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

[madslug]

Originally Posted by icsys

I use AVG 8. ..
I think it is unfair to brand AVG with the likes of Phorm .

I agree and disagree, weighting more towards disagreeing.

They are selling a product which scraps copyright content and analyses it in order to make a commercial profit for themselves.

They are using my bandwidth by disguising themselves as a real visitor.

Scrappers are routinely banned from my sites.

They are looking at the sites you look at plus, as a minimum, 9 other sites and PPC ads related to the same search term - 9+ times more snooping than Phorm is doing.

The big negative, is that it does not maintain a database of good/bad sites.

The only plus I can think of is that currently the script is not reporting back to mama.

How many of the above do you rank as redeeming factors?

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by isf

It's BT who are making the google comparison and mentioning robots.txt as an opt-out for site operators, the user won't be requesting that file. As previously noted, not every site has access to the document root. If Phorm can append themselves to the user agent string, this gives web masters the ability to opt-out in a way that stands BT's comparison with googlebot.

I think it was also noted that they were doing a scrape for robots.txt of domains to keep in a cache, so during regular browsing of a Phorm connection, the kit still wont make its own unique connection to said site as it will already have the robots.txt on file, and thus leaving the connection purely down to the user agent of the user. There just wont be a user agent of Phorms to block.

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------

Rather than use the word 'block' I should have used the word 'deny' really as robots.txt is a system of honour and respecte rather than access protection.

Honor and respect...

There's a phrase you wouldn't expect to see in a discussion about Phorm.

[isf]

Originally Posted by JackSon

I think it was also noted that they were doing a scrape for robots.txt of domains to keep in a cache, so during regular browsing of a Phorm connection, the kit still wont make its own unique connection to said site as it will already have the robots.txt on file, and thus leaving the connection purely down to the user agent of the user. There just wont be a user agent of Phorms to block.

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------

Rather than use the word 'block' I should have used the word 'deny' really as robots.txt is a system of honour and respecte rather than access protection.

I can specify "User-agent: Googlebot" and a specific rule in my robots.txt, it's BT are telling us there's implied consent and that site operators can opt out. We need a UA to do that effectively. Not every site has access to robots.txt if they want to continue down this "implied consent" route, they need to append the UA string for requests accordingly.

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by isf

I can specify "User-agent: Googlebot" and a specific rule in my robots.txt, it's BT are telling us there's implied consent and that site operators can opt out. We need a UA to do that effectively. Not every site has access to robots.txt if they want to continue down this "implied consent" route, they need to append the UA string for requests accordingly.

Agreed with all the above. Sadly I don't think a UA for Phorm will ever exist though. If it wants to win over the web it really ought to though I do agree.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Peter N

Honor and respect...

There's a phrase you wouldn't expect to see in a discussion about Phorm.

Glad the irony was not lost

[Ryewolf]

Would that mean if Phorms webwise goes live, they would also get those http requests and pages that AVG makes?

[3x2]

http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/

How Internet copyright legislation affects you

What you need to know

Intellectual Property.gov.uk sums up UK Internet copyright law as: "material sent over the Internet or stored on web servers will generally be protected in the same way as material in other media", and that one must have the owner's permission to use it.

Therefore, any material that you own the copyright for and put on the Internet is protected from others using it without permission. And the reverse applies as well - if you come across something on the Internet, you cannot use it without observing the owner's copyright terms.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Great letter, Robert.

Quick question for you; did you ever get Emma S. to explain how they are going to explain the forging cookies issue, especially with regards to sites who don't use cookies, and explicity state they don't in their privacy policy?

OB

No - that's on my list of "significant unanswered questions". Tried - finally given up.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Originally Posted by phormwatch

What's Emma's email address? I will ask her if she thinks it would be OK if people commercially exploit BTs websites for the same reasons.

BT managers have their email address in the form of firstnamedotlastnameATbtdotcom and she is [ Moderator Edit ]



[Moderator Edit (Rob M): Please do not post names of individuals who have not specifically requested/authorised that you do so.]

[NewsreadeR]

One thing sites can do, and I am up for trying it.

How about a redirect for all BT IP's that visit the website in question. Is there anyway we could forward that ISP's IP range to a Webwise information page, with links for the Petition, AGM Protest etc.

ie Any of BT's customers who visit any of the participating websites, don't actually get to see the website, with an explanation of why we are doing this, to promote a wider knowledge of Phorm etc and if they wish to know why they are being blocked from visiting to ring or email Emma?

Maybe do it once a week as a sign of solidarity and once BT and Phorm is launched permanently, or am I just been stupid?

This would help raise awareness and generate some extra work for our friends at BT.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Ryewolf

Would that mean if Phorms webwise goes live, they would also get those http requests and pages that AVG makes?

Yes - Assuming both systems haven't changed significantly by then.

The result as I see it has two parts:

1. The profile built up for you is less accurate. (Though maybe not significantly)

2. AVGs link scanner will have to cope with lots of redirects etc. Which it may well fail to do. This is part of the general problem of breaking non-browser applications that use http.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by icsys

cut ...


I would agree but there have been occasions when the topics of posts have clearly diverted. However your comments are relevant.

@all

People need to remember who has posted here (Baroness Miller for example) and who may be following the debate. I am sure the last thing everyone wants is for the last five months of effort to lose its credibility.

Light relief is one thing but flaming and badgering is another. certain individuals will try to divert the thread but they should be ignored.

Please don't use the i*****d word. It could be, and has been, misinterpreted by the cable forum team in the past that you could be telling people to use the ignore feature when I know what you are actually trying to say is, don't respond to comments that are there purely to dilute the thread content.

[rryles]

With regards to user agents and robots.txt it is important to note that there are 3 user agent strings involved!

1. The user agent string sent in headers for normal page requests (likely to be unaltered from the users)

2. The user agent string sent in the headers for the request of robots.txt (no idea what this will be)

3. The user agent (if any) used to match lines in the robots.txt file. (Maybe googlebot but who knows??)

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by JackSon

Rather than use the word 'block' I should have used the word 'deny' really as robots.txt is a system of honour and respecte rather than access protection.

You need to adopt the new Parasites.txt industry standard inclusion protocol. Its the inverse of the Robots.txt exclusion protocol, and its deny directives. Parasites.txt uses allow directives.

See parasitestxt.org.

I don't think Phorm have announced compliance yet, but they should.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Please don't use the i*****d word. It could be, and has been, misinterpreted by the cable forum team in the past that you could be telling people to use the ignore feature when I know what you are actually trying to say is, don't respond to comments that are there purely to dilute the thread content.

Even though I was not directly suggesting that people should use the ignore feature, if it should be misinterpreted by a moderator then any infraction or moderation because of it would be overzealous seeing that a moderator has already directly suggested that the ignore feature should be used if you do not wish to see posts by particular members.

#9946

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by madslug

I agree and disagree, weighting more towards disagreeing.

They are selling a product which scraps copyright content and analyses it in order to make a commercial profit for themselves.

They are using my bandwidth by disguising themselves as a real visitor.

Scrappers are routinely banned from my sites.

They are looking at the sites you look at plus, as a minimum, 9 other sites and PPC ads related to the same search term - 9+ times more snooping than Phorm is doing.

The big negative, is that it does not maintain a database of good/bad sites.

The only plus I can think of is that currently the script is not reporting back to mama.

How many of the above do you rank as redeeming factors?

Re: AVG8

I have AVG8 and I do have the option to remove the feature in question. So perhaps this feature just needs to be default off, when AVG8 is installed from a user viewpoint. Although from a website owners viewpoint this feature maybe definitely should be off.

Unfortunately with Phorm, the interception of your data would be happening whether you opt in or opt out according to latest analysis.