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

[icsys]

Originally Posted by 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.

The ICO was informed of the June 2007 trials in a written complaint from a BT customer, received by the ICO on 10th March 2008.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/docum...ng_letters.pdf

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by 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.

The quicker they start 'manoeuvring' the quicker people will get off their backs.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree they need some room and wriggle space, but they need to know how angry people are, to focus their minds on the issue. They need to start wriggling in the right direction. They have had long enough.

With regards to all the documents, we need to get a timeline together, what was said and when.

We need to compare all 'official' documents, leaked or gained by FOI or timestamped enquiries with what was being spouted to the press.

Between all the players, i'm sure we will find a lot of porkies, and the evidence for it.

We will also find where the gaps are e.g. documents or meetings not yet disclosed.

That would help them to get up to speed, they wouldn't need to understand the IT, just that X or Y lied.

We need to overcome months/years of misinformation delivered by people with millions of pound at their disposal. They have had a go at the regulators, the government, parliament and the EU.

[popper]

Originally Posted by icsys

Joking aside... where does everyone stand now in light of this information?
(With still more to come)

well its all good for any small claim county court case you might bring OC.

you might even manage to get the court to order a full documents disclosure and without those pesky blacked out bits and many more unreleased documents and Emails besides, so you can better make your case before the court.

a single small claims win doesnt give you a Precedent (Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases).

but many private SC's against the ISPs hitting the courts at the same time, so overloading the lower courts (as in the case of the Bank charges)can find the better supported evidence cases be pushed up the court system to the upper courts and perhaps even to the High court itself i beleave, and that would give everyone that Precedent.

OC the ISPs might first be forced into Concession due to the death by a thousand cuts or the old "water torture"

thats not so good in the long run for everyone, as it doesnt put a direct legal ruling in the path of any other companies that might try something like it in the future.


i do think theres lots of mileage of the http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm ruling though, just the real possibility that a named executives and the team that initiated or authorised this, can infact find themselves personally on the hook for RIPA violations if someone names them in a court case must be werth a few lines in any Letter before action (LBA) small claim case.

spot:see them run

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by kagemusha

If this document is correct then BT and Phorm are misrepresenting good and services, breaking The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Specifically

Part 2, Prohibitions. Sub section Misleading Omissions.

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or.....

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_1

(Thanks to Annie Hall for directing me to the legislation)

Thanks for this. I have sent an email on this topic to the Consumers Association researcher I've been corresponding with occasionally about Webwise/Phorm. The interstitial page in the FOI pack dates back to March before the ICO said that Webwise/Phorm had to be "opt-in". However other principles such as including all material information and ensuring that it is the BT account holder who gives consent were clearly absent. I've suggested that they insist on these (as well as a true "opt-in" scheme) should they be in dialogue with BT over Webwise/Phorm.

[warescouse]

Not too sure this has been mentioned before but I spotted on 80/20 site a
code of ethics link:

http://www.8020thinking.com/ethics.html

I was interested in the "Our principles of engagement" section.

Is this new?

I wondered if they have had some recent bad experience with a client or clients that caused them to write the section provisions in the manner in which they did.

[JackSon]

I think that section has been there for as long as the rest of the site (although the site, like the company itself, is still only months old).

[icsys]

I think, what is needed here is collation of all the public statements made by BT and Phorm to the press and customers this can then be cross referenced with the facts as presented within the ICO FoI documents.

Any inconsistencies, untruths or misleading statements can then be highlighted and put into context.

I admit, trying to find quotes is not easy...

EDIT: I note that mark777 already mentioned this in post #10308

I will print off all the docs tomorrow and try to asseble them in chronological order.
Trying to work out who sent what to who (with all the blanking out) is hard on the screen.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think to really understand how we can do this, it would be useful if we could establish who in the Home Office thought Webwise/Phorm was a good idea, why they thought that and why they still think that. Because that's what appears to be behind the continuing threat that Phorm (or a similar technology) might be deployed in the UK. After all, in the US where Congress has sent a clear message, Charter has shelved plans to deploy Nebuad.

So was it a politician or a civil servant? And if so, who? My bet is that it was a civil servant, and that the politicians are just following along.

Did they think Webwise/Phorm was a good idea because they viewed the Internet as a toy rather than a serious conduit of information and commerce?

Or were they genuinely so perplexed by IT that they were unable to understand such basic concepts as the fact that risks to your privacy can only rise if your data is intercepted?

Maybe like some recent and current holders of the highest offices of state their experience of computers was very limited?

I leave these thoughts with you as you leaf through the Freedom of Information response before you turn the lights out. If you do come across anything which points to an individual with an argument that Webwise/Phorm mightn't be such a bad idea I'm sure you'll let us all know.

[lardycake]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

... it would be useful if we could establish who in the Home Office thought Webwise/Phorm was a good idea, why they thought that and why they still think that. Because that's what appears to be behind the continuing threat that Phorm (or a similar technology) might be deployed in the UK. ...

Spot on. I think this is key to understanding and changing the attitude of HM Govt..

[jelv]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Got this PR thing down pat, haven't they?

BT PRscrewup part deux

Excellent!

I'll copyright a file, and let it "leak out". A BT user stuck in a contract can then share it over P2P. I'll then complain to BT. Repeat twice and the contract is terminated by BT!

[phormwatch]

>I'll copyright a file, and let it "leak out". A BT user stuck in a contract can then share it over P2P. I'll then complain to BT. Repeat twice and the contract is terminated by BT!

The letter states that you will have to pay for the fees for the remainder of your contract.

---------- Post added at 03:13 ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 ----------

OK, I've downloaded on the the Phorm flyers and printed out a few dozen copies which I have posted around town.

Apart from that, I have been very busy lately and haven't been able to keep up with the Phorm debacle - though I'm glad to see all those documents released.

What can I do now? Is there anyone I could be writing to? Anything else?

Couldn't sleep so I made this - I feel better now...

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Wildie

print some off and take a on the street view by asking anyone what it means to them also needs a online one as well.

I have recreated the BT Webwise interstitial page Here.

It is easier to read, and easier to print out.

---------- Post added at 04:15 ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 ----------

Originally Posted by icsys

Permission to link Sir! ??
(Thinks about bandwidth usage due to the amount of hits to dephormation)

You may link to my recreated BT Webwise interstitial page.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Couldn't sleep so I made this - I feel better now...

Neet poster, made me Smile a Lot.

[Phormic Acid]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

I have recreated the BT Webwise interstitial page Here.

Very good. You might want to use these bits to make it an even closer match.