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

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

To me it shows that Kent has spun yet another lie. Say to Joe Public a very small number and they'll think it's no big deal If it is easy to demonstrate that the number is much larger, and the Webwise/Phorm security browser breach happens on every new site visited and then every 3 days after that - it doesn't sound so good.

But I am sorry don't understand most the legal discussion going on in this thread - so my point is probably not be relevant

No I agree completely, it was just spin. Completely unsupported with any evidence and evidence does exist which is contrary to his claims (Dr Richard Clayton's report which was validated by Phorm themselves before publishing!).

Alexander Hanff

[unicus]

BTW Paypal are not happy about people using insecure browsers, I wonder what they'd think about Phorm? Does anyone have a Paypal account and want to inPhorm them?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7354539.stm

[flowrebmit]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Yeah I found the statement utterly arrogant. They have been told by respected privacy advocates and legal experts that the first trials broke the law because communications were intercepted without consent and yet still they plan to deploy the upcoming trials which will be doing exactly the same illegal interception to detect consent cookies.

Alexander Hanff

I guess the criminals in BT will continue committing their illegal interceptions until the Police investigate, arrest and then charge those responsible. I am assuming that illegal interception under RIPA is a criminal act, and thus carries a prison sentence?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

I guess the criminals in BT will continue committing their illegal interceptions until the Police investigate, arrest and then charge those responsible. I am assuming that illegal interception under RIPA is a criminal act, and thus carries a prison sentence?

It is a criminal act yes. In the lower courts it carries a sentence of up to 2 years and up to £5000 fine, in the higher courts (which would be needed in this case given it's size) it carries a sentence of up to 5 years and unlimited fines.

Alexander Hanff

[flowrebmit]

BT management might want to reflect that it would be them going to prison, not their lawyers who gave them the wrong legal advice. I can dream

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

BT management might want to reflect that it would be them going to prison, not their lawyers who gave them the wrong legal advice. I can dream

It is unlikely anyone would go to prison, too many school colours shared by the powers that be and corporate regime. It is more likely they will be given a fine which is insubstantial in the grand scheme of things and will most likely be covered by an existing contingency fund (like the BA scandal).

But it will do significant damage to their brand and the public trust.

Alexander Hanff

[mark777]

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

BT management might want to reflect that it would be them going to prison, not their lawyers who gave them the wrong legal advice. I can dream

To paraphrase a wag in a comment on The Register a week or so ago :-

"Kent may not understand the meaning of 'invasion of privacy' until he has to visit the showers in Wormwood Scrubs."

We can all dream.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by mark777

To paraphrase a wag in a comment on The Register a week or so ago :-

"Kent may not understand the meaning of 'invasion of privacy' until he has to visit the showers in Wormwood Scrubs."

We can all dream.

What a great line.

Oh hell, that's two keyboards splattered. Reminds me of a line from Gene Hunt in Life On Mars which I won't repeat here because it isn't remotely suitable for a family forum such as this.

I'm going to bed with a huge smile on my face though...

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

Sorry, the system won't let me multi-quote your posting - I think you wrote too much

The BT answer to question 11 - staggers belief. The BT customers selected to join the trial, will be forced through the Webwise/Phorm Layer 7 equipment even if they have not consented to being in the trial. Because there is no independant opt-in system yet.

I am not sure that I believe BT when they say they will be working on an opt-in system that will be independant of the Webwise/Phorm DPI layer 7 equipment.

I don't believe the system will ever be Opt-in it was only ever designed to be opt-out, deployed and run as covertly as possible. An Opt-in version would run at a loss from day 1.

I'm not certain but to work around many of the illegal aspects the system could be deployed in its "trial" format warts and all if it was offered as a feature of BT Broadband and written into a contract for new users signing up for a BT Retail service. This contract will not be available to existing customers because there is no Opt-in and there never will be.

Then over a matter of a few years all those on "old" contracts could be persuaded to leave the service - Tiscali do just that to holders of old Pipex contracts which allow undesirable perks such as freedom from capping etc (I was one of them)!

[flowrebmit]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It is unlikely anyone would go to prison, too many school colours shared by the powers that be and corporate regime. It is more likely they will be given a fine which is insubstantial in the grand scheme of things and will most likely be covered by an existing contingency fund (like the BA scandal).

But it will do significant damage to their brand and the public trust.

Alexander Hanff

Oh well, that dream didn't last long, lol.

As far I am concerned, BT have already damaged their brand by continuing with the trials.

As for VirginMedia, IMHO they are damaging their brand, first by even comtemplating the system in the first place, and then by not clearly denouncing this or any other similar interception system.

Mark777, no I don't want that in my dreams, I think I'll dream of hangmans nooses.

(Time for me turn in)

[Deko]

ok its friday a lot of things have happend this week, and now i'm drunk.

So sue me.. going forwards a judicial review maybe the thing required so PM me and lets get this ball rolling. Alexander your help is always welcome on this matter.With me being some dumb welsh geek


what about getting a injunction stopping these trials until such time its be legslly challenged as being legit.


i know nothing of this type of thing but i am willing to help if pointed inthe right direction.

Alexander are there any book left on your list , im drunk and have good credit :-O

I'm also dyslexic...so excuse the poor spelling/grammar which i can't beothered to correct.

[popper]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I would be very interested in commencing a serious dialogue with the Earl of Northesk, could you politely ask his permission to pass his email address on to me so I can do this?

Thanks

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

By the way I know I have been quiet on the forums today, but please don't take this as a sign that I am not doing anything.

I caught up on a little sleep today (after being up all night again last night) but I am still very much actively engaged in this campaign.

My workload has basically tripled since the meeting on Tuesday and I am being hit with enquiries from all sides at the moment so I apologise if it takes me a little longer to address concerns on this forum.

its to be expected Alexander, the work load will seem high but the effective management of your time is key, but you know that being IT.

round robin multitasking is fine, but not so effective once you reach saturation point on the core tasks/kernel, effective user space application multitasking is the key.

LOl, it sounds very much like the amiga multitasking way is still best, even when you apply it to real world lives and tasks.

btw incase people didnt see this Lord Erroll on Govt IT (perhaps another email cc is required there! or perhaps your reading this ? wave and contribute if you are )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...nt.hitechcrime
"
One lord leaping on the government's IT flaws

Lord Erroll, Secretary to the All Party Internet Group in the Lords, is a leading light in the movement to protect our security online

Richard Sarson The Guardian, Thursday April 10 2008


A programmer and system designer by trade, Lord Erroll is giving the government grief about cybercrime. Merlin, the Earl of Erroll, is the spokesman for the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on personal internet security...."
....
"
Fit for purpose?
To his amusement, the government's "fit for purpose" claim now looks decidedly dodgy. He believes that it has finally sunk in that the danger is not just the loss of personal data but the potential for fraud.

Not surprisingly, Erroll and his colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee are having another go at civil servants and ministers, with a follow-up inquiry and report early in the summer. As Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, another (ex-MP, Labour) member of the committee, says: "We have your phone number. We'll be in touch".

It looks, sometimes, as though the Lords are more relentless than the Commons at taking a hard look at government IT policy. The Lords debate the technical merits of IT projects, where the Commons make them party-political.

This may be because peers can have more recent hands-on experience than MPs, who tend to lose their IT expertise bit by bit once they enter the House....
"
....
"Erroll gets support in IT matters from his fellow peers, notably Lord Lucas, the Earl of Northesk, and Lord St John of Bletso.

All have involvement of some sort with internet firms. Counterintuitively, they are all hereditary peers and, like Erroll, independents with no firm political allegiance.

Life peers such as Lord Harris and Lord Kirkwood, who came to an interest in IT later in life, are also supportive. But life peers with hard IT experience are thin on the ground.
,,
"

[3x2]

If a customer who is invited to participate in the trial adds www.webwise.net to their local HOSTS file with the resolved address of 127.0.0.1, they will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC for the period of the trial. This is because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status of the user during the trial. Instead, and as per the advice on the www.bt.com/webwise site, the recommended approach for excluding a PC from the Webwise service if the user regularly deletes cookies is to add www.webwise.net to the browser's blocked cookie list. As previously stated, in parallel with the forthcoming trial, we are developing a solution which will manage the choice of users without the use of cookies. We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received."

RE : redesigning it as they go

Sounds to me as though nothing much has changed from the Reg article way back when. Those lucky enough to be invited are wire-tapped in or out. How does this differ from the original proposal? Genuine opt-out is not an option here "because access to www.webwise.net is required in order to process the consent status". We must tap your connection in order to determine your status. Any real attempt to circumvent the set-up and the user "will not be able to browse the Internet on HTTP port 80 on that PC"

RE : "BT don't know some of the answers that they NEED to know before starting their trial."

Being naturally cynical, I think BT know exactly what they are doing. They have had at least two years to go through all of this. Having gotten away with the earlier trials and all that they entailed this one is a walk in the park. It is clear that, whatever the real legal status of this or past trials, in order to be tested in a Court there has to be an investigation and that is never going to happen.

On a less cynical note "the market will decide". Kent say's "The Internet today is two to three professionals - Microsoft, Yahoo and Google - and 9,999,999 hobbyists.

Once this is in place Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are not going to give this parasitic scumware a free ride. As things stand none of them want to be seen to be getting involved - Phorm would turn that situation into a David and Goliath PR free for all. Once it is all up and running that will change. Google have spent years building their search engine and all that goes with it. They will not just hand all that work over to a "man in the middle" parasite like Phorm.

9,999,999 hobbyists? Well then it will be a very quick re-write to provide "Sorry - refused - Phormed" to all those lucky enough to get a "safer more relevant Internet experience". In the short term visitor numbers will drop but not anywhere near as fast as BT's support system and customer base.

Content providers - your hard work is about to be utilised by a parasitic set-up that is strategically placed where you and your readers cannot remove or by-pass it. The only way to kill a parasite is to deny it what it needs to survive. No content provider is legally obliged to provide content to anyone. A polite refusal will suffice.

(Sorry AH, I have less confidence in the rule of law than you. While I do believe you are right about the law I simply don't believe it will be applied. While Phorm do have a right to "test the waters" I also have a right not to participate (as a content provider) and return a blank screen. Perhaps people will take notice when a majority of their bookmarks start to return "901 - Phormed" (just made that up - might RFC it though) )


From the HO reply (#4073) "it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service ….."

"anti-phishing" is an after thought. BT hope that "wire-tap for scumware company" can be viewed legally as a "new service provision" In the unlikely event that they have to answer to a Court this will be a key defence. In reality the "anti phishing" feature is no more relevant to their system than their proposed blacklist of http e-mail providers. It's a side effect not a design feature.


(#4090) "I don't believe the system will ever be Opt-in it was only ever designed to be opt-out"

Exactly. Phorm have sold this system to their customers as being all in. If they moved to a true opt out then within months even the least technical of customers would be translating "more relevant experience" into "wire-tap". The whole thing will just collapse. Openreach will become Opengrasp and Phorm shares will be (even more) worthless.

#4092 "judicial review"

Yep saw the outline in the Reg comments this week. Had no idea such a system was in place (typical Brit - huh). Did I read correctly that for a fee we can, subject to a favorable decision of course, force an investigation?

who knew? (You have to laugh at even the most "stay at home" of us suddenly reading RIPA instead of going to the Pub! Well done BT!)


#4093 "Secretary to the All Party Internet Group in the Lords, is a leading light in the movement to protect our security online"

Our current "incumbents" want to abolish the House of Lords and we can perhaps see why. True belief and principle v. corrupt baby kissers. No contest.

One of my memorable TV moments was Tony Benn embarrassing Ali G into silence - not something any of his "guests" have ever managed before or since.


Remember kids : "BT Webwise is completely free � and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work."

[popper]

LOL, Alexander, your a writer now not an IT specialist or trainer.... "The media moguls likely won't get any lucrative pay out of Hanff. All he has are those guitars, a printer and three cats. As it turns out though, that's the type of arsenal our most feared criminals pack these days."

even funner in a sick kind of way is Ian Grant's ( the writer of the story below) bio
"
Ian has been writing about information technology and communications since (just) before IBM launched its first PC. He still thinks there are four basic stories in this industry: the R&D, the engineering, the sales and the effects of the technology.

These days he’s more interested in the human side of IT all – how IT changes relationships between people, so it’s just as well his main beats are security, retail and small and medium enterprises."

given theres no feedback Options there, perhaps it's time YOU the CF readers took advantage of the direct News pages of this very board, and take the time to write some real News stories based on the facts as collected in this thread.

Mick and the crew are always willing to accept one off news stories for the front page.

that News page is scaned by the international news wires, and any cable forum news stories posted, usually show up on the wires with minutes of being made available.

GO ON, you know you can do it, write and submit a Phorm news story (to Mick) based on the facts collected here and dispel the erroneous PR spin and lack of real research of the facts from the likes of Ian at computer weekly.

Ian's clearly a fan of Phorm and Kent "Phorm CEO Kent Ertegrul gave a spirited defence. He showed how Phorm destroys any link between a user's IP address and subsequent surfing history"

and looking to discredit the userbase and its motives as irrelevant.

"Clayton, who has had an in-depth look at Phorm's processes, praised the firm for the way it dealt with data protection issues. However, he objected to Phorm's ability to deliver advertisements to his browser. "

and he cant even report that first paragraph right, its not "an unprecedented "town hall meeting" "

as much as its the first Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) meeting based on the official ICO's PIA documentation as first published in December 2007, for the benefit of the individual stakeholders not the "Critics" as you put it, as you would have known Ian if you had bothered to read the thread in your research http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ad-page-2.html


Ian's laughable PIA coverage story is here:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ll-meeting.htm
"Phorm answers critics at 'town-hall' meeting
Author: Ian Grant
Posted: 16:41 18 Apr 2008
Topics:Internet Portals & Search

Advertisement serving company Phorm has defended its controversial technology at an unprecedented "town hall meeting" in London on Tuesday.

Phorm's technology is controversial because it tracks web browsing behaviour to determine which advertisements to send to the owner's browser. Critics say this is an invasion of their privacy, and that use of the technology may break several laws.

Critics, led by Cambridge University's Richard Clayton and writer Alexander Hanff, charged Phorm with breaking several laws, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the Fraud Act and others, including European law on data privacy and protection.....
....
"

[AlexanderHanff]

Well I just took a bold step and requested a private audience with the Earl of Northesk in order to express the views and concerns of the informed public on this issue.

Obviously he is very busy so I am not expecting the request to be fulfilled, but as the saying goes, you never know until you try.

I will keep you all posted.

Alexander Hanff