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

[Bonglet]

Money gains over ethics shares, bonuses you can have it all glowingly
some of the pi forums got bombarded over the sell out i mean strategic partnership ohh damn i dont know how to word it anyone here good at pr or spin?

Originally Posted by OldBear

Hank, your reply paragraphs 1, 3 & 4 are identical to the first reply I received from (or so I thought) Emma Sanderson.

Only difference is that in yours she changed the bit about re. the PIA to 80/20 instead of Privacy International.

Yeah, I know OB, we have to accept that given the sheer volume of complaints and questions they must be getting, they have to take people from their day job to purely deal with replying. Or they installed beds into the marketing team/PR team office area? Or they have hired external PR consultantss to deal with them...

Inrteresting to see the standard email changing in certain places though isn't it? When they realise their mistakes or when they realise that their slip up or perhaps a white lie won't wash, will be discovered and used against them in the forum here.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by Kursk

The penny drops..

Something a little more descriptive perhaps?
I appreciate the fact that Phorm etc. will try and spin this meeting, and I hope that the quality of the participants attending will be enough to neutralise it, but in the event is isnt something more than 'the penny drops' would be usful. Any meaningful suggestions/questions. To quote:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Are those of us going to the London meeting tomorrow being co-opted into a Phorm PR stunt?

At some point 80/20 should be, but so far is not, conducting a proper Privacy Impact Assessment consultation with stakeholders. That would mean providing proper briefing information to stakeholders and asking them for their views.

This meeting is not a consultation meeting, as it is advertised by 80/20 as a way to ask questions of Phorm. It is a meeting where Phorm, not stakeholders, will express their views. That means in my view that this is a communications meeting. So yes, its purpose is to promote the Phorm PR agenda.

A further oddity of the meeting: Phorm has spoken disparagingly about the "small but vociferous group" of objectors to the proposed interception by ISPs. Why then has 80/20 limited its invitations to the meeting to that same "small but vociferous group"? 80/20 already knows that its client is not interested in the views of this group.

If I were to attend the meeting, I think I would ask some questions about the PIA process. In particular, when a proper and fully informed consultation was going to be conducted.

There is certainly little point in asking about the primary issue - the interception by ISPs. ISPs will not be there and Simon of 80/20 said last night that 80/20 is in any case unable to deal with the interception issue.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Are those of us going to the London meeting tomorrow being co-opted into a Phorm PR stunt?

I've always been a bit sceptical about the meeting, but I really don't think Simon would get involved in anything underhand.

I think we are at the point now where the best PR 'win' we could give them is if very few people turn up, particularly when a lot of effort has gone into canvassing the media to be there as well.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Something a little more descriptive perhaps?
I appreciate the fact that Phorm etc. will try and spin this meeting, and I hope that the quality of the participants attending will be enough to neutralise it, but in the event is isnt something more than 'the penny drops' would be usful. Any meaningful suggestions/questions. To quote:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

You're right Winston, I do apologise. The post was curt but not intended as rude. Yes, this is indeed a PR exercise imho. I consider the meeting and the PIA to be an irrelevant smokescreen (apologies to Simon who is watching but keeping out tonight). Phorm have us debating their processes; very clever. I think the ISP's are our best target.

[Pasanonic]

I'm off to bed but I notice that Simon ( from 80/20 thinking ) is online and I'd like to bring my post to his attention.

Hi Simon,

Welcome back.
I notice from the itinerary tomorrow that after the statements by yourself and others that the panel discussion involving the audience seems to be proposed between Kent Ertugrul & Marc Burgess *. I'd very much hope that you yourself could be part of this panel discussion in the interests of fairness, because actually, re: yesterday I do trust you to do the right thing. I just don't trust Kent to allow you to.

If it could be brought up at the meeting by the attendees should the panel not be expanded it does not allow for the proper questions to be answered I'd be grateful.

*http://www.8020thinking.com/events

regards
Craig

[amateria]

Originally Posted by mark777

I've always been a bit sceptical about the meeting, but I really don't think Simon would get involved in anything underhand.

I think we are at the point now where the best PR 'win' we could give them is if very few people turn up, particularly when a lot of effort has gone into canvassing the media to be there as well.

Quite. As part of a PIA we are entitled to proper, written briefing materials and an opportunity to make dignified, measured representations. We should not have to attend some stage-managed, potential shouting-match in order to try to glean a few more scraps of information or get a point across.

I didn't realise that a lot of effort had gone into canvassing the media. In that case, it's hard to see the meeting as anything other than a press conference.

As for Simon's motives - he has refused to answer reasonable questions about the PIA process. I don't suppose he is being underhand, but it looks to me as though he is being used and has been out-maneouvred. He seems to be confused about his objectives and role and feeling conflicted. I feel for him as a person, but he is not running a good PIA process, and we need a good PIA process to help protect our rights.

[Winston Smith]

A question for 80/20Thinking if I may. Tomorrows meeting (actually todays now)

I appreciate there will be a schedule to follow but one would assume that we would be free to ask questions of the panel as we see fit at some point in the proceedings? I have a sneaking suspicion there are a number of questions that will be asked that need to be answered. Or are we to be subjected subjected to more of the same continous inane and irrelavant spin of Phorms PR groups?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by amateria

Quite. As part of a PIA we are entitled to proper, written briefing materials and an opportunity to make dignified, measured representations. We should not have to attend some stage-managed, potential shouting-match in order to try to glean a few more scraps of information or get a point across.

I didn't realise that a lot of effort had gone into canvassing the media. In that case, it's hard to see the meeting as anything other than a press conference.

As for Simon's motives - he has refused to answer reasonable questions about the PIA process. I don't suppose he is being underhand, but it looks to me as though he is being used and has been out-maneouvred. He seems to be confused about his objectives and role and feeling conflicted. I feel for him as a person, but he is not running a good PIA process, and we need a good PIA process to help protect our rights.

Good post. But you mean to say you're not rea££y sure why principles are being sacrificed?

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

A question for 80/20Thinking if I may. Tomorrows meeting (actually todays now)

I appreciate there will be a schedule to follow but one would assume that we would be free to ask questions of the panel as we see fit at some point in the proceedings? I have a sneaking suspicion there are a number of questions that will be asked that need to be answered. Or are we to be subjected subjected to more of the same continous inane and irrelavant spin of Phorms PR groups?

Programme

Chair: Dr Ian Brown

Overview and background, Simon Davies, 80/20 Thinking

Technical presentation: Marc Burgess, VP Technology, Phorm Inc.

Implications of the system: Dr Richard Clayton, FIPR

Commentary by Kent Ertugrul, CEO, Phorm Inc.

Panel discussion with audience: Kent Ertugrul & Marc Burgess

♦ ♦ ♦

Registration is free but numbers are limited so please notify us in advance by emailing info@8020thinking.com

[Bonglet]

Notice how the open discussion will only be taken by the phorm people, Simon and Dr Richard Clayton are there just to be seen as endorsing the product model nothing more nothing less .

I hope simon dosent Come out and say that he is involved in PI that way he would break his own ethics maybe kent will sneak it in somewhere seems to be good at it .

Deffo the pr stunt trick as there taking there own camera crew with them to broadcast it .
Hope no one from burson in the crowd asking questions

[popper]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

My reply from Emma Sanderson:

Mr Hanff

Thank you for your email and of course I am disappointed to hear about the proposed subject of your dissertation.

As you know BT has confirmed that we conducted two small scale technical tests of a prototype advertising platform, one during September - October 2006 and the other in June 2007. In each instance, a small number of customers on one internet exchange (they were two different internet exchanges) were randomly selected for the test and were completely anonymous. Absolutely no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test. BT has no way of knowing - because the trial was completely anonymous - which customers were part of the test. The purpose of the tests was to evaluate the functional and technical performance of the platform and they were transparent to all but a very small number of customers. It is important for BT to ensure that before any new technologies are deployed, they are robust and fit for purpose. BT took legal advice at the time, both BT and Phorm have obtained extensive legal and other external advice on Webwise functionality over the last two years.

BT has also said that we expect to begin technical trials of the BT Webwise service in the coming weeks. We will be inviting around 10,000 BT broadband customers to take part in the trial. The trial invitation will be presented through a special web page that will appear when those customers start a web browsing session. At this point [they have broken RIPA due to the BT DPI kit used], those customers invited can choose to switch on BT Webwise, choose not to take part or to find out more information. Customers choosing not to take part will not have their browsing information mirrored or profiled [but will have already had it BT DPI Intercepted and collected], and no information will go to the BT managed profiler. No information is gathered [wrong, you have already gathered,another word being collected said information to determine if they are opted out, and processed that ram based collected data], and therefore no information is forwarded to Phorm. Customers who opt out will not come into contact with any Phorm-managed equipment [but again you miss the point, YOU have intercepted the data against RIPA regulations, and you are informing the readers you are doing this without prior EXPLICIT consent in this PR letter, not such clever thing to do id imagine]. The www.bt.com/webwise site also contains detailed information [enough to see you are breaking another law at least, regarding storeing and/or reading your data cookie without consent] on the service and a one-click option to switch the service off, which can be activated at any point during the trial. Alternatively customers can block the www.webwise.net domain. The BT Privacy Policy and BT Total Broadband Service Terms will be amended accordingly [which will make these new terms invalid as an unfair term...]. As you may have seen, BT has also confirmed publicly that in parallel with the trial, we are already developing a solution for customers that do not want the service - that removes the need for 'opt-out' cookies altogether. [due to the fact YOU already know you cant plant or read a cookie on the users machine without Explicit consent and if you do its as above, unlawful, you CAN NOT break RIPA to get consent, so you dont break RIPA doh, and every single one of the "NO" consent returns is exactly that ,breaking RIPA yet again in this new trial and whith the data commissioners office personel (we assume is there live and in person?) seeing you break it most basic RIPA/PCER etc]

I should also stress that prior to the announcement BT thoroughly researched Webwise and was encouraged by the very positive consumer response to the service.

Clearly our customer's privacy is extremely important to us. Information on users’ browsing is completely anonymous. [apart from the fact any webpage script can see the cookies you placed there and so opening up a can of worms for tracking this cookie on all opted-in customers OC] The system doesn't store personally identifiable information, doesn't store URLs, IP addresses or retain browsing histories and the raw data used is deleted in real time [SO YOU DO openly admit to using the RAW DPI data ]- by the time the page loads. [ and that doesnt matter after the event, as you have already collected and processed this raw data in the ram of the DPI kit] Webwise does not scan webmail pages [ as in.., it doesnt scan the very limited ones you have put in your blacklists files..., your forgetting about the masses of potential webmail pages you dont know about OC] so our customers emails on Gmail, Yahoo mail or Hotmail are not scanned.[ great, now what about any of the wireless community webmail server pages serving the worlds 10,000's+ of community wireless users in the EU alone, did you forget about them, as one single example for instance] Secure pages like banking websites and web forms like any online registration or sign-up forms are not scanned. No personal information often contained in form fields is therefore ever captured by the system. No data is passed outside of BT's network. Webwise privacy standards have been verified by external auditor Ernst & Young and leading privacy advocate Simon Davies, MD of 80/20 Thinking, has also carried out [carrying out, as in not finished, or known what it will contain as yet]a Privacy Impact Assessment on Webwise technology. Of course BT, and I am sure [of course you are]the same applies to TalkTalk and Virgin Media, have all completed appropriate due diligence on Phorm,[ROTFL, if thats your idea of due diligence your in a real mess and need to learn how to use a search engine] we also understand that other ISPs both in and outside of the UK are currently talking to them.[and so what, is it going to be your defence that several ISPs getting together and collectively calling this an industry practice and so, some how gives you the right to break UK law?, "industry practice" does not UK law make....]

BT is, of course, aware of the legal requirements regarding interception of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We consider that these steps will meet the legal requirements of RIPA and also ensure that customers are able to take a fully informed decision as to whether to take the service.

To summarise, our customer research shows that lots of people would be keen to see advertisements that are relevant to their interests, we are planning to trial the service shortly, BT customers may be invited to participate in the trial (via a webpage) but the choice as to whether or not they participate is entirely theirs. Furthermore BT is committing to providing it's customers with a choice as to whether they want this service - it will be optional.
Regards
Emma
(Emphasis added)

Note the bold paragraph I have highlighted. Interesting how she states the opt-in they are implementing will satisfy RIPA. It could easily be interpreted that the lack of the opt-in process for the trials failed to satisfy RIPA.

Alexander Hanff

Alexander, you might try asking her to supply you this so called existing BT have obtained extensive legal and other external advice

legal documentation, or at least the names of the people they consulted. then....

[Winston Smith]

So I take it that we will be free to present our views to the panel.

That's all I ask.

Whilst my natural cynicism expects this to be a PR stunt I would like to hope that we (the concerned public) are allowed to prevent our views and opinions to the board members of Phorm. I have no argument with them personally (they are, after all business people). My only concern is that the privacy and rights of the consumer are respected.

If Phorm can prove to me that their system does this, then I will withdraw, but so far it has not been shown to be the case. I would like them to show me (today) how they plan to do this, without breaking UK and european laws, and without hiding behind weasel words and half understandings of the law.

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Good post. But you mean to say you're not rea££y sure why principles are being sacrificed?

I don't know enough to be able to say. It's all very sad and very strange.