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

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Required reading for everyone - a very good description of how Phorm's Webwsie works written in plain English by Michael Kassner at techrepublic.

I find this Paragraph the most informative to the uninphormed

"Sorry for the long, drawn-out description, but that’s exactly what takes place every time a web browser sends out a query. In this way, Phorm knows exactly where I go on the Internet and what I’m looking at. With these profiles, Phorm, for a fee, will tell advertising firms what ads to place on the web pages being served to me. The company states this whole process is anonymous, but that requires trust in what Phorm says, as the Phorm application is proprietary and not available for peer review. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other as to the claims of anonymity by Phorm. As mentioned earlier, I’m just concerned that most users are not aware of this technology, and I want to correct that."

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Nobody knows exactly how it will work because Phorm ain't saying and the cookie based approach may or may not be used by BT. BT have also changed their description several times including variously indicating that opted-out customers' data will or will not go through the profiling routines. It's also debatable just how many steps are involved - variously believed to by three or four though some have suggested as many as six or seven.

Some people have claimed that there are duplicate cookies though most now agree that there is one Webwise cookie and the websites' regular cookies with some extra code attached.

Given BT's statements regarding using a non-cookie opt-out system (although they only stated that this would be for the full roll-out) there is really no single definition of the system that we can safely say is the "correct" and complete version and even if the trial goes ahead there's no saying that the system used there will be the same one that is used in the final release.

Isn't that a bit like what Privacy international are slating Google for and Google cannot stalk my every click, but yes they have a van going round videoing the streets. They blur out faces and this they keep a secret Privacy International jumps in wanting all the details on how. Because Google will not then they start to become a target for Privacy International seems the privacy rules by them are becoming dfistorted.
Phorm can gather my home details stored on my PC anything I type on a page they have the ability to log, store and sell to any one who will pay they can copy everything I see, they havne't shared anything about how they will do this, what the scripts will actually harvest we just have the word of one man that we already don't trust and blinded by cash greed BT that it will not do this.
Which would you prefer?
Privacy International are starting to cloud the good reputation they have built up, starting to look like a buy out to me sad when such good reputations became tainted by someone like Kent.

Just a bit of light relief - this has to be the best story I've come across regarding BT's technical support.

Chap on the BT forum has problems and is constantly on the phone to BT. He speaks to one operator who can't find details of his account even after our chap gives him all of his personal details.

The BT operator eventually asks our chap a classic question:-

"Could you have been born on a different date?"

I just read that on the BT help forum and I laughed so much that coffe came out of my nose - priceless.

[notophorm]

Emma Finally replayed to the legal advice I havde been given.

---------------------
dear xxxxxx

We disagree with your interpretation. To confirm our position on
copyright, we consider that as a general proposition, by placing a
webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied
licence to reproduce/copy. We believe that the taking of a temporary
copy for the purposes of Webwise will fall within that implied licence
and also believe in any event that the proposed operation of Webwise is
permitted under s.28A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. So,
there is no breach of copyright.

------------------------------

Head, and sand firmly stuck in place. This reply dispite the fact my site has a clear copyright notice on each and every page.

I had asked for a summery of the legal advice, for my solicitor, but this has not been forthcoming. I doubt it even exists.

A copyright notice does not prevent anyone from accessing or using the data on a website.

Also remember that copyright is a matter for a civil court so you'll not get a definitive answer to thse questions until and unless a possible breach occurs and you bring a case against those responsible.

Also remember that you have to prove that your copyright has been breached and then establish who is responsible for the breach and in this case it may be the end user especially as BT have a clause that makes the customer responsible - it's the reason why they can restrict your account if anyone in your house illegally downloads copyrighted music.

The copyright issue can only be settled in court after the system goes live - until then it is a moot point.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Peter N

A copyright notice does not prevent anyone from accessing or using the data on a website.

A copyright notice licences the use of a literary work. No one is entitled to breach the copyright licence (unless exempt by copyright law).

Particularly so if the use of that work is harmful to the copyright owner (as Phorm undoubtedly is).

Originally Posted by Peter N

Also remember that copyright is a matter for a civil court so you'll not get a definitive answer to thse questions until and unless a possible breach occurs and you bring a case against those responsible.

Also remember that you have to prove that your copyright has been breached and then establish who is responsible for the breach and in this case it may be the end user especially as BT have a clause that makes the customer responsible - it's the reason why they can restrict your account if anyone in your house illegally downloads copyrighted music.

The proof (in a civil case) is balance of probability.

The end user is not responsible for the copying process, nor is the document in the possession of the end user when it is copied, nor does the user get the opportunity to read any copyright restriction before the document is copied.

The problem is entirely the ISPs to deal with.

You can prove which ISP requested a document by source IP address range.

You can prove statistically, the balance of probability (or even use the evidence of leaked UID cookies) that a web page was copied many times.

Originally Posted by Peter N

The copyright issue can only be settled in court after the system goes live - until then it is a moot point.

Absolutely. As a moot point, it is still worth discussing though.

[Florence]

I think all who do not wish to have phorm copying their website really need to block BT IP ranges or at least redirect them to an https page explaining why the redirect and what thye need to do to be able to continue through the website.

Emma just cannot understand the diffeence between a bot crawling a website to list it then bring potentual customers to the site and interception of a website to harvest and commercial gain for others but not the person who pays the bills for the website....

[phormwatch]

Oh, I think she can understand it.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

One signature away from 16,000!

[Portly_Giraffe]

We disagree with your interpretation. To confirm our position on
copyright, we consider that as a general proposition, by placing a
webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied
licence to reproduce/copy.

So if I were to collect the best articles from the Web editions of The Times, The Guardian, The Independent and so on and republish them on my own subscription-based website, those newspapers wouldn't be bothered?

I think BT need some new l-l-l-lawyers.

[tarka]

Surely BT are reading this thread? Or do they just have their fingers in their ears shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA" hoping it will all go away? I thought we had already pointed out their use of a temporary copy does not fall under s.28A?

[Dephormation]

I thought I'd ask Emma, see what she said about it all. I gather she's not keen on email, so I used her virtual presence;

[davethejag]

Hi All, not sure if this has been posted already -

"Ex-Clinton Aid Reps Phorm to Policy-Makers"

From here -

http://www.marketingvox.com/ex-clint...makers-040195/

Dave.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Florence

Emma just cannot understand the diffeence between a bot crawling a website to list it then bring potentual customers to the site and interception of a website to harvest and commercial gain for others but not the person who pays the bills for the website....

I would see checking robots.txt but not providing a phorm user agent that webmasters can block, as an admission that they are both well aware of the difference, and do not believe copyright holders who are aware of phorm would consent.

[Privacy_Matters]

Great News Stateside - the FCC have made a decision in the case of Comcast and their P2P manipulation. Though not Phorm, it is directly linked, as this could have reprocusions within all DPI usage by ISPs:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/...et-neutrality/

"In a landmark decision, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein approved a bipartisan “enforcement order� that would require Comcast to stop blocking and publicly disclose its methods for manipulating Internet traffic."

[Dephormation]

My thoughts on complete anonymisation (for non-technical readers, and technical alike).