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

[icsys]

Originally Posted by serial

Probably this page:

http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/how-it-works.php

Thats new [to me], I haven't seen that one before.

[jtechs]

as for the ICO files, I will host them all for as long as required, leech away. unlimited BW

www.btweblies.com

Jtech

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by serial

Probably this page:

http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/how-it-works.php

is it me how i see things as i see that they putting the smallest part of it the anti phishing in big eye catching form info first and the real main reason for the service 2nd and small and not so eye catching.


oi web browsers come with anti phishing built in and they work without the adverts.

[popper]

Originally Posted by icsys

I believe the EU suggested that Phorm present Webwise to the Article 29 working party "on the basis that it enhances privacy".

Whether that means Phorm themselves present it i'm not sure.

perhaps if the baroness turns up , hopefully she might even see fit to inform and bring along some of her peers too, someone can ask her, what exactly was it that also gave her the misguided initial opinion that Phorm were as the EU also seem to think was so great, a simple lack of basic laymans/womans details being given them ,talking up the it "doesnt store" lie, or forgetting to mention the very first data protection rule "dont collect" without good reason, never mind collate,process,store,export etc.

it would be good to understand why (as in why did they beleave the tale being told) and how they are being lied to to get he required effect and complience.

[serial]

OK, am I being dumb: "The ICO has not contacted any independent IT experts for their view on Webwise since being made aware of the 2007 trails(sic) on 10 March 2007"

dates of contacts between ICO and Phorm, 8020 and BT:

1st contact Phorm 20/03/08
1st contact BT - 03/04/08
8020 - never

So who informed them of the trials in March 2007? I thought the 2007 trials were later in the year.

[Kursk]

We're kind of aiming at a peripheral target here and it might be an idea to give officialdom room to 'manoeuvre'. Technology moves at a pace and it is unlikely that anyone can keep abreast of all of the change all of the time. They are getting up to speed and it might serve us better to get them onside; we need allies not enemies.

[Dephormation]

Full suite of scanned docs now uploaded to Dephormation as PDFs.

Links below, thread on Badphorm if you need full hi res scans, or a CD copy.

FoI Response, Covering letters (9Mb)

Letters from ICO to BT, and BT to ICO (9Mb)

Email Correspondence Batch 1 (6Mb)
Email Correspondence Batch 2 (6Mb)
Email Correspondence Batch 3 (6Mb)

Goodnight.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm just to the right of the fridge freezer and adjacent to the living room door.

finally, Mr Angry arrives, how are you ,have you read all the thread yet MrA ?

why is it that the professional's dont really comment on the legal matters raised in all this MrA ?,even a personal view from a trained professional would be valuable, that really bothers me...

[Dephormation]

I'll leave you with a thought from the email signature of the ICO staff;

"The Information Commissioner's office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended and you should perform your own virus checks"

[roadrunner69]

The only thing that surprises me about the webwise invitation page is that everyone here seems surprised by it.

I think we all knew exactly what it would say, and indeed some of us said as much several months ago - almost word perfect.

Did you expect anything else from a company who have spyware experts on hand to design it?

[popper]

night pete, sleep well

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

..

Priceless

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Florence

Regardless on if phorm present it or they have this information to read with 80/20 thinking chairing thye have to declare the conflict of interests and withdraw from that part or it is expected they will manipulate this meeting to get phorm accepted.

I have to agree, it is a total conflict of interest.
Either the phorm system should stay away from the Article 29 working party or 80/20 withdraw from participation. It's that simple.

---------- Post added at 23:49 ---------- Previous post was at 23:46 ----------

Originally Posted by serial

Probably this page:

http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/how-it-works.php

I note that BT/Phorm are still pushing the cookie opt-in/out
BT Webwise uses cookies stored on your computer to capture your preference. These cookies are linked to individual computers, user accounts and browsers, so you will need to switch the service on or off from each computer, user account and browser you use. If you delete the cookie, you'll need to reset your preference.

If you delete the cookie, you'll need to reset your preference.... or should that say... 'if you delete the cookie you will need to opt-out again'?

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Isn't there a law to stop people like Mr E being named after Counties of this fair land.having said that I'm From the Royal County,on the otherhand !!!!! quite fitting.So self appraisal is the order of the day maybe Phorm will turn into an IT specialist to examine future tech now there's an easy way to to get the oppositions ideas.

Tarquin

You've probably all reached a conclusion on this but I've been trawling through the documents from the ICO (very impressive it is too) which reveals the level of written communication between the ICO, Home Office, Phorm and BT alas, the "calls" referred to were not recorded.

I think that communication is the wrong word here isn't it?

Collusion

That's more like it!!

I have finally got to ico_documents_covering_letters.pdf, which I probably should have read first, but having digested the bulk of the material and being a cynic, when the ICO said (Statement dated 4 April 2008 pg10 of 11)

"We will continue to maintain close contact with Phorm and BT throughout the trial. Clearly the trial should reveal whether this is a service that web users want, whether it is privacy friendly and that users are comfortable with the privacy safeguards put in place by Phorm"

Who was going to monitor the trial and provide the ICO with the answers to those questions?

Until the storm of protest that we are a part of - it was going to be Phorm and BT wasn't it?

Won't that still be the case??

At that point in April it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the ICO shared the same interpretation as Phorm and BT :

"whether it is privacy friendly" = "whether anyone realises what we're doing"

It's quite sickening when evidence of what you thought might be taking place is suddenly laid before you in black and white.