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

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

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

I agree, opinions. But there are:

Four surveys published which say people don't want Phorm
VERSUS one survey unpublished which says they do

Several statements from key public figures which say that it may be unlawful along with a closely argued paper by an eminent lawyer
VERSUS BT's unpublished l-l-legal advice which they claim they sought (and they have not revealed what it said)

... and so on.

Get me BT's survey and their legal advice and then we can talk. Whatever you say, it's the anti-Phorm lobby who have put their arguments on the table. The problem isn't that it's all opinion - the problem is that the pro-Phorm lobby's arguments have been scant.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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

Only phorm know the answer to that question.

[notophorm]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

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

Which is also the creationist arguments against evolution.

I am sorry but what are you trying to prove. Covering the same ground over and over again will not change the facts of the whole sorry Phorm saga.

ISP's have lied, stolen (intellectual property) and mislead the users. Why? to get a bit of extra cash.

col

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

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

Well going back to this post http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...post12119.html
You require proof. Not one persons legal opinion vs another. Until BT submit a test case or the Met and CPS decide to prosecute based upon Alex's submission and that wades through the myrad of cases and appeals into the house of lords you will never have proof just two opinions.

At the moment BT / PHorm had only said they sought legal guidance. They have never provided support on this and this may only be on aspects of the law. For example the system probably complies with the Data Protection Act (or could be argued to), thus, they have an opinion from a lawyer saying so. But do they have one for all the laws mentioned in this thread. Did they go to a law firm with the open question of if we do this is this legal or did they go to the firm with does this break the x law?

EDIT - Jeez - I'm not typing fast enough today - I'ts 9.30 shouldn't you all be down the pub?

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

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

The ultimate flaw in your argument also is that even a judgement by a judge is still only a legal opinion by that particular Judge or set of Judges!

By the way.
The only person I'm afraid of is myself so I'm looking at you, looking at me!




The One thing we don't say often enough is THANK YOU to the Moderators for looking after this Gigantic Thread!

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

Ah .. that one alt3rn1ty - many thanks

I'll get around to that one, and some others I've missed, once I've eaten and maybe had a little snooze.

It's tough being so popular.

D_A

Originally Posted by fidbod

@ Devils Advocate.

One of your previous posts stated you would be concerned if it could be shown that the Phorm system made personally identifiable information (PII) available. I would argue that Phorm also increases your security risk significantly. I am interested in your thoughts on the following thought experiment.

1. The cookie that Phorm set on your PC contains a unique identifier (UID)

2. Your PC's IP address can be read from the HTML requests generated when browsing.

3. Malicous Javascript code on a website can "read" the Phorm UID from your machine.

As a malicous person I now have two pieces of information unique to your PC. That I can use to target you.

You could argue for a long time whether these two bits of information are PII and I will not offer judgement on that. However it is now much easier for me to target your PC to extract further infomation.

thoughts?

@ D_Advocate

So despite your meal & possible nap, you'd rather respond to a later post than this one?

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by notophorm

Which is also the creationist arguments against evolution.

I am sorry but what are you trying to prove. Covering the same ground over and over again will not change the facts of the whole sorry Phorm saga.

ISP's have lied, stolen (intellectual property) and mislead the users. Why? to get a bit of extra cash.

col

Absolutely however to compare the groups that support phorm to creationists is disingenuous. You can establish a solid causal chain of evidence for evolution at the macro and micro level.
Creationists are fanatics - first against the wall when the revolution comes but, then I am a fanatic

You cannot say the same for Phorm's investors, their assessment is they can screw you a bit harder and profit from the general public....

As far as I am concerned phorm goes too far. Lets destroy them on as many levels as possible.


This is not possible without everyone supporting!

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by Kevin T

@ D_Advocate

So despite your meal & possible nap, you'd rather respond to a later post than this one?

Yes, Kevin .. I choose who and when I want to reply to them. I don't necessarily do things in the order that you might expect. I think that is my right ?

Some questions can be answered quickly, in which case I will do so. Other questions may involve some research, in which case I will be a little later in responding.

<removed>

D_A

[rryles]

Originally Posted by fidbod

we need to remove the viabilty of the business model. What happened to the idea of caller deposit receipts and charging for copywright usage. Was the idea proved unfeasible?

As far as I know, the idea is still alive, but we can't do anything until phorm is running.

Your move Kent.

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by rryles

As far as I know, the idea is still alive, but we can't do anything until phorm is running.

Your move Kent.

assumes the copyright legal position is sound -is it it?

[madslug]

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 is the current day link only. I found this link which may be the permanent link.

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

The debate starts at 11:15

[notophorm]

Originally Posted by fidbod

Absolutely however to compare the groups that support phorm to creationists is disingenuous. You can establish a solid causal chain of evidence for evolution at the macro and micro level.
Creationists are fanatics - first against the wall when the revolution comes but, then I am a fanatic

my point about creationists, is they argue that evolution is a theory, and opinion and can not be proved.

Just like some of the discussion tonight says the same about Phorm.

I have over 20 years experience in IT (technical support in a university) and what Phorm and BT disgusts me.

I have removed far too many rootkits, spywear and viruses from students computers over the years. And now they want to do the spying at the ISP level.

Even worse is the lack of any action by the people who get a big chunk of tax money each month to protect the public from scams like this. Instead they sit on their hands and pass the buck.. Its not our job honest.

[AlexanderHanff]

Just as a good night farewell to the Pro Phorm investors who may be watching this thread. If Phorm are found guilty of being breach of RIPA and CMA the statutory penalties for the 2006 trials would amount to somewhere around:

£36 000 000 000.00 (thats based on the minimum £1000 per offence for 36M violations).

Your investment capital will vanish into nothing if Phorm are found guilty.

Good night

Alexander Hanff

[rryles]

Originally Posted by fidbod

assumes the copyright legal position is sound -is it it?

I've not looked into it in any detail but it seems a pretty straightforward case - at least with certain sites.

Take www.newscientist.com . Some of that content is only available to subscribers (no implied right to use) who are logged in (not using basic authentication so will be phormed). Every page has a copyright notice and there is an explicit licence:
http://www.newscientist.com/info.ns?id=in5
Phorm will be in breach of this licence.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by 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

Sadly that research also backs Phorm's argument for more "relevant" adverts.

I don't normally block ads as my brain is quite good at filtering them out. Even if I notice an advert for something I am looking for, I tend to ignore it as I'll assume it is probably not going to be the best value - Less relevant adverts are more likely to be of interest to me

I do intend to block phorm-verts if customers of non-phorming ISPs are shown them as I've no wish to contribute towards Phorm's income - I've already added some basic host/url blocking code to my extension and hope to create a specific Phorm advert filter. Should filtering out phormverts prove tricky, then I'll seriously consider installing adblock plus and blocking all adverts.