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

[serial]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Might be worth asking Bruce Schneier if he was consulted about the matter.

I mailed Bruce a while back and got a nice reply. Though he is now part of BT, we should not be labelling BT employees as enemies by default.

As has been said previous, a great many BT employees do not like the partnership with Phorm.

For Mr Schneiers feelings have a look at this article on wired:
http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...tymatters_0515

"Our data is a part of us. It's intimate and personal, and we have basic rights to it. It should be protected from unwanted touch."

[phormwatch]

I can't imagine he's very happy with Phorm or BT right now at all...

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------

This just in... post from a friend on another talkboard:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"A second Euro MP [Labour] has contacted me. He's written to the UK Information Commisioner to say that it's his opinion that Unless citizens go out of their way to sign up to Phorm, then it is my opinion that Phorm is performing illegal activities and will be challenged by the European Court.

He reminds Richard Thomas of: Directive 95/46/EC on Data Protection, which specifically states that “Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: (a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent.�

And that this quite clearly suggests that no personal data may be processed unless a citizen has given their consent, rather than “opting out� as that assumes consent has already been given, when it has not.

He seems a lot more aware than most other MPs on IT and privacy issues."

The MP is:

Richard Corbett - Labour Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire & Humber.

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I keep saying, this is why we need to have a press conference.

We only need a few select 'representatives' - say five - and an audience. We can make clear our aims to the wider press as well as Parliament.

The risk of having a press conference is it makes the opposition to ISP level DPI look like the opposition comes from a single organisation which plays right into Kent's hands.

You also have to face the fact that a press conference requires the press to attend and that is unlikely to happen. The UK general press stays well away from technical issues because it makes poor copy for the papers and their almost total lack of interest in the privacy debate is not about to change.

The only way that this subject is going to get greater attention is to put the technical discussions onto the back-boiler and go straight for the single most basic question for the average person - "Do you want someone reading through ever single thing you do on the internet?"

Very few people would want the government to do that even if it was for supposed security reasons and yet they are not getting fired up about a company doing it for profit.

Instead of aiming for some big National coverage and talking about DPI, e-mail headers and cookies it would be better to go for grass-roots support. Write to local papers and contact local radio stations with the simple message that these huge ISPs are going to read internet usage. Get ordinary people to ask themselves if they would accept this from the Royal Mail and if not why should ISPs be any different.

Go back to all of the questions and point that appeared on these forums back in February and March when the whole subject came to light and you'll realise that it was these simple points that got all of us involved. It is these points that will fire the debate for the average Joe & Josephine who will only be put off by all of the techy stuff. Avoid the use of buzz words and phrases and stick to plain English - "reading" rather than "intercepting" for example.

Go for local or national radio phone-ins rather than trying to get straight on to the BBC tea-time news. Most of all thry to get the 15,000 people who signed the Downing St petition involved and let the press and politicians see this as a subject that actually does concern the general public rather than being an intellectual debate amongst a group of geeks and stop Phorm from twisting the core issue away from basic privacy and towards the information being anonymously used.

[phormwatch]

Thanks for the input, Peter N. You make some very good points.

---------- Post added at 02:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 ----------

Phorm (formerly 121Media) Under Fire

http://kickstand.typepad.com/metamus...-formerly.html

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Thanks for the input, Peter N. You make some very good points.

---------- Post added at 02:05 ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 ----------

Phorm (formerly 121Media) Under Fire

http://kickstand.typepad.com/metamus...-formerly.html

Given that two people who claim to have known Kent personally for several years have come out of the woodwork almost overnight to sing his praises about what a decent chap he is; the more sceptical amongst us might smell a rat.

Alexander Hanff

[icsys]

Decided it's time for another letter to my MP and a letter of response to the letter recently received from Lady Vadera (BERR)

Was going to write to Viviene Redding in response to the recent letter I received via e-mail but decided to wait and see what the response is to the EU letter sent to Gov't and UK authorities.

Letters written and sent!

---------- Post added at 02:36 ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 ----------

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Phorm (formerly 121Media) Under Fire

http://kickstand.typepad.com/metamus...-formerly.html

"He's accustomed to getting what he wants, and he knows how to do it both through hard work and clever manipulation."

That's a nice quote. We would never have noticed that?
I wonder if the MP's and Lords enjoy being manipulated?

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Given that two people who claim to have known Kent personally for several years have come out of the woodwork almost overnight to sing his praises about what a decent chap he is; the more sceptical amongst us might smell a rat.

Alexander Hanff

It looks to me as though Phorm's PR are trying to paint the situation as being you versus Kent as though this is just some personal vendetta.

He is a very smooth operator and has great presentation skills. Watch his various recorded appearences you soon see that he gives absolutely no technical descriptions and only ever talks about the system in very general terms. He follows the old sales doctrine of "sell the benefits, not the product".

Whilst it's vital to have the technical details to be able to back-up any arguments, those details don't need to be used to fight Phorm's PR. Fight them at their own game. If Kent says it's anonymous then we say it's private. If Phorm say it won't profile medical issues, we say that can profile health issues. If Kent says it's not as bad as Google, we say it's worse because we only use Google to get to the website.

I would not be surprised to see a personal attack on you coming from a source "outside" of Phorm fairly soon because you seem to have started attracting some good will. I'm sure that you'd agree that Kent has better presentation skills than you have but if he lets you become the underdog then he's lost. He's got to try and portray himself as the victim with you as the tarnished leader of a bunch of geeky fanatics who are just looking for a fight.

It's the same tactic that's often used by governments wherever there is massed protest - claim that there is a group with a hidden agenda orchestrating the protest and paint the rest of the protestors as decent but misguided. If nothing else it completely diverts attention away from the real issue.

The prime issue here is whether or not an ISP should be allowed to intercept and analyse their customers' and other internet users' communications. Phorm is just one company and even if they fail there will others. If DPI is outlawed there's always a new technology around the corner.

I can't stomach Kent - I think he's slimey and has all the morals of a fungus - but the real fight is about getting protection from ISP level abuse of our private communications and the only way to get any reasonable assurance of that is to get more people informed and interested.

If Kent starts fighting dirty then we should just ignore him as he and his company are really just a minor part of the problem. We can take the wind out of his sails by treating him as what he is - just another contractor working for the ISPs and not doing a very good job of it at that.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Question if the IT specialists at BT are not privy to the Webwise/Phorm system who does check to see what KE's boxes are doing or is he just taken at his manipulating word that they only do what the spin says,has anyone checked the alteration that have been made to exploit the legality of the Webwise system or is BT about to test nationally and live on the web an uninspected,unexplained piece of kit that yet again the IT men in BT will not have access to monitor to prevent the truth leaking out.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Given that two people who claim to have known Kent personally for several years have come out of the woodwork almost overnight to sing his praises about what a decent chap he is; the more sceptical amongst us might smell a rat.

Alexander Hanff

That blog article I read as somewhat analogous to the famous job interview question. What are your bad points? Or maybe what are Kent's bad points?
You try to point out the 'bad' points that are in fact the good points.

It's the first time I have seen it described as this:
"PeopleOnPage, which was a nifty browser add-on that showed you people on the same page as you".
I much prefer to believe f-secure's description:

That is similar to how I remember it.

[Deko]

I liked this quote from the blog

But then I began to see a shift in the company that I (as a board director) was uncomfortable with -- I wanted us to focus foremost on end-user value and Kent had different ideas.

Hmm what didn't he like ?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Given that two people who claim to have known Kent personally for several years have come out of the woodwork almost overnight to sing his praises about what a decent chap he is; the more sceptical amongst us might smell a rat.

Alexander Hanff

That's quite an old source article, March 2008 supposedly. Before the revelation of secret trials etc.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Don't forget to ask Emma our BT Bot has about as many answers as er er em don't worry
http://help11.creativevirtual.com/BTBot/?JSIN=1

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

Don't forget to ask Emma our BT Bot has about as many answers as er er em don't worry
http://help11.creativevirtual.com/BTBot/?JSIN=1

"You asked me:
if i opt out of webwise, will all my browsing still pass through the profiler equipment?

My answer is:
Your profile is the place where your preferences, personal information and contact information are stored. You can:
Keep your email up to date and make changes to your personal information e.g. title and contact details
Create a new password and security question to manage your account online
Update your BT bill payment method e.g. Monthly Payment Plan and Whole Bill Direct Debit
Add details of other accounts you wish to manage online
Store details for up to three credit or debit cards used to pay for goods and services as well as BT bills
Save and update delivery address details as necessary
Elect to receive regular emails from us about special offers, products and services in the preferences section"

Still, I bet they're telling Emma more about Phorm/Webwise than they are their telephone support staff....

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by HaveToBeAnon

Oh, just another thought while I'm here.

BT have, as you would expect, a whole team of security experts who's job it is the keep the backbone infrastructure secure and reliable, and it has to be said do a pretty good job. What you would not expect is that they weren't even consulted, and discovered about phorm at the same time as the rest of us, ie February, and their head man, I won't mention names so lets call him JR, went absolutely ape-s..t on hearing about it.

Thats an indication of just how secret this has been within BT, keeping it from people who would instantly recognise it for what it was.

I'll second this. JR is a top bloke, and if for a second I thought he had been involved in this product I would a) have been surprised and b) would probably have trusted their claims a little more.

Anyone involved in network security will take about 2 seconds to discover who this person is as he is quite visible in the community. Campaigners might even be able to email him directly using the old firstname.lastname@domainname that is used at BT. Nuff said.

It's also worth pointing out that anything added or removed from BT's network (be it BT Retail or other group members) is subject to a change request being approved.

This CR has many details, such as a summary of the intended purpose, backout plans, and a list of approval groups that need to sign it off before it can be added to the network.

I can't imagine something that is placed in such a crucial position in the network would not have a CR. It would nice if that information made it into the public domain wouldn't it ?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I can't imagine he's very happy with Phorm or BT right now at all...

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------

This just in... post from a friend on another talkboard:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"A second Euro MP [Labour] has contacted me. He's written to the UK Information Commisioner to say that it's his opinion that Unless citizens go out of their way to sign up to Phorm, then it is my opinion that Phorm is performing illegal activities and will be challenged by the European Court.

He reminds Richard Thomas of: Directive 95/46/EC on Data Protection, which specifically states that “Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: (a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent.”

And that this quite clearly suggests that no personal data may be processed unless a citizen has given their consent, rather than “opting out” as that assumes consent has already been given, when it has not.

He seems a lot more aware than most other MPs on IT and privacy issues."

The MP is:

Richard Corbett - Labour Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire & Humber.

that sounds helpful - I think Mr Corbett is one of the less "spinnable" Labour MP's and certainly familiar with being outspoken in disagreement with his whips.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------

An update on the Philip Stafford FT article. Although I didn't ever get a reply to my online complaint about the inaccuracy of this article, (anyone else?) I see that the article has had yet another correction.

If you remember the original had several faults and was quickly corrected in one respect when presumably the VM and CPW people pointed out that they had NOT conducted trials. But there was still a claim that other UK ISP's had conducted trials apart from BT. That was what I wrote in about to FT, and reminded them that in view of their alleged connection OIX they needed to make sure they weren't influencing Phorm's share price with inaccurate reporting or else the regulator might be interested.

And I see the article has now been corrected again - here's the comparison

Mark 1 version included this:
"BT will begin further trials in the next few weeks of a controversial advertising technology that it hopes will give it a slice of the lucrative online advertising market.

The group is one of three UK internet service providers which have conducted trials of technology developed by Phorm, an Aim-listed company, which tracks the web-surfing habits of its internet users to enable it to target advertising more tightly.

Carphone Warehouse’s Talk Talk and Virgin Media have also run trials."

Then they produced Mark 2 which altered the final sentence above to read:

"Carphone Warehouse’s Talk Talk and Virgin Media have also agreed to evaluate the service but are yet to run trials."

the current version (Mark 3?) has instead:
BT will begin further trials in the next few weeks of a controversial advertising technology that it hopes will give it a slice of the lucrative online advertising market.

The group has conducted trials of technology developed by Phorm, an Aim-listed company, which tracks the web-surfing habits of its internet users to enable it to target advertising more tightly.

Carphone Warehouse’s Talk Talk and Virgin Media have also agreed to evaluate the service but are yet to run trials.

So thank you FT. And remember - it's always worth complaining!!

So - the only people still in the frame for having conducted trials are BT.
VM Webwise page states unequivocally that they have NOT tested the technology.
The relative ease with which we were able to get the FT article corrected suggests that maybe, just maybe, there is a little more corporate nervousness around than there was a few months ago.

The FT may have been UNinphormed,
and perhaps some were suspicious that it was DEphormed, (OIX)
but after they got INphormed, (complaints)
we saw evidence that at least that article got REphormed.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34c59420-5...nclick_check=1

Folks just keep adding up the situations where you are seeing a gradual shift in perception - be encouraged. People - opinion formers, enforcers, legislators and ordinary members of the public ARE slowly getting the picture. So keep it simple, keep it coming, and keep going.

And a hello to any BT execs reading this. It's my "voracious appetite for detail" you see. I think YOU need a few people with a voracious appetite for detail too - like people who can read statutes carefully?

Watching you watching us. Best wishes.