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

[CaptJamieHunter]

All this talk of cookies helps obfuscate the debate here. There is only one acceptable opt out, something that Phorm never mentioned until last Tuesday night: a network based opt-out which stops the customers' data going anywhere near Phorm's systems.

The cookie thing is irrelevant if your data is still being logged/mirrored/recorded by the Phorm system.

Where the BBC technology article says "the other two [ISPs] will automatically enrol anyone that does not explicitly ask to be excluded." that is an interesting interpretation of "users will not be forced to use the system" which VM have twice said to me.

Time to demand clarification.

[Deko]

Guys

Now where did phorm get their name from ?


http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/pho..._type=IEPlugin

Was checking site advisor and it seems that www.phorm.com has a link to.

phninstall.zip

URL of the download publisher: http://phorm.com/phormation.php
URL of the download: ftp://ftp.holotech.net/phorm/phninstall.zip

http://phorm.com/phormation.php doesn't exist anymore.


But how Phunny they name the company after

http://freshmeat.net/projects/phormation/


Anyhow get a copy of siteadvisor for free, its pretty good.

it provides far more protection than webwise could offer.


www.siteadavisor.com

[mark777]

Originally Posted by TehTech

I am sorry if this is harsh, what over words can express how much contempt people have for Phorm?

What do I have to do, invite the Phorm team including Kent to my home to say what I really think of these good-for-nothing parasites?

The world would be MUCH better off without these "people"

You might want to go back, use the edit feature, and try to find some other words to express your distaste?

Only a suggestion, it's up to you, but I would be grateful if you would at least consider removing my quote from your post.

[TehTech]

Originally Posted by mark777

You might want to go back, use the edit feature, and try to find some other words to express your distaste?

Only a suggestion, it's up to you, but I would be grateful if you would at least consider removing my quote from your post.

Kindly remove YOUR quote from MY post.

Like you *really* care about how Phorm's PR team is anyway

[r1ch]

£20m actually sounds like a pretty small profit for VM from phorm.

To put it in perspective, they could make the same money by putting up everybody's broadband bill by just 50p a month.

When you consider how many customers this has the potential to lose them, how risky it is legally, how much it'll cost to install, power, cool and maintain all of the extra equipment, the extra support calls it will produce and the fact that the income numbers are only estimates I'm amazed that they're even considering deploying this system.

[Traduk]

If VM would dare to raise it's head above the parapet there is a relatively simple question re: the supposed anti-phishing protection given by Webwise....

On a leaflet with the bill I received today is a long speil about PCguard which for L and XL packages is offered with "anti-Phishing". The extras in PCguard "Total" is only free for the higher BB packages and it rather begs the question of why exploit our clicks for profit and then trumpet the virtues of something already covered in a free offering for many\most customers?.

How ironic that the product they give away extolls and covers many virtues of safe surfing whilst they are in the process of considering implementing a click intercept back door which makes previous on computer attempts look like amateur night.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by TehTech

I hope they (employees of Phorm) - snipped because of content

Is this group moderated please? I don't think this sort of language helps the cause especially if we are trying to complain about breaches of the law while using the internet.

Thanks for the prompt action.

[dav]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Is this group moderated please? I don't think this sort of language helps the cause especially if we are trying to complain about breaches of the law while using the internet.

Agreed. It was out of order and I for one do not want to be associated with such comments.

[DJTekno]

(Edited due to post being removed - cheers mods!)

Can i just say how much the work of Alexander et all is appreciated here too. It's just a shame that certain people have to resort to 'Vulgar' language etc when almost every post in this entire (mega) thread has been well-natured, and the debate has been at times heated, but almost always civil!

Keep up the good work chaps and chapesses - 'THANK YOU PLEASE'



DJT

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by dav

Agreed. It was out of order and I for one do not want to be associated with such comments.

Neither do I nor the site admins. The person responsible for those offensive comments has now been permanently banned. Thanks to the admins for their swift action. A warning had been posted previously.

I'm not a mod here but I am elsewhere and will report anything I feel is inappropriate. Please can we keep posts at the very least civil? Venting offensive bile and deliberately obtuse comments achieves nothing positive and reflects badly on everyone here.

This topic does and will generate emotional responses. We get our message across better if we keep to professional language rather than profane.

[Tharrick]

That was impressively quick.

Having worked with some of the virulence genes from plague, and having spent the last 6 months carrying out a research project and writing a dissertation on one of its' close cousins, I can safely say that I wouldn't really wish it on anybody. Even Phorm.
There are legal ways of resolving this situation without having to resort to namecalling and hoping for pinpoint biological warfare strikes.

Speaking of which, still waiting for a response from my MP.

[mark777]

New from The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...s_with_nebuad/

[unicus]

With regard to the "Security firms scrutinise Phorm" BBC article I shouldn't take the wording too literally, especially things like;

So far three net firms, BT, Virgin and Carphone Warehouse, have signed up for Phorm. Carphone Warehouse has said its customers will have to opt in to the system the other two will automatically enrol anyone that does not explicitly ask to be excluded.

I don't know who wrote that particular article, when or where they got their information and how well they understand the situation but what I can say is that, whether any specifics are correct or not, to the laymen that article puts Phorm in a bad light - which is where they deserve to be

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

New from The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...s_with_nebuad/

Now that's a much more informed article.

[JohnnyWashngo]

Hey all,

Thank for this informative and interesting thread. On my search through the vast outback that is the internet, I stumbled upon this site, amounsgt others whilst searching for Phorm related information.

As you can imagine, I have been reading for a while now but have only just found a reason to contribute to the discussion.

My question revolves around the security policy I have for computers on my LAN. Simply put, the machines on my LAN all run Firefox or Opera and are setup to remove cookies and personal data when the browser is closed. This is great for me and has proved invaluable for people who use my LAN as it means that they are certain that any user credentials that are entered during a browsing session are removed from the machine when the browser is closed.

However, it would seem that this would mean that the phorm cookies which manage opt-in/opt-out preferences will be deleted each time the browser closes as well - no doubt making my vulnerable to their snooping or worse, forcing me to opt-in/opt-out each time I start a new browser session.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Sounds like it could be a pain for someone like myself. Not that I would stay with an ISP using Phorm for long once I realised what was happening

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWashngo

Hey all,

Thank for this informative and interesting thread. On my search through the vast outback that is the internet, I stumbled upon this site, amounsgt others whilst searching for Phorm related information.

As you can imagine, I have been reading for a while now but have only just found a reason to contribute to the discussion.

My question revolves around the security policy I have for computers on my LAN. Simply put, the machines on my LAN all run Firefox or Opera and are setup to remove cookies and personal data when the browser is closed. This is great for me and has proved invaluable for people who use my LAN as it means that they are certain that any user credentials that are entered during a browsing session are removed from the machine when the browser is closed.

However, it would seem that this would mean that the phorm cookies which manage opt-in/opt-out preferences will be deleted each time the browser closes as well - no doubt making my vulnerable to their snooping or worse, forcing me to opt-in/opt-out each time I start a new browser session.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Sounds like it could be a pain for someone like myself. Not that I would stay with an ISP using Phorm for long once I realised what was happening

Hi Johnny, welcome to CF and to the thread.

There was a public meeting held last Tuesday to discuss Phorm and its various issues. Dr Richard Clayton in particular spoke on cookies and how the Phorm system uses them. Alexander Hanff also spoke excellently at the meeting. There's unedited footage from the meeting here which may well answer your question. If memory serves the deletion of cookies is discussed.

IMHO there is only one acceptable type of opt out - one that ensures my data goes nowhere near Phorm's systems.