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

It should be "too late" rather than "to late"

[tarka]

I've found it... in Richard Claytons document there is the following snippet...

"Sites that use \basic auth" (RFC 1945 et seq.) will be ignored, viz: sites where the browser
remembers a user name and password and supplies it with each request to avoid the need
to log in again."

So any website that does not use HTTP basic auth (which lets face it, is pretty much all websites these days) will have password protected content profiled anyway.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by isf

I can't speak for that implementation but (in the event they ever manage to go live) widespread fuzzing of Phorms data would reduce it's potential value to advertisers. Generally I'd see that as a good thing.

The whole issue of 'fuzzing of Phorms data' has been discussed at length at badphorm. It has no more effect than fuzzing what Google, DoubleClick or any of the non-search engine tracking scripts have on you.

antiphorm does nothing to protect your privacy and does nothing to stop Phorm from tracking you wherever you go. It will not affect Phrom's bottom line because they will still be targeting you for those few pages covering subjects that you really visited.

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 ----------

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

Well I have done it again, just put up Anti-Phorm Video #4 the new video is Here enjoy.

I like the #4 - quite genteel compared with the rest. I find the yellow text difficult to read - maybe even lighter??

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

Anti-Phorm Video #3 is Here

In this video, you have a 'My' where it should be a 'By' - help stop phorm my signing the petition.

Evil being tries to take over the Universe...

[madslug]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

snip
"if you can google it, phorm will profile it"

How about - Google knows 10 billion pages. In 14 days Phorm knew 100% of the pages viewed by 18,000 people like you and me

Short form = Phorm 100%, Google only 10 billion

My favourite quotes from Phorm

“As you browse, we’re able to categorize all of your Internet actions. We actually can see the entire Internet.” - Virasb Vahidi, the chief operating officer of Phorm.

"If the Phorm models works for driving targeted and behavioural advertising on the internet, then it is perfectly possible that you can do the same for content." - Hugo Drayton, Chief Executive Officer of Phorm.

With quotes like these - who needs slogans.

[Florence]

Today in elreg I know it isn't phorm but it is about data protection or more the lack of it... A good read and the last bit was good quote. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ction_changes/
"The protection of privacy is not a priority particularly in the public sector and central government. It is the first thing to go when costs are cut." Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith
He also said
"Who is going to lose their job if there is a serious breach in your organisation? If you still can't answer that question then you still have a problem to solve."

Fits in nicely with Phorm since it is like a cost cutting exercise only difference is BT are cutting costs to them by selling you out.... The last one if it all goes wrong who will llose the job Ian or Emma?

Originally Posted by Florence

...who will llose the job Ian or Emma?

...and everyone at Phorm

[Rchivist]

I've just sent in a couple of spoilers to BT

First - a reminder that their BT Retail legal department never replied to my 16th May letter about the legal aspects of Phorm/Webwise - I have suggested they will have less paperwork replying direct to me than having to do all the paperwork for a formal regulator enquiry which will get triggered in 14 days if I don't hear from them.

Secondly - a formal data protection request to BT to ask them what PII of mine they have passed to Phorm, via their insecure www.bt.com cookies and the BT Webwise contact page (I have hard evidence this end that they ran insecure cookies in one case (which were then available to Phorm via BT Webwise site when Phorm were running it), and actually passed on in another case, my PII directly to Phorm). Their answer will be published here, and sent to the ICO along with my own evidence (Dephormation logs and a BT Webwise Contact page email reply with header evidence that it came via Phorm). worth every penny of the statutory £10.

I'm still waiting on an ICO acknowledgement to a fairly lengthy snail mail complaint, so hopefully that will result in BT having to do a lot more paperwork in communication with the ICO. I really like the fact that for the cost of a second class stamp I can cost these corporations a lot of money and time in correspondence with regulators.

Well done Robert.

A nice point is that they will have to acknowledge your previous contact with them in the DPA report so you also have evidence if they have deliberately ignored any of your correspondence. It will be interesting to see what sort of notes on your personal records especially with regards to Emma S's comments about making no further replies.

For anyone who doesn't know, there are time limits that apply to DPA requests and they start from when they receive the request and the payment (where required). There are penalties for anyone failing to meet these deadlines even if there was no breach of the DPA in any other area.

[isf]

Originally Posted by madslug

The whole issue of 'fuzzing of Phorms data' has been discussed at length at badphorm. It has no more effect than fuzzing what Google, DoubleClick or any of the non-search engine tracking scripts have on you.

The value in connecting an advertiser with their target market is accuracy. When there's a sizable percentage of sites detecting phorm and sending them unrelated keywords it undermines their entire business model.

antiphorm does nothing to protect your privacy and does nothing to stop Phorm from tracking you wherever you go.

I thought I'd made it clear I wasn't talking about that specific piece of software? In fact, I didn't have a client side solution in mind at all.

It will not affect Phrom's bottom line because they will still be targeting you for those few pages covering subjects that you really visited.

If fuzzing were widespread, it would impact their bottom line because they could no longer deliver the relevance advertisers would be paying them for.

[Wildie]

would fuzzing of inputting key words like sex medical health lots of em stop the ad`s ?
and would a list of all the web sites that the ad`s want you to goto be handy to add to ones host file, so blacklisting the very sites the ads want you to visit, ok you still get phormed but by blacklisting the ones who paid for the ad would that not hurt the model as well?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Wildie

would fuzzing of inputting key words like sex medical health lots of em stop the ad`s ?
and would a list of all the web sites that the ad`s want you to goto be handy to add to ones host file, so blacklisting the very sites the ads want you to visit, ok you still get phormed but by blacklisting the ones who paid for the ad would that not hurt the model as well?

one of the important things we do not know is are the adverts server by the adserver or does the profiler insert a link to an external website for you to pull the advert

if it is external, we can block them, if they come from the profiler we can't

peter

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Wildie

would fuzzing of inputting key words like sex medical health lots of em stop the ad`s ?
and would a list of all the web sites that the ad`s want you to goto be handy to add to ones host file, so blacklisting the very sites the ads want you to visit, ok you still get phormed but by blacklisting the ones who paid for the ad would that not hurt the model as well?

Yes it would I have told places online where I shop if I see them partnered with phorm regardless of if my ISP uses phorm or not I would boycot them on principle of how phorm works and the disgust I feel for them stalking people over the internet.

[Wildie]

ok but the advert has to point to some web site they want you to visit has it not? unless its redirected cos its hashed in the serving server, either way the end result has to be a web site they want you to visit and that`s the one needs to be blacklisted.