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

[madslug]

Old article - still an interesting read about tracking. Who would have thought that Yahoo tracks more than Google? - only gets 3rd place

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ount-the-ways/

[phormwatch]

I've changed 'spyware' to adware in the last paragraph. I'll add the ending paragraph soon.

[Dephormation]

Home Office FoI releases uploaded, and my current conclusions updated.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=12

This FoI release confirms - the Home Office were advised about Phorm as early as November 2006.

Shortly after the 2006 trials.

They remained in correspondence with Phorm through 2007, up to the launch in February 2008.

They haven't released any details of the correspondence other than dates.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Home Office FoI releases uploaded, and my current conclusions updated.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=12

This FoI release confirms - the Home Office were advised about Phorm as early as November 2006.

Shortly after the 2006 trials.

They remained in correspondence with Phorm through 2007, up to the launch in February 2008.

They haven't released any details of the correspondence other than dates.

Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.

This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.

If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Florence

Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.

This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.

If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.

I'm glad someone else spotted that.

Ironic really isn't it? Its too 'confidential'.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by Florence

Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.

This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.

If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.

A friend of mine in the Civil Service was explaining (unrelated to Phorm) how decisions were made in the DTI (now BRRRRRRR), and I think this applies across the civil service.

Basically for any decision an assessment is made on what the likely public interest would be, and the chance of it blowing up and coming back to haunt them. If it is considered low risk then decision making takes a different path to that otherwise (I'll leave the reader to read between teh lines here!)

I pity the HO and BRRRRR on Phorm here, as I'm sure the people dealing with BT and Phorm didn't spot the likely public interest on this technology being stealthily installed at ISPs.

At the time of dishing out advice and emails I'm guessing that the civil servants involved never dreamt of FoI interest from teh great unwashed.

If correspondance hasn't been prepared with the likelihood of public scrutiny being considered, then of course it won't be released under FoI without an appeal.

It's a pity FoI didn't exist when they were still making "Yes, Minister!"

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Home Office FoI releases uploaded, and my current conclusions updated.

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=12

This FoI release confirms - the Home Office were advised about Phorm as early as November 2006.

Shortly after the 2006 trials.

They remained in correspondence with Phorm through 2007, up to the launch in February 2008.

They haven't released any details of the correspondence other than dates.

I have had a quick read of what you have put up and I think you have earned yourself another bone Pete.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.

This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.

If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.

Which ISP did they use for the communications? Was there DPI being used? Maybe their communications got intercepted? There might even have been a secret trial going on at the time that the Home Office weren't told about and the communications might not have been secure.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by warescouse

I have had a quick read of what you have put up and I think you have earned yourself another bone Pete.

Given where it started with my initial assertion, and the Home Office reply...

“…. it is clear your office were advising Phorm in January 2008. Well before the public announcement of agreements between Phorm and Internet Service Providers”

The Home Office was approached by a number of parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The single response to those requests was made in the informal guidance note, dated January 2008, which was not made available to any of those parties until 4 February 2008.

Please now inform me

- Whether the Home Office were made aware of the secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7

It wasn’t.

- Whether the Home Office authorised secret trials conducted by Phorm in 2006/7

The Home Office was not aware of the trials/tests.

- When you first started advising BT and Phorm (and other ISPs)

Asked for a view we gave that view to all parties who asked for it on or after 4 February 2008.

... the information we now know paints a quite different picture of Home Office involvement, and awareness of Phorm.

I hope at some point the mainstream press will step in and rip this corrupt Government, and BT, to shreds over the Phorm scandal. (contact me here).

Pete.

[phormwatch]

Well, what do you suggest? A campaign of writing to the mainstream press? Have you tried at least contacting the BBC with all that information, Pete?

If anyone has any call to action regarding Phorm, you right now have a very receptive audience at The Register, with those reading the latest Phorm article. I suggest you register and post your suggestion.

[Florence]

Could bring it up in the appeal that sine the homeoffice does understand privacy with the reasons for withholding the information. So could they explain why we have no rights to privacy from companies like phorm.

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Well, what do you suggest? A campaign of writing to the mainstream press? Have you tried at least contacting the BBC with all that information, Pete?

I seem to remember the last BBC article had some good input from Pete. (Well done!)

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Home Office FoI releases uploaded, and my current conclusions updated.

I find it interesting that there were at least 2 advertisers receiving the response and more than one ISP.

Why would what appears to be one legal representative have helped edit the HO paper and then have it sent to more than one advertiser?

At the end of the day, all the ad networks sell any spare advertising to anyone who is short: if there is web real estate, they will fill it, even if from low paying stock from a minor network.

The ad networks are as much in bed with each other as the ISPs are when the senior management get together for their joint meetings.

And that is all I can offer on that subject.

Next line of attack - monopolies commission. If 70+% of UK ISPs are to offer Phorm or some other ad network, where is the independent service which acts as a balance to the monopoly?

[phormwatch]

I have a list of newsgroups we can post to once the Open Letter To Business is finished:

http://www.newsgroup-access.com/business-newsgroups.asp

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:34 ----------

OK, updated Open Letter:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

I will have a section after the first which is titled: 'Phorm legality in question' or something...

Thanks for the input RJones

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

I am a bit concerned about the use of the word 'Stealing'. Perhaps 'using' or 'exploiting' might be better and legally less dangerous...

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I am a bit concerned about the use of the word 'Stealing'. Perhaps 'using' or 'exploiting' might be better and legally less dangerous...

I think that would be wise.

Not a good idea IMO to accuse anyone of actually "stealing" anything, as surely that could be classed as defamatory/libellous.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:50 ----------

Ah, changed already.

Good letter, btw