis

hi mant1s,nice to see you come out of the shadows, what was your question(s) to david, and what was Cameron's reply?

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Wildie

so if and when the thing goes live and opted in, and i get phished and my bank a/c and id stolen whos fault would it be seeing they claim it`s a anti phishing feature this dpi.

What if the problem turns out to be the profiler leaking your data, I believe Phorm has gifted that to the ISP.

So the ISP would be responsible not Phorm?

Don't forget Steve Gibson should be commenting on Phorm & similar technologies tomorrow.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It is working fine here, anyone else having the same problem?

Alexander Hanff

Still doing the same thing. Closed browser and started a new window. Odd. It loads the top left eyes image, the navigation tabs, the right hand navi (donations button, calendar etc) but nothing in the big white space in the centre (under the "Where will you be on July 16th" banner)

It just hangs with "Waiting for https://nodpi..." in the status bar and the green progress bar hardly moving at all.

This page loads no problem (all the text - absolutely fine - no delay): https://nodpi.org/2008/06/17/
This page does not load the body text at all, just hangs: https://nodpi.org/2008/06/18/

Anyone on BT Broadband not having this issue? Using IE 7.0 browser - Vista.



Alex: Great article on ISPreview

All: I got my letter back from the Home Office this week (my MP sent it on to Stephen Timms)

It looks very similar to the one already received by another member here - from the same Baroness Shriti Vadera, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business & Competitiveness. Not very reassuring at all and it repeats the Phorm spin...

"Many web pages, including for example search engine results pages, include advertising which may or may not be of interest to the customer. Phorm enables the ISP to replace these advertisements with others that are relevant to the customer's recent web browsing. This potentially means less irrelevant advertisements for the user and better targeting of their advertisements for the advertisers, for which opportunity they would pay their ISP."

(Clearly this is a standard reply as it does not answer the questions I posed in any detail at all)

"[We] can assure you that the Government is committed to ensuring that people's privacy is fully protected."

(By doing sod all when a national telecomms company interecpts their communication without their permission and without a warrant from any courts or legally permitted agency?)

"The ICO has published its view on Phorm on its website and I enclose a copy here."

(version 1.3 18/4/08)

She goes on to say that the HO has advised ISPs on how the use of Phorm might be affected by the RIPA. She says:

"RIPA does not in itself mean that all applications of Phorm necessarily contravene the act."

Now I think I agree on that. Not ALL applications of Phorm would necessarily contravene the act. No - quite right...

Phorm could write some nice little spyware type program which users would have to install. That would not break RIPA would it...

Go back where many think you came from K*nt, back to your "roots" LOL. Then we can all get back to our day jobs and I can finish decorating my house instead of this. Until you do, my house can wait!

NO to interception; interception using Phorm IS illegal under RIPA.

Hank

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by Wildie

so if and when the thing goes live and opted in, and i get phished and my bank a/c and id stolen whos fault would it be seeing they claim it`s a anti phishing feature this dpi.

Ok something else to look into here - if Phorm is implemented, and you are a victim of a phishing site; Then I am sure that they MUST take FULL responsibility.

Ok guys - Anyone with better legal knowledge regarding this, in regards of which legislations would cover. I would not image the Fraud Act, unless it can be established that Phorm would be part of the Fraud. However, your views on liability in regards of cases where Phorm could be conceivably negligent under the law; and how would this be dealt with under the Act, or relating Acts.

I think this is another part of the preparation we need in place, to provide as much support to the public.

I will look up what I can over the next few days, but laws regarding fraud are not my strong point.

[popper]

Hank , go grab a Slax LiveCD, Burn and boot that CD on your PC to see if its the OS or a problem with your BT connection.

at least that should give you some clues without need to re-install anything on the HD.

http://www.slax.org/

works for most generic PC hardware using Ethernet iv used, although iv not tryed it on BT kit or NoDPI Https

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Check this out;

Sites with longest running systems at Performance Systems International Inc.

They are in good company.


Update; Peter beat me to it

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

More info;

Also Webwise.com, OIX.com, OIX.net, Webwise.net...

Beware, Netcraft report bt.webwise.com is still resolving to Gyron (89.145.112.32).

All seem to be back on Gyron but as stated on BT Forum, probably left Web site mirrors at netcraft.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

All seem to be back on Gyron but as stated on BT Forum, probably left Web site mirrors at netcraft.

I believe in the covert surveillance world it's called tradecraft.

[Wildie]

Hank just used IE7 and works but i am using XP pro

[Largerme]

I'm still here, been here since post no 1..
Its been a fantastic read and an education, I am spreading the word and have educated many people on this subject.

Thanks to all of you, keep up the good work.

[Dephormation]

Apols for the cross posting, but this is important, I think...

Please can someone else confirm this analysis.

I've been accessing www.webwise.com from the PSInet server 38.105.138.154 (using a modified hosts file) and comparing the results with the Gyron server 89.145.112.32 (using standard DNS).

The results are really interesting.

I think someone is taking the PIIs (personally identifiable information)..

Here's why.

If I connect direct to the Gyron server (89.145.112.32), and capture the traffic I see this (note the date and last modified fields);

GET htt p://www.webwise.com/style.css HTTP/1.1
<snip irrelevant headers>

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:25:21 GMT << EXACT SAME DATE AS BELOW
Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat)
Last-Modified: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:25:21 GMT << EXACT SAME DATE AS ABOVE
<snip irrelevant headers>

Now if I request the same document from the PSInet server (38.105.138.154) I get this;

GET htt p://www.webwise.com/style.css HTTP/1.1
<snip irrelevant headers>

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:03:02 GMT << CURRENT DATE, DIFFERENT TO DATE BELOW
Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat)
Last-Modified: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:33:39 GMT << HISTORIC DATE, DIFFERENT TO DATE ABOVE
<snip irrelevant headers>

The date header is used to indicate the server's current system time. The last-modified header should indicate when the file was last changed (to facilitate browser caching etc).

What I suspect is going on here is this. First the date header indicates the server at Gyron is set to a date in November 2007. If so, that's just an amateurish schoolboy type error.

But second, I believe the machine at Gyron may be acting at as proxy for the server in PSInet... Why? Because the last modified date exactly matches the server date when the file is requested from Gyron. In other words, I suspect it is a proxy server that knows nothing about the creation date of the original file. It is simply reporting the server local date/time for current date AND last modified date.

This is most important, because if my analysis is correct, it would obviously be deceptive to claim that data was being handled in the UK (because it was being proxied to the USA).

So please, can anyone confirm the analysis?

Or BT if you're reading this, please explain?

[funchords]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Funchords...not one of them there godanm commie geetarrists is he?

I have a yamaha super flighter sf 700, btw..and welcome to our cause!

Thanks! No, I sing in a barbershop quartet and love close vocal harmony -- hence the name funchords.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Here's a letter I'm drafting to Ian Livingston. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome.

BT, Webwise and Phorm: commercial risks and costs

Dear Mr Livingston,

I’m sure you are fully aware of what is happening regarding BT’s trials of Phorm. And I am sure you are equally aware that many believe BT’s use of Phorm is both illegal and immoral. However, I would like to bring to your attention the commercial risks and costs of your planned future deployment of Webwise across all BT home broadband users.

Low take-up if opt-in is fully informed. The Information Commissioner has said that schemes such as Webwise should be opt-in. Many critics will be monitoring how you implement this. So it is likely that you will have to expressly disclose that if they opt in, users will then have most of their web browsing intercepted and read. On this basis, few users are likely to opt in.

Technical community recommending “anyone but BT Home Broadband”. I am sure you have already quantified the potential loss through critics of BT’s relationship with Phorm terminating their broadband agreements with you. But these are also the people others go to for advice about computers and the Internet. Have you also calculated the much greater loss of new business as a result of these people advising that BT Home Broadband should be avoided?

Costs and cost of time in fighting copyright claims. Everything on the Internet is not free to use. For example you cannot download a picture and then make money from publishing it in a book. Small website owners, whose copyright is infringed by Webwise’s profiling, may sue BT in large numbers via the small claims courts, costing you time and money. Large website owners, such as Amazon, may take you to court for large sums of money.

Major Internet companies making Phorm’s operation worthless. The major Internet companies are unlikely to let Phorm take any significant share of their advertising revenue. Microsoft may adapt the Internet Explorer browser so that it does not process third party cookies (in the same way as a the Safari browser does not process them currently). Google may implement SSL so that its searches and results are encrypted. Phorm may be left with nothing to profile.

It would be a shame if one of BT’s major products ended up reviled and unwanted, particularly if this was a result of a commercial proposition which ultimately may be worth very little financially.

Yours sincerely,
Portly_Giraffe

So ... Comments?

[Florence]

If this is true then Kent is still upto something and trying to make it look legal he must think that people in England are thick wonder where he got that from... Oh yes BT since they think it is impossible to explain about phorm as it is too technical for customers and shareholders....

[Dephormation]

Err, more PIIs taking.

I repeated the test above for webwise.bt.com.

From Gyron servers (no modification to hosts file);

GET http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/css/global.css HTTP/1.1
<snip irrelevant headers>

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:16:54 GMT << SAME DATE TIME AS BELOW
Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat)
Last-Modified: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:16:54 GMT << SAME DATE TIME AS ABOVE
<snip irrelevant headers>

Using PSInet address (38.105.138.154)

GET http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/css/global.css HTTP/1.1
<snip irrelevant headers>

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:03:43 GMT << CURRENT DATE
Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat)
Last-Modified: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:09:47 GMT << HISTORIC DATE
<snip irrelevant headers>

Looks a lot like the Gyron server is a proxy to me.

Please anyone able to confirm my analysis and opinion?

If I'm right this is worse than very bad. Its more bad than a bad thing on a bad day in a bad year.

[Privacy_Matters]

deleted