Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 921

Rchivist · 12-08-2008, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by rryles

Reposting just in case it got lost at the end of my post.

Significant Phorm Related article on the Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

The repost didn't pick up the url properly

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

This is all very very heartening. These sorts of things don't go away. More delays to the trials I fear Mr ("soon") Liversage. More legal advice er... opinions will have to be obtaine.. er sought, Ms Sanderson. More humble pie will need to be eaten, Mr Patterson.

The questions being asked by Fabio Colasanti seem to echo some of those asked by Congress in their letter to various advertisers.

Now then UK parliament, in particular, House of Commons, smell the coffee? When the recess is over, we'd like a bit of action please. Relevant questions to HO and DBERR to ask why they can't comply with the EU request on time.

HamsterWheel · 12-08-2008, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by rryles

Reposting just in case it got lost at the end of my post.

Significant Phorm Related article on the Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

Try this working link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

And despite what the sensationalist headline says, no "deadline" has been missed. The EU said they would "appreciate" a response within a month, they did not demand it.

rryles · 12-08-2008, 16:16

Whoops! Now corrected.

mark777 · 12-08-2008, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by rryles

{snip}
Another Reg first:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

Now that EU letter could have been written by someone here and just given to the EU to sign and send.

Massive news.

Missing the deadline to respond means the EU will only get it's teeth in deeper. It also demonstrates the UK authorities complete confusion regarding the issue.

rryles · 12-08-2008, 16:24

The headline is perhaps a little sensationalist. The real news is the actual contents of the letter. Makes very interesting reading, and the answers will be even more interesting.

Well Done Chris Williams!

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

And despite what the sensationalist headline says, no "deadline" has been missed. The EU said they would "appreciate" a response within a month, they did not demand it.

A deadline isn't necessarily mandatory. From the OED:

Quote:

deadline: noun the latest time or date by which something should be completed.

phormwatch · 12-08-2008, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Try this working link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08..._phorm_letter/

And despite what the sensationalist headline says, no "deadline" has been missed. The EU said they would "appreciate" a response within a month, they did not demand it.

Ha ha! Yeah, and when a policeman 'asks' for you to come down to the station, he's not making any demands either.

Florence · 12-08-2008, 16:29

Hammy after reading the letter from Google to Congress and what Congress has said over Phorm if a BT customer visits an american website or even a website that is owned by Congress would this person be breaking the law in America as they have ruled this illegal?

phormwatch · 12-08-2008, 16:34

Hammy's getting way too much attention these past couple of days.

12-08-2008, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

And despite what the sensationalist headline says, no "deadline" has been missed. The EU said they would "appreciate" a response within a month, they did not demand it.

When your boss says "Would you mind..." she means "Get it done"

This is quite a story and leaves the UK government's inaction open to question - incompetence or cover-up?

They should get Adam Liversage to reply. He could just cut and paste Phorm's FAQ's and then refuse to talk to them ever again. It was good enough for BT's paying customers so I'm sure that the Commissioner won't mind.

HamsterWheel · 12-08-2008, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Hammy after reading the letter from Google to Congress and what Congress has said over Phorm if a BT customer visits an american website or even a website that is owned by Congress would this person be breaking the law in America as they have ruled this illegal?

I wasn't aware that Congress have ruled anything illegal, they are just looking at things.
So don't worry, MI5 aren't going to visit you in the dead of night and rendition you to Guantanomo.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Hammy's getting way too much attention these past couple of days.

jealous

Florence · 12-08-2008, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter N

When your boss says "Would you mind..." she means "Get it done"

This is quite a story and leaves the UK government's inaction open to question - incompetence or cover-up?

They should get Adam Liversage to reply. He could just cut and paste Phorm's FAQ's and then refuse to talk to them ever again. It was good enough for BT's paying customers so I'm sure that the Commissioner won't mind.

I was thinking of sending those questions up to them all at BT.

Would you agree Hammy that if the servers for webwise had a slight alteration of script the program could be programmed to retain more personal details without the customer knowing?

12-08-2008, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

I wasn't aware that Congress have ruled anything illegal...

They have ruled lots of things illegal - that's what happens when you make laws and have a judicial system.

What you mean is that no-one has yet said that these systems are definitely illegal. If that was all that was required then we wouldn't need courts and if it transpires that using Phorm is breaking existing US law then it doesn't require a decision from Congress to prosecute those responsible.

Congress are involved because the USA doesn't have an equivalent of the ICO. It takes a court to decide if the law has been broken but Congress can issue guidelines or look to creating or ammending laws if required.

pseudonym · 12-08-2008, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

A note from a friend...

Quote:* Phorm plants first-person cookies in the name of various of the sites
that the user visits. *Richard Clayton has noted that it cannot be
guaranteed that these cookies will be invisible to those sites. This
raises the issue that an unexpected cookie arriving at the server, if
the server-side code works by enumerating the cookies, rather than
accessing specific cookies by name (something it is PERFECTLY entitled
to do - it was, up until now, entirely in control of its own
first-person cookies) then it may encounter a cookie containing
unexpected data that fails to parse, and cause server-side errors in
consequence.

I've observed such problems while testing my Firefox extension's (Firephorm) option to fake phorm's phorged cookies (intended to avoid redirects) - it caused a few webpages to fail to work with non-helpful error messages.

This would be the same effect a phormed user would observe if they use their laptop to browse on a non-phormed connection (or for 3 days after changing to a non-phormed ISP) Most users probably wouldn't have a clue why they could access such a webpage and probably blame the site or their ISP. ISPs taking on Phormed customers probably should be warning them to delete all cookies after migrating to avoid any phorm caused browsing issues and continued phorm targetting based on the profile compiled while with their previous ISP.

I added the default sub option to my extension to only send a forged cookie after a request has been redirected 3 or more times, in case someone enables forging phorm's tracking cookies on a non-phormed connection as it minimises the chances of it causing a problem.

HamsterWheel · 12-08-2008, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Would you agree Hammy that if the servers for webwise had a slight alteration of script the program could be programmed to retain more personal details without the customer knowing?

Of course they could, but they have promised not too, and if they did and got caught they would be in all sorts of bother. They would not jeopardise their business by doing such silliness.

Florence · 12-08-2008, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Of course they could, but they have promised not too, and if they did and got caught they would be in all sorts of bother. They would not jeopardise their business by doing such silliness.

This is where my trust goes we have to rely on the words of people we do not know, you never heard of employees gathering information to gain more money. This is where we as individuals wish to keep control over our own privacy.