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

[warescouse]

It is not very often I would say I trust Microsoft, but given the choice I know which one I would choose.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

In reply to Peter N #11095
Are we selling I thought we were informing and one of the most poignant actions of the day is to deliver the complaint to the police,also you can talk of what has happened as you have some evidence whereas the goalposts and the future direction of PHorm webwise is an unknown quantity and changes daily, proving past illegalities will grab peoples attention and when it starts then and only then will the likes of BT and PHorm Err on the side of legal.
I totally agree with what you say on Questions its like the old adage if you ask "are you aware" it invokes the answer "yes/no I am or not aware.Keeping it short and to the point is imperative.

Apologies if I have missed this but has anyone informed the masses via social network sites, MySpace/Bebo/Facebook..... I dont have any personal accounts so I dont know how they work exactly, but I do know they are a force to be reckoned with, there was a recent article in Micro Mart reference this forcing large companies normally insurmountable by individuals to bow to popular public opinion. Nothing biased, just give them the truth and especially televised instances.

[Dangermouse]

Has anybody thought of inviting or contacting David Davis, MP about all this? Would of thought this was right up his street. Covert surveillance for financial gain, and possible Government use at a later date...

[HamsterWheel]

Originally Posted by Dangermouse

possible Government use at a later date...

Good point - which is why I suspect the anti-Phorm campaign will never get much support from Government departments.

Doubt they'll ever use Phorm, but I'm sure they could figure out a way of monitoring internet usage to look for crims and terrorists searching for bomb recipes etc.

[JohnnyWashngo]

Article on the reg today about data protection in the UK.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ction_changes/

It isn't entirely on topic for the discussions of Phorm/WebWise that we have on this board but I liked the quote from Dr Chris Pounder, a data protection consultant:

"The ICO needs the power to audit and the ability to fine when transgressions occur. If you get them by the balls then their hearts and minds will follow - increase the risks for organisations with big fines for failure and that will cause a culture change."

[jelv]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Good point - which is why I suspect the anti-Phorm campaign will never get much support from Government departments.

Which is also a good reason we have to be thankful that we are members of the EC. Even if our Government are not inclined to take action soon (and that's not a foregone conclusion), in time they will be forced to do so.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Digbert

BT/Webwise/Phorm/121Media have said much about how their service enhances privacy because it doesn't store any recognisable data.

Just wanted to chip in here, its important to state in big letters, for people new to this thread

Your privacy can never be 'enhanced' by allowing someone to read all of your communications.


Phorm cannot assure you that they don't store any recognisable data. They have been asked many times to explain how they anonymise a block of text grabbed from the net. Lets suppose this system really exists. How will it cope with the multinational nature of the internet? Multiple languages? Foreign identifier formats? Foreign character encoding? Cultural differences? Instant Messenger IDs? All personal names in whatever language? Its obviously nonsense.

The consequence? Phorm will process and store recognisable and personally identifiable information.

To repeat; Phorm will process and store recognisable and personally identifiable information.

Its technically impossible to anonymise web data, and anyone who tells you otherwise is fibbing. Anyone who opts into Phorm believing their privacy is somehow enhanced is bonkers.

If the ICO were competent to analyse Phorm, they would have realised that.

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

but I'm sure they could figure out a way of monitoring internet usage to look for crims and terrorists searching for bomb recipes etc.

The government (agencies) can already do that.

They need some other incriminating evidence first to present to a judge to obtain a warrant to allow them access to the ISP DPI logs first though.

Monitoring is nothing new, for example in 2002 Microsoft scanned Hotmail email content using keywords such as "DevilsOwn" the name of the release group who first produced a pirated copy of XP.

They didn't have kit installed with an ISP though...

[vicz]

This thread is not about legal interception for the purposes of national security or other authorised snooping, obnoxious though some of us may find it. It is about illegal interception for the purpose of advertising or criminal acts, and the governments failure to enforce the laws against it.

[TheBruce1]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

The consequence? Phorm will process and store recognisable and personally identifiable information.

To repeat; Phorm will process and store recognisable and personally identifiable information.

Absolutely correct, phorm are not interested in removing your data, they need your data to build up a profile, whether opt-in or out, if opted-out the users will not see the ads, but will still be profiled.

I believe when this goes live(if ever)BT.Phorm are in for a rude awaking, how could they have not known phorms past, did they ever bother to find out. There is not One antivirus/spyware company that supports phorm, none of them believe the rubbish that phorm will protect users, so who do you believe, a company that tries to protect your PC, or one that installed rootkits on users systems without telling.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

We need to let users know that BT executives will not be having phorm on their personal PC, this is only for the little people, BT do not care about their customers, its more of," do as i say", not, "do as i do, mythology.

Could someone ask Emma Sanderson if she will have phorm on her personal PC or not, if not, why.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Dangermouse

Has anybody thought of inviting or contacting David Davis, MP about all this? Would of thought this was right up his street. Covert surveillance for financial gain, and possible Government use at a later date...

Believe me I have tried and still am trying to do this but he is incredibly difficult to get hold of, all emails get standard auto responses and phone messages go un-answered.

I was given a contact in the HoC who may be able to contact him and I sent them an email yesterday so lets hope that works out.

Alexander Hanff

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Good point - which is why I suspect the anti-Phorm campaign will never get much support from Government departments.

Doubt they'll ever use Phorm, but I'm sure they could figure out a way of monitoring internet usage to look for crims and terrorists searching for bomb recipes etc.

hammy , did you know they can already do this and do, via the correct procedures after making an application for warrant under the relevant section of RIPA (2000) and that various MP's etc are already making noises about the level of general surveillance in the UK and trying to reduce it, also the EU is looking at forcing the UK to toughen up RIPA and reduce its scope for being abused

so i do not think the government will be interest in an outdated anti-phishing filter that does not store data and can not know who visited that website for the copy of the anarchists cook book as it store no PII or IP addresses , do you?, that is unless you know different and can post the information here (i think not)

oh and by the why HMG already has effective systems in place for that anyway, how do you think they thwart terrorism so well

peter

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by vicz

This thread is not about legal interception for the purposes of national security or other authorised snooping, obnoxious though some of us may find it. It is about illegal interception for the purpose of advertising or criminal acts, and the governments failure to enforce the laws against it.

Well said, if people wish to discuss legal national security interception I would suggest they create another thread. Discussing that here dilutes the content of this thread which has been mentioned in various postings several times before about other irrelevant items as well.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Well said, if people wish to discuss legal national security interception I would suggest they create another thread. Discussing that here dilutes the content of this thread which has been mentioned in various postings several times before about other irrelevant items as well.

my post was relevant as it pointed out that due to phorm not storing PII type information it was not suitable for that application of the technology, so that that avenue of conversation was cut off

peter