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

[Florence]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Here's the sort of thing I had in mind - I'm sending this off to BT Retail legal department...

Dear Sir or Madam:
Copryright
Pursuant to recent correspondence from yourselves, I wish to advise you that I have plans to copy large sections of material on websites from BT Group plc, and put them up on my own websites. I am presuming that there are no copyright objections to this.
I am also planning to “scrape” the sites of both DABS and the BT Shop on a regular basis, and then use the data therein to offer the items at a lower price from my own retail outlet. I may just use the page copies from the BT Shop and DABS sites as they stand, but with altered contact details so shoppers can contact my own sales outlet instead of yours.
I was worried about copyright issues, when I was planning this but your reassurances that “Our position is 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.”
I was also worried that there might be conditions on the website forbidding me taking such copies, but I now see that even if a website owner puts up that sort of notice, it is not necessary according to your legal position, for anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to it.
I’m delighted to have this opportunity to save myself all the tedious and expensive market research and web page design fees – now I can just rip off someone else’s work and use it for my own commercial purposes. Can I assume you are happy about me doing this? If you have no objections I can just go ahead in 14 days time? Of course if you object I will observe (and publish) your objections. But you will need to explain why what applies to the BT Retail goose, doesn’t apply also to the BT customer gander.
Unless you object specifically I shall assume implied consent to publish your reply.
Sincerely,

I know I removed a lot of very good information but it was this little bit I have changed to red that cought my eye......

Since even if I say Phorm cannot access, copy, harvest, intercept or anything else on my website they would ignore it yet you sir still are man enough to offer them a chance to not have it published! According to them even if we object specifically against phorm/webwise it will still go ahead and copy our websites, do not give them a loop hole different from what they are giving us all is fair in love and war. By the way love the letter.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

A good idea would be to trawl through all of BT's servers and collect and categorise images, and then host them on another server, advertising that they are free to use.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Excellent work, btw, R Jones!

that is easily done - they run an image library for things like the latest Home Hub etc. with the images being "free of charge".

I know it also says, "They are not to be used for any advertising, marketing or promotional purposes by third parties, or for internal communications requirements such as newsletters or non-commercial websites, without the expressed permission of BT and the copyright holder." but who cares about that? It's just a "notice" - I think we can ignore it. Anyway they allow Google to crawl their site so let's just assume they don't mind us scraping it either.

I even turned up some information about those famous Canon cameras with this search, so must get some for my online shop.

It's all on Google and on the web, so's bound to be okay? Can't see any problem, can you Del'boy? Let's load ' up in the back of the old Robin Reliant and get 'em round to Peckham market pronto.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

I know I removed a lot of very good information but it was this little bit I have changed to red that cought my eye......

Since even if I say Phorm cannot access, copy, harvest, intercept or anything else on my website they would ignore it yet you sir still are man enough to offer them a chance to not have it published! According to them even if we object specifically against phorm/webwise it will still go ahead and copy our websites, do not give them a loop hole different from what they are giving us all is fair in love and war. By the way love the letter.

Florence it is not very difficult to occupy and hold moral ground slightly higher than BT and Phorm do. I can do it just by putting on a pair of socks and standing on the toilet seat.

[phormwatch]

So - any offers from Londoners to place anti-Phorm flyers on tube carriages?

Like I said, I would cover the expense of getting them printed.

[philj]

HI all, new member here greetings to all.
This may have been asked before so pardon me if it has. Wouldnt this technology be a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act?
Maybe some brighter and up to speed could comment?

Phil

[ilago]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Alternatively we could write/email BT and simply let them know that we are planning to do this, and do they have any comments? (free of legal risk).

The correct term is Without Prejudice and it should be at the top of the letter centred, in bold, above the Dear Sir/Madam bit.

With the NebuAd and Phorm lobbying about to get off the ground in the US, I would suggest you prepare for an onslaught of anti-Google, anti-social-networking (MySpace, Facebook etc.) propaganda. It will be designed to demonstrate how lilly-white and clean NebuAd and Phorm really are, while these other organisations have been really doing worse than them for years.

It might be a very good idea to prepare well thought out rebuttals. This sort of informercial stuff usually does get into the mainstream.

The Netflix DeAnonymiser algorithm is one place to start on unravelling their arguments on anonymity. The Gator connections to NebuAd and Phorm's previous life as 121Media "rootkit installer", origins should be useful as well.

[phormwatch]

Originally Posted by philj

HI all, new member here greetings to all.
This may have been asked before so pardon me if it has. Wouldnt this technology be a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act?
Maybe some brighter and up to speed could comment?

Phil

Welcome, Phil!

[Florence]

Originally Posted by madslug

This will be a system failure at BTW perhaps (as it is affecting the independent ISPs with their orders) rather than someone failing the system.

Maybe too many requests? Or something new using all the power to a rack?

There was also a MAC related problem a few weeks back which was fixed within a few hours.

Friend of mine got their MAC with in 3 hours of asking on 31st it expires 31/08/08 so if others can generate tehm it has to be :-

1 BT messing trying to fit things in the servers knocking others offline in the process.
2 too many asking for the MAC keys so trying to slow this down
3 they do not know how to do the job
4 all of the above.

Phill

I think we did touch on human rights would seem with our present government, BT and privacy international we hae no rights where phorm is. Seems if it was Google BT had jumped into bed with it would have ben slated by Privacy international as not legal..

Greasy palms come to mind when talking about Phorm perhaps how the company went through so much money yet doesnt do anytrhing to spend it on..

[Green Disease]

Originally Posted by philj

HI all, new member here greetings to all.
This may have been asked before so pardon me if it has. Wouldnt this technology be a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act?
Maybe some brighter and up to speed could comment?

Phil

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998..._19980042_en_1

Only thing I could find was the following:-

Taken from http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/act-studyguide.pdf

Article 8: Private life and family

You have the right to respect for your private and family life, your home and your correspondence.

The definition of “correspondence� is broad, and can include communication by letter, telephone, fax or email.

I'm not a lawyer so I can not really comment

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by philj

HI all, new member here greetings to all.
This may have been asked before so pardon me if it has. Wouldnt this technology be a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act?
Maybe some brighter and up to speed could comment?

Phil

You (and any other new to the Phorm/Webwise/DPI debate can get a quick legup here (not too technical) and then it's up to you how deep you go. The important thing is to get ACTIVE, and contact your MP, MEP, BT, and all your friends and send them to where they can get information about this scummy product.

For starters, send your ISP one of Dephormations DPA notices asap, and write to your MP using theyworkforyou.com
Ask them what they are doing about Phorm/Webwise/DPI and don't let them off the hook if they send you a feeble reply.

Whenever you write a letter, ask for permission to publish the reply.

Good to have you aboard. Bring a friend next time!!!

Originally Posted by philj

HI all, new member here greetings to all.
This may have been asked before so pardon me if it has. Wouldnt this technology be a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act?
Maybe some brighter and up to speed could comment?

Phil

Like many of the issues raised by this system the only honest answer is - we don't know.

There is no absolute right to privacy included in any of the acts or laws icluding the Human Rights Act. The HRA only refers to "respect" for privacy and it will require a specific ruling before it is established how those terms relate to this system. Such a ruling will only come as the result of a court case especially as BT's response to any questions over the legality of this system has been to state the they "believe" that it's legal rather than quoting any precedant case-law.

The one thing we do know is that EU commision is watching events closely.

[philj]

Thanks All,
for your welcome and prompt replies. Will read and inwardly digest. Printing dephorm letter as we speak.

Phil

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Green Disease

Just completing a draft letter to my MP, I can not believe the anger that is building up by writing it, trying very hard not to rant. The sheer arrogance of BT and Phorm ......ggrrrrraaaaaaarrrggh.

Reading various stuff on line, about BT possibly trying to move away from cookies option. The following is complete guess work as I have not got the technical expertise. The only way two ways I can think they could do this would be to use IP addresses, they like to keep going on about Google storing IP address, maybe BT will say that Phorm do not have access to account details, so is only the same as Google..

The other option would be for Phorm to go back to their roots, quite literally. When the user is given the web page and accepts Webwise, the little bar at the top screen of IE pops up with download file. This installs a program which says its from your ISP so you should trust it!! This program runs on the PC all the time, or is an add in for the browser. This could then for example contact phorms servers and give that PC an unused UID. This would mean that you would always update the profile assigned to that UID.

I think BT plan to offer a cookie free account level opt-out, but those who opt-in will still get a UID and phorged cookies. Targeting adverts by IP address alone is just not accurate enough. Using tracking cookies to target adverts means advertisers are much more likely to reach the intended person where a connection is shared by family members.

One approach ( discussed earlier http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34590456 ) to track end-users without phorging cookies would be to capture a hash of an end-user's search engine cookies and their regular tracking network cookies - if a system injected some code into the page returned when users search on Google to make the end user's browser request various tracking cookie urls, then the system could capture the user's google preference cookie and all their tracking cookies and link them to a that specific user. Then it could track individuals browsing using a combination of IP address, third-party tracking cookies, and referrer. I did wonder if Nebuad might be using that approach.

Not sure if I am correct, under the cookies system, if I delete my cookies at the end of each browsing session, then the UID is deleted, so any link to any profile they have built of me is lost. The next time I start browsing again I am given a different UID and a new profile is started?

Yes, If you've deleted your cookies, the next time you browse you will be invited to be phormed and will be assigned a new UID.

[philj]

Hi again a thought,
Whaat about contract law? Unfair Terms state..

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). section 5

Unfair Terms
5.
(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall
be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations
arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually
negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has
therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a
contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply
to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that
it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was
individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and
non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

and also the new act of 2008 not familiar with that one yet using this one to ignore parking charge by private firm of thieving bandits.

And seeing as they havent asked us how can we agree.WE all know how virgin like their contracts dont we?

Philj

[phormwatch]

Some people might be interested in looking at this:

http://about.bttradespace.com/

Check out The Lounge:

http://communities.bttradespace.com/

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by philj

Hi again a thought,
Whaat about contract law? Unfair Terms state..

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

snip

and also the new act of 2008 not familiar with that one yet using this one to ignore parking charge by private firm of thieving bandits.

Philj

The new 2008 ones are quite a lot tougher. I think they are one reason why BT are having to be careful about the design of the Webwise interstitial invitation page. they outlaw misleading descriptions where advantages are played up, and disadvantages played down or ignored. Pretty much fits most of the BT publicity about Phorm to date.