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

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Hi guys well its the end of a fine week for our focus group now we have let the BT shareholders know what has been happening and how BT are going to protect their investments (not the shareholders but BT themselves) makes you wonder when people use mobile phones in AGM's I would have thought they would be turned off.Judging by the impact that the few had on the many ,reminds me a little of David and Goliath unfotunatley Goliath turned out to be more like Shrek than a worthy adversary.Strange how many members of both houses that govern our country get illegal downloading confused with DPI I presume that comes from decades of protecting big business profits and exploiting legal loopholes than protecting the public at large, as with any organised group we have our opponents but like the BT trials they come and go,to quote an old joke the trials are coming and so is Christmas. as you guys know I dont understand the tech aspects of Webwise but I do know what happens to your PII once it falls into the wrong hands ,and for what? targeted ads, most of us in the UK are now at full stretch financially so we know what we want and where to get it because there are trustworthy traders out there and because of the net and forums, bad news such as Phorm can hide but because of their own past get found very quickly ,this is the power of the net and it's ours, so hands off our key presses.
bob aka TGLS
Beware the power of the silent majority

[warescouse]

I see there are lots of regurgitated circles of information on this forum today. I can only speak from my heart and from what I have read from the evidence so far gathered and how I have interpreted it.

The evidence, as I see it, from Phorm appears weak IMHO and often unsubstantiated due to a what seems to me to be a reluctance to properly accompany certain claims with actual in-context documentary evidence. Also certain claims and facts they have released are accused by more knowledgeable people than I of being inapplicable to UK law.

I personally feel a lot of Phorm's evidence appears to be based on me being expected to trust them and their rhetoric. Many times people have asked for information to be released to substantiate some of Phorm's claims but unless I am missing something, it has not all been delivered.

As far as trust is concerned, I cannot trust a company who in the past released, as 121Media, spyware to perform similar advert marketing techniques for which WebWise appears to me is designed today. Trust went out the window long ago with their PeopleOnPage application so I am admittedly bias against them.

For interest to others who don't know:
Phorm when they were known as 121Media distributed a program called PeopleOnPage, which was classified as spyware by F-Secure. PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a root kit called Apropos.

So back in time historically, any personal trust in 121Media disappeared and that trust is still absent towards that same company who now operate under their new name Phorm. With their past record and the fact that they were classed as a spyware delivering company when they known as 121Media, I would have thought that it would be in their interests now to be totally transparent to everyone in the true understanding of the word.

I believe I have not yet seen total transparency. Perhaps it is because I am bias but I cannot believe this leopard has changed all of its spots. I can only go with the evidence as I interpret it but I am entitled to my opinion.

[Bob W]

Originally Posted by rryles

Well there are two possible way's I can think I might be wrong:

1) The processed data counts as communication data
2) The unprocessed data is made available

I think you're suggesting the former?

The latter is apparently also true.

"If the keyword analysis process is offline then in order to scan for keywords would you not have to have a copy of webpage in order to analyze it offline ?

MBurgess
Yes, a mirrored copy is analyzed."

Phorm SVP of Technology Marc Burgess answering a question in one of their (Phorm's) Webchats.

http://www.webwise.com/how-it-works/...pt_080306.html

[rryles]

Originally Posted by icsys

I have been catching up with the the previous 24 hours postings in the thread. I was reading the Lords questions session at the previously posted link :http://www.publications.parliament.u...ldtoday/02.htm however, I cannot find the section relating to internet privacy that a lot of posts were referring to and discussing. The transcript appears to jump from 11.12 to 11.19 Has it been removed?

Post with original link post11985

The original link always points to the latest days proceedings. The pertinent information can still be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...08071786000006

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Bob W

The latter is apparently also true.

"If the keyword analysis process is offline then in order to scan for keywords would you not have to have a copy of webpage in order to analyze it offline ?

MBurgess
Yes, a mirrored copy is analyzed."

Phorm SVP of Technology Marc Burgess answering a question in one of their (Phorm's) Webchats.

That may be a significant detail. If they are storing a copy of the raw data for any significant length of time then it probably is available to the people who have access to the system.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

Many thanks for your welcome, it is much appreciated



I cannot possibly comment on my 'initial questioning', as this will shortly be the subject of litigation. Also, I'm likely to get more points on my Cable Forum licence for breach of the T & C's and might be silenced.

My frank opinion ? ... is based on thinking for myself, and not being effected by all the hype and FUD. I have no objection to getting targeted ad's which suit me, rather than getting ad's which don't.

If that involves inspection of my browsing history/habits, then so be it - I don't see that as a problem, as, as yet, it has not been proven to my satisfaction that identifiable information will be used. If it were proved that the intercepted information was identifiable, I would be concerned.

The same applies to the earlier BT trials in 2006/2007 ... though it is wildly stated that such trials were illegal, I am yet to see or hear proof that they were illegal. Again, if proof does emerge that the trials were illegal, I will be concerned.

It seems to be a common theme of the anti-Phorm/webwise campaign .. lot's of accusations, lot's of techspeak trying to obfuscate the facts, lot's of speculation .. but, IMO, very little real substantiated substance.

To give you a very small, and recent example, in Tom Espiners report to ZDnet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm, he said the following ...



Note the terms used .. 'convinced', 'believes', 'also believes'. I have seen lot's of that - lot's of 'belief'. When I see irrefutable facts, I may get concerned.



Thanks for that, but the above ZDnet article was more forth coming .. 15 protesters. I rest my case (well, probably not ).

D_A

All data intercept is identifiable. I am not going to use BT as this example but merely phorm system. As the information pass through the server the information is intercepted and is examined to find out what you are browsing. Then the information is used to determine what type of ads the systems think you will like. It is then pased back to you. The bit that requires passing back to you has to be able to identify you. Any personal information that is submitted will be itnerepted and can be viewed. Although the last part requires a user at the system or remotely logged onto it.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

More 'they said' !

It will be up to a Court of Law to prove the illegality of the case, not those who 'state' that it is illegal ... that's if it ever gets to court, which is very unlikely.

D_A

Thanks for pointing out the main flaw in your own arguement. Until this is put before a judge and both sides argued both sides are entitled to their opinions. BT and Phorm that it was legal and many others that it was not. At this point BT and Phorm have not supplied anything to counter the arguments put forward by the others, just stated that they sought legal advice.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Rob M

Worth noting that, in intercepting the communication and sending it to the Phorm servers, they are making it available to the Administrators of those servers (who would presumably be neither the originating sender, or the intended recipient of the original transmission).

Just a thought

That and the debug logs that will be maintained for a short time to enable analysis of the servers and any problems. They will be looked at by people.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

That and the debug logs that will be maintained for a short time to enable analysis of the servers and any problems. They will be looked at by people.

If they have any sense, there won't be any such logs in the final version. I seem to recall they did admit to having logs for the trials for debugging. One reason why testing a system on real users is a very bad idea.

[notophorm]

Hi all

As a long time reader of the forum, I have finally come off the guest list.

Firstly I do not care if Phorm is legal or not. I pay VM for a connection to the internet. each month they send a bill that tells me I pay for Internet access only.

I do not pay for advert supported access
I do not pay for intercepted access
I do not pay for targeted advert access

It is not my fault that VM and others say they can not afford the costs of providing that access, and they need the revenue that adverts provide. Tough you set the costs of the access in the first place.

When I went shopping in Tesco this afternoon to get a pie for tea, I went to the checkout, was told the cost, and handed over the cash. The checkout person did not say, ...errrr sorry the price is too cheap we can not afford to sell you it, please read this page of adverts first.

The above example is exactly what BT, VM and others are doing regarding the Internet connection.

....sorry internet user, please look at targeted adverts first, we know you are interested in pies, please see a range of pie adverts first because we need extra revenue so you can use the internet.

And to cap it all the ISP's will steal our bandwidth that we pay for to profile us, then advertise to us, all in the interest of extra money for them.

I am not against advertising, however our ISP's have lied, possibly cheated and at least one has broken the law, and stolen intellectual property from the websites they profile. all in the intrest of making a little extra money.

What I want from my ISP

Good service
Good connection
Good communication when things go wrong

I do not want my data intercepted, in order to sell more junk.

Oh as for targeted adverts, I do my best to buy on brand products, and keep away from the brands that need to advertise that there product is the best on the market, keep you younger looking.

2 great inventions,
the FF button on a PVR, and adblock Plus.

Oh I would have loved to have been at the demo, unfortunately a 3 hour abdominal operation last Friday prevented me from travelling.

col

[fidbod]

the suject of PII is a difficult one. Google me and re-read this thread. You can probably figure out what I look like, top two hobbies and my profession.

re notophorm

absolutely.

Lets empower the content creators and give them the ability to set their own price. Reduce to Phorms of this world to providing no economic benfit.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

I notice that BT state that they are included in the "Ethical Investment Register" (http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir...ards/index.htm ), Since learning of the Phorm trials, not to mention the BT MOD call center fraud ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-contract.html ), I no longer consider them an ethical investment.

I wonder if we can get them removed from that register?

They are apparently refering to the Ethibel Investment Register. - which is why I didn't find it earlier.


http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir.../Investors.pdf


BT is included in the Ethibel Investment Register.

The Investment Register is used as the basis for Socially Responsible
Investment (SRI) products for a growing number of European banks,
fund managers and institutional investors.


http://www.ethibel.org/subs_e/5_audit/main.html

ETHIBEL as Social-Ethical ‘Auditor’

ETHIBEL offers its know-how, built up during examination and quality care of its own ETHIBEL quality label for advise and tailor-made quality controls of other organisations.
ETHIBEL can therefore act as an independent social-ethical "auditor". In this role, ETHIBEL examines if an organisation really does live up to its own criteria when offering a particular service or product.

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Thanks for pointing out the main flaw in your own arguement. Until this is put before a judge and both sides argued both sides are entitled to their opinions. BT and Phorm that it was legal and many others that it was not. At this point BT and Phorm have not supplied anything to counter the arguments put forward by the others, just stated that they sought legal advice.

What flaw in my argument ?

Yes, opinions, that's just what they are (on both sides), and until proven to be facts and judged to be so, that's all they ever will be.

D_A

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

They are apparently refering to the Ethibel Investment Register. - which is why I didn't find it earlier.


http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvir.../Investors.pdf


BT is included in the Ethibel Investment Register.

The Investment Register is used as the basis for Socially Responsible
Investment (SRI) products for a growing number of European banks,
fund managers and institutional investors.



http://www.ethibel.org/subs_e/5_audit/main.html

Like it - Alex you are the most persuasive advocate we have give it a a go.

[notophorm]

Targeted advertising or not, Web advertising is pointless

A good piece in new scientist this week.

...Online advertising is growing rapidly in importance, yet the vast majority of internet adverts fail to engage web surfers - 1000 web-advert exposures usually result in about three "click-throughs".....

http://technology.newscientist.com/c...campaigns.html

col

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by rryles

The administrator only has access to the communications data if either:

a) the automated system keeps records of the raw unprocessed data
b) he alters the system so that it keeps records of the raw unprocessed data or forwards them in real time.

Unless and until one of these is true, I don't see it being an interception under the technical definition of RIPA.

(On a side note, I doubt phorm where that careful when they designed the system they used for the trials, but that could be hard to prove either way now)

And the debug logs? Would that include raw unprocessed data alongside the exception it caused?

[rryles]

Originally Posted by notophorm

As a long time reader of the forum, I have finally come off the guest list.

Welcome to the forum

Originally Posted by notophorm

Firstly I do not care if Phorm is legal or not. I pay VM for a connection to the internet. each month they send a bill that tells me I pay for Internet access only.

I'm sure you are not alone in that view. However, if phorm is illegal then that can be used to stop it, whatever your motives.

Originally Posted by notophorm

2 great inventions,
the FF button on a PVR, and adblock Plus.

Two of my favourite inventions too