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

[AlexanderHanff]

We got any digital artists or graphic designers that want to do me a favour? I am setting up a website dedicated to issues regarding online privacy. I think Phorm is just one of many battles to come so I want to make sure there is a central resource available to people for news, editorials and campaigns. I would like to include some security tools too such as cookie block lists and an implementation of Dephormation's server side interception detection. I also want to look at the feasibility of providing md5 hash checks for pages on the site so users can verify that the site content has not changed on the way to their browser.

The web site will be on www.privacyonline.org.uk and also www.privacy-online.org.uk and I was hoping someone might be interested in designing the logo (preferably as a vector graphic so it can be used on printed material as well).

So if anyone is interested please feel free to get in touch with some ideas. Also any ajax coders out there who want to help, it would save me a lot of time designing the site and enable me to work in other areas which are currently occupying my time.

Alexander Hanff

[jelv]

Has anyone approached Google to ask if they are aware that to exclude Phorm using robots.txt we have to exclude Google? They might have something to say about that!

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by jelv

Has anyone approached Google to ask if they are aware that to exclude Phorm using robots.txt we have to exclude Google? They might have something to say about that!

I have contacted a friend of mine who works for Google and asked him to make his superiors aware of this issue and also asked him to put forward a suggestion from me that Google deploy an ssl version of their search pages to prevent Phorm from profiling search terms.

I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of a big company blocking all the BT address space and I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so.

Alexander Hanff

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by jelv

Has anyone approached Google to ask if they are aware that to exclude Phorm using robots.txt we have to exclude Google? They might have something to say about that!

Google knows all...

I'd be very very surprised if Google were not following the Phorm Storm...

After all, there's only so much advertising revenue to be had...

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

...I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of a big company blocking all the BT address space and I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so...

Neither do I - hence the

I think Phorm will rethink the robots.txt stance so as to enable selective blocking of Phorm.

[wecpc]

Originally Posted by unicus

So at the time of the secret trial what service were you signed up to with BT that required the use of the Phorm/Webwise equipment to intercept your communication?

Just as an anology with regard to RIPA. Under the normal course of Royal Mail's communication distribution they can't just open a letter for their own personal gain (though this is what Phorm et al. are proposing) and would not be legal as it is not necessary for the service with which they are contracted.

Now lets say the Royal Mail are sorting a letter with an address window but they cannot see any address but it was fairly obvious the letter was folded wrong and by opening the letter they would be able to see the address and carry out their obligation to deliver the letter. This would be legal because the otherwise illegal act of opening the letter was necessary to carry out their normal business as contracted.

Why do they keep trying to tell us this interception is legal when quite clearly the Phorm equipment is not necessary for the ISP to carry out it's contracted duty to relay communications therefore under RIPA it must be unlawful interception. After all their "provision or operation of that service" has managed fine without Phorm's equipment.

At the time of the trial I was just signed up for BT Broadband Option 3 and BT Vision. I was totally unaware at the time that PHORM ever existed. It was only on the BT forum in March of this year that I saw the reference to the dns.sysip.net cookie, which I had remembered seeing in the summer of 2007, but as I had reinstalled recently due to Vista problems the evidence was gone. A couple of weeks ago I was blocking webwise.net on my wife's laptop and prior to running CC Cleaner I was checking which cookies to keep and to my surprise I came across the cookie dns.sysip.net.

Colin

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Simon clearly doesn't understand S3 of RIPA. Subsections a and b are mutually inclusive and must BOTH be satisfied which is why there is a very prominent and at the end of subsection a.

The interceptions do not satisfy condition b because they were absolutely nothing to do with the provision of the service. The service can be provided (and has/still is) without these interceptions (service being connection to the Internet) and the interceptions only take place for the purpose of selling data to a 3rd party for behavioural advertising.

Let me make this very clear, there was not even any testing of the anti-phishing service during these covert trials so they can't even use that as an excuse under subsection b.

Alexander Hanff

Thank you very much Alexander for pointing that out and I have just sent another email to Simon stating those exact facts. I will like to see what he has to say now.

Colin

[Kursk]

Over the last couple of months, the website traffic of 80/20 Thinking, the Company commissioned to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment for Phorm, will have substantially increased. What a shame that much of that exposure has been for all the wrong reasons.

People have long memories and one of the talents of the shrewd in business is in spotting when you've been delivered, as they say in rugby, a "hospital pass". My advice to 80/20T would be to get this PIA thing written fast to satisfy the commission and to then get the hell out of any association with any venture that is destined to sink or be fraught for years with the angst of a large number of very motivated people. It just ain't good for business.

There has to be a better way for a fledgling Company to make its own success and imho that is with a reputation based on something other than notoriety.

[Bonglet]

Originally Posted by kt88man

What we really need is for a *major* website like Google to simply bar users of BT/TT/VM...

Google will do this kt88man as any moves by isp's to intercept any of there ip and the research phorm collect could be classed as anti competitive as they are stealing the inforamtion that other service is providing.

any of this information could be used by another company to make a superior product that that company provides using the target companys harvested data.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by 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

Sorry, just catching up: the Earl is one of 80/20 Thinking's Advisory Group - won't his opinions be biased toward the success of Phorm?

[AlexanderHanff]

Banning ISPs isn't the way to do this and only serves to extend the digital divide. We need to stop this issue through a combination of public pressure, law and public policy reforms.

Cutting people off from valuable online resources is a bad idea in my opinion.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

Sorry, just catching up: the Earl is a member of 80/20 Thinking's Advisory Group - won't his opinions be biased toward the success of Phorm?

Quite the opposite, he has already spoken out about Phorm and put an official question forward to Parliament on the issue. I believe he is addressing Parliament in person next Tuesday about his concerns over Phorm.

His emails to the public who have contacted him have also been very supportive and condemned the activities of Phorm and other such companies.

Alexander Hanff

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Quite the opposite, he has already spoken out about Phorm and put an official question forward to Parliament on the issue. I believe he is addressing Parliament in person next Tuesday about his concerns over Phorm.

His emails to the public who have contacted him have also been very supportive and condemned the activities of Phorm and other such companies.

Alexander Hanff

Ok thanks. If I were MD, I might think about removing him from the 80/20 website then!

[Bonglet]

I still wouldnt trust any person on that associated company's advisory group and pressure put on that said person in private could influence critical descisions or questions.

some mp or higher office or eu relevant with no connection to any company would be better to direct questions too in my opinion.

its the whole association game atm im afraid who do you trust who isnt connected to the spyware clan.

[AlexanderHanff]

Just because the Earl of Northesk is out spoken about the Phorm technology it doesn't invalidate his role as an advisor to 80/20 Thinking. In fact surely it is logical to assume that people like the Earl of Northesk advising 80/20 Thinking will only help matters in the long term?

Or would you rather 80/20 Thinking were only taking advice from parties who are only interested in monetising privacy?

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just because the Earl of Northesk is out spoken about the Phorm technology it doesn't invalidate his role as an advisor to 80/20 Thinking. In fact surely it is logical to assume that people like the Earl of Northesk advising 80/20 Thinking will only help matters in the long term?
{ snip }
Alexander Hanff

Agreed Alexander. Two people in particular stand out for me when it comes to politicians. The Earl of Northesk and Don Foster the Lib Dem Spokesman for culture and media who wrote to the chairman of BT re the secret trials.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just because the Earl of Northesk is out spoken about the Phorm technology it doesn't invalidate his role as an advisor to 80/20 Thinking. In fact surely it is logical to assume that people like the Earl of Northesk advising 80/20 Thinking will only help matters in the long term?

Or would you rather 80/20 Thinking were only taking advice from parties who are only interested in monetising privacy?

Alexander Hanff

As has figured before in this thread, perception is relevant. The photographs on the 80/20 site give the impression of validating the business which is fair enough except that this business has its sticky little fingers in something hugely unpopular. If the Earl has advised, then there was no heed. 80/20 T seem more than just an independent in this venture; they seem to be a mouthpiece too. I like to keep both my eyes open.

[Bonglet]

well sure just tell him they tell (advise sorry) 80/20 who tell phorm who move to counter such claims makes good sense im sure you'll agree then.