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

Did you know that phorm is an anagram of............................


[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisaston/2123898724/[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[CaptJamieHunter]

It's after 5 o'clock so PhormUKPRteam must go home then.

Please don't ruin my childhood by associating one of Tony Hart's finest creations with this company of intrusive, invasive, evasive people with questionable values.

That last point is The Guardian's by the way. Reminder to everyone that The Guardian rejected Phorm, saying that "Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company."

That's a very politely worded but massively condemnatory put down.

Edit:

No, they're back lurking again. Maybe they just went off for a fag or coffee break or whatever it is PR people do.

[OF1975]

Time for some command and conquer 3 tiberium wars. Every time I attack the enemies base I shall fantasize I am attacking Phorms offices and destroying their servers. Hey-ho.

[Ravenheart]

Just got a reply from Liz Lynne MEP, virtually identical to the reply Patinstoke got in post 1926

[Kursk]

I see the Phorm PR people spent a lot of time here today without contributing to the thread. Clearly, they've learned that their attempts to qualify their invasive proposals in this clued up environment are ineffective. Still, it is good for them to read that the opposition to their propsals has not abated and is gathering momentum.

However, they will be back after thinking more carefully about their strategy. That's what PR are paid for. We know how it works and we should make ready for the spin.

That said, I still feel that there is no advantage in getting embroiled in discussions with Phorm. Indeed, it could even be distraction tactics whilst the hardware preparation goes ahead ready for the switch to be thrown at the green light.

Several have taken up the privacy issue with their official representatives and this must be focussed on ISP's, not Phorm. Phorm cannot realise their intentions without complicit ISP's so let's no longer contribute toward the notoriety of their brand (there's no such thing as bad publicity they say).

It is surely not good business sense to partner a scheme that confronts the values and (even perceived) privacy of millions of people. There is the danger of the Virgin brand being besmirched with such unpopular proposals.

A deal that sells out those who have loyally supported you has never historically been successful in the longer term. Phorm's position is becoming untenable; when something is sinking the best advice is to let go.

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by Kursk

A deal that sells out those who have loyally supported you has never historically been successful in the longer term. Phorm's position is becoming untenable; when something is sinking the best advice is to let go.

As long as they're being paid Phorms PR teams will continue baling with the collander of untenability

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I see the Phorm PR people spent a lot of time here today without contributing to the thread. Clearly, they've learned that their attempts to qualify their invasive proposals in this clued up environment are ineffective. Still, it is good for them to read that the opposition to their propsals has not abated and is gathering momentum.

....

A deal that sells out those who have loyally supported you has never historically been successful in the longer term. Phorm's position is becoming untenable; when something is sinking the best advice is to let go.

Well I think that Phorm Team's arguments need to be countered, but then, yes I agree they should be ignored. When they pop up again like a dodgy cookie, they should be countered again and ignored again.

You have hit the nail on the head regarding ISP's. Without a dodgy ISP to 'procure' for them, Phorm is nothing. To their credit, many of the more reputable ISP's have shown them the door, but unfortunately VM have very little reputation to protect.

They must have hoped this would go in 'under the radar' and they were clearly wrong. Their silence discredits them even more and it is a faulty strategy, as clearly the campaign against will continue to grow and become more mainstream. It won't go away.

Are they furiously changing their plans (webwise dropped the VM logo) or do they have a lot to hide (undisclosed trials perhaps)? Is project coaxial more than just a rumour and has Phorm become an acute embarresment?

The continued silence will only lead to more speculation.

[popper]

more Phorm newswire coverage.

cheaper ads are todays official spin... and it seems trying to sweet talk the Press that they can profit by Phorm use!.

is the current plan now to give the press a good deal in kickbacks and discounts so Phorm get an easyer ride?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...65&newsLang=en

Internet Profits Will Rise for Advertisers and Web Site Owners, Phorm CEO Tells Journalists

...
“If you [are] interested in the survival and thriving of the press, then you want a model where the press can truly monetize its audience, rather than monetize a few key words that happen to be part of news pages that trigger ads,” Ertugrul said.

Because of the Phorm technology, bloggers, too, will be able to evolve from poorly compensated hobbyists to well-compensated publishers.

Ertugrul said that the first stage of Phorm’s rollout in the UK is “happening very shortly.”
....

Ertugrul acknowledged that Phorm is in conversations with a number of American ISPs about integrating the Phorm technology into their networks. “Obviously our interest is in entering the U.S. market,” he told the journalists.
...

[CaptJamieHunter]

Phorm and their various PR drones should surely have figured out that their attempts at spin will not work in these communities of technically and legally aware people. Instead of technical people responding to the technical questions asked here, at DigitalSpy, on The Register and on other blogs, Phorm sent PR people and irreversibly damaged their already questionable reputation.

That doesn't mean the war is over. Phorm will no doubt continue to peddle its wares and spin to those elsewhere who are more easily swayed by bulldust and marketing speak. We need to keep our eyes open for such occurrences and react with information and education. We must continue to spread the word as much as we can to inform others who are not as aware as the intelligent, questioning customers here on CF.

As for the ISPs, only Carphone Warehouse has emerged with any credit. Its decision that whatever Phorm implementation they have is opt-in only reflects well on their management. The pressure needs to continue to ensure this decision is not backtracked.

I never expect anything less than the unacceptable from BT. In my 13 years in ICT BT have been the single biggest cause of problems. In my professional opinion BT has no credibility, customer focus or moral standing whatsoever. I sincerely hope that people affected by the unannounced trials take recourse to the law and that BT gets the heavy judgement it so richly deserves.

As for VM, with whom I have been a customer for at least 10 years (in one form or another), their letter to me comes across as evasive while they consider their position. Even in the face of an open letter from CF they still refuse to respond.

Actions have their consequences.

So does inaction.

VM stands condemned for its inaction and fobbing customers off with standardised replies. BT stands condemned by its own actions.

A number of the leaders with whom I have had the pleasure of working love to say that "perception is reality". This thread here is the perceptions of customers. Their realities.

I challenge VM, BT and Phorm to prove me and the others who challenge them wrong. Not by spin and "please visit our website" placatories but by open, honest and straight answers.

The questions are already in the public domain. The only thing that's missing is the open, honest straight answers.

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

more Phorm newswire coverage.

cheaper ads are todays official spin... and it seems trying to sweet talk the Press that they can profit by Phorm use!.

is the current plan now to give the press a good deal in kickbacks and discounts so Phorm get an easyer ride?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...65&newsLang=en

Looks that way.

"If we're nice to you will you give us an easy time over our intrusive, invasive technology?"

I see Virgin Media are still mentioned even though their logo seems to be missing from the Webwise page. And not surprisingly there's no mention of the humiliating rejection Phorm received from The Guardian. (Note to Phorm: their put down line about values was so great there's no way I'm going to Phorget it. I'm going to remind you of it every chance I get.)

If you read the latest bulldust ("is poised to deploy a proprietary, patent-pending technology" - given there are likely legal challenges and parliamentary, OFCOM, ICO and EU investigations I think that might well be a bit optimistic) they are still peddling the lines about no identifiable data being stored and being given an opt-out *but not mentioning the customer's data still gets fed into their systems*

If I'm not mistaken you'll see a couple of e-mail addresses towards the bottom of the page. And a phone number as well?

Naturally I look forward to full unedited transcripts of these and future proceedings being published in the public domain.

[patinstoke]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Just got a reply from Liz Lynne MEP, virtually identical to the reply Patinstoke got in post 1926

HI i just got this reply from one of my other mep's and im not quite sure whether he is saying they do or do not condone phorm. Any other views on this would be appreciated

Thank you very much for your email.

I have met with Phorm Technology and I am aware of the claims that they are making about anonymity and lack of reverse traceability that their system embodies.

My colleagues and I in the European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy in the context of proposed reforms to the Directive on Privacy in Electronic Communications. We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses and whether they should be treated as personal data and the Phorm system will certainly be included in this review.

We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications, combined with clear information for users if they are giving their private data to marketing organizations.
I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Many thanks.
Malcolm Harbour.


Malcolm Harbour
Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands, UK

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by patinstoke

HI i just got this reply from one of my other mep's and im not quite sure whether he is saying they do or do not condone phorm. Any other views on this would be appreciated

Well it's not a ringing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. Strikes me as a non-committal "We know what they're claiming. It's something that we're looking at and we think more could and should be done" sort of thing. It neither endorses nor berates them and it doesn't say anything about taking action against them under EU legislation.

It's a bit like my cover drive - looks good initially but is a bit wet at the point of impact and ultimately a bit disappointing.

I've got a vague recollection that the EU had already said that IP addresses were classed as personal data?

I'm sure someone more knowledgable about the EU and legal issues can out me right there. It's late and my making cricket analogies means it's bedtime.

Although this isnt meant to be public, and im not giving dates out or who was involved for various reasons but....there was a meeting about VM's future with phorm not so long ago

[popper]

Originally Posted by patinstoke

HI i just got this reply from one of my other mep's and im not quite sure whether he is saying they do or do not condone phorm. Any other views on this would be appreciated

Thank you very much for your email.

I have met with Phorm Technology and I am aware of the claims that they are making about anonymity and lack of reverse traceability that their system embodies.

My colleagues and I in the European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy in the context of proposed reforms to the Directive on Privacy in Electronic Communications. We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses and whether they should be treated as personal data and the Phorm system will certainly be included in this review.

We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications, combined with clear information for users if they are giving their private data to marketing organizations.
I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Many thanks.
Malcolm Harbour.

Malcolm Harbour
Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands, UK

that coming from a MEP is quite good , you just need to parse it.

and he seems to assume you should know the EU/MEP talk, most people dont, and even i that have looked, find it hard to work out whats happening sometimes.

the political readers here are better at that than i.

i may be wrong and time will tell ,but i read it as:
"European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy " basicly there are holes in the old revision so we are going to plug them to make E-privacy stronger.


"We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses "
given that the head EU Data commissioner has recently stated that your ISP given IP address is your personal data, the MEPs are now moving to clarify this point in better EU legalize.

"the claims that they are making" equates to Hmm if you say so Mr US ex-spyware.

"Phorm system will certainly be included in this review."
we suspect your messing with the personal IP address in some way,so we will make sure we close any loopholes already told to us, so you cant do it easly anymore.

the point here seems to be , have people told them all the possible abuses
of IPs that are out there, so they can put the right clauses in the new directives?

"We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications"
trust us to make you feel safe and spend all your E-cash in the EU so we can tax it to the hilt.

"I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal."
we dont know what else we might put in the new directives yet, but we are looking for more feelgood Ecomerce and be better than the US directives

---------- Post added at 02:24 ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 ----------

TD

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by patinstoke

HI i just got this reply from one of my other mep's and im not quite sure whether he is saying they do or do not condone phorm. Any other views on this would be appreciated

Thank you very much for your email.

I have met with Phorm Technology and I am aware of the claims that they are making about anonymity and lack of reverse traceability that their system embodies.

My colleagues and I in the European Parliament are currently examining issues around e-privacy in the context of proposed reforms to the Directive on Privacy in Electronic Communications. We shall be looking at the whole issue of IP addresses and whether they should be treated as personal data and the Phorm system will certainly be included in this review.

We have generally taken a robust view of the need for stronger protection of privacy in digital communications, combined with clear information for users if they are giving their private data to marketing organizations.
I am sure that this position will be sustained as we examine the Commission's Proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Many thanks.
Malcolm Harbour.


Malcolm Harbour
Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands, UK

Well to me it says absolutely nothing, a typical polichickens answer, sit on the fence.

[popper]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

If you read the latest bulldust ("is poised to deploy a proprietary, patent-pending technology" -

given there are likely legal challenges and parliamentary, OFCOM, ICO and EU investigations I think that might well be a bit optimistic)

they are still peddling the lines about no identifiable data being stored and being given an opt-out *but not mentioning the customer's data still gets fed into their systems*

If I'm not mistaken you'll see a couple of e-mail addresses towards the bottom of the page. And a phone number as well?

Naturally I look forward to full unedited transcripts of these and future proceedings being published in the public domain.

funny iv not seen any DigitalSpy threads mentioned, any info in them thats not been mentioned here already?.

it just struck me about another potential option and perhaps some fun for the right readers.

lautresteve http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...ail&id=3974313
points out that "... I could sit down and build my own version of Phorm's technology inside of about a month (less if I hired on some contractors.), it's nothing more than a bit of Deep Packet Inspection and some proxy server tricks.

It's so simple in fact, that I can't understand how they spent so much money developing it. If it were truly worth anything, I'd be on the phone to a VC right about now,...."

looking at the patent, it seems an accurate claim for any reasonable coder team.

and so, that also means there might be prior art already out there, or it might be that its so simple that you might even manage to get it revoked perhaps

i dont know the US patent rules and regs, but perhaps someone that does, can find the company that holds prior art, or can find a way to have the Phorm Patent revoked

cant easly capitalise on a non patent can they