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

[SimonHickling]

Here's a link to a PDF of the BT document.

BT and Phorm

It's the same one posted to unicus (#2550)

[mark777]

Regarding the 80/20 video, my feeling is that there is no valid reason for delay.

Nobody is asking for broadcast quality. It's supposed to be a complete record, so there is no need for 'editorial' arguments or seeking permission to publish it. A pro company was employed to produce it so there should be no competance issues.

Somebody is delaying it and it's not as if they have to wait for a time-slot in the schedule.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

All I know is what I picked up last Tuesday after the meeting....snip...the venue was not designed to be used as a film studio.

Alexander Hanff

Thanks. Incidentally, imho there is an obvious parallel between your dissertation and the FIPR report; even though the 'independent' support is useful, I think you can at least claim to have been the catalyst .

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by mark777

Regarding the 80/20 video, my feeling is that there is no valid reason for delay.

Nobody is asking for broadcast quality. It's supposed to be a complete record, so there is no need for 'editorial' arguments or seeking permission to publish it. A pro company was employed to produce it so there should be no competance issues.

Somebody is delaying it.

As I explained after I returned from the event last week, they used 2 cameras to shoot the event with a single, separate audio recording. Their reason for this was to avoid audio sync issues between the cameras. They explained to me after the event (at the gathering) that they would produce a complete video of the entire event based on the audio but in order to produce the best video possible they would be cutting the film from both cameras in order to splice together a complete video from the parts.

This is almost 3 hours of footage per camera (so almost 6 hours combined) so the post production work on the film is already a significant task. Also Lecture Theatres are designed to amplify and carry voices so I expect there is a great deal of cleaning required on the audio to erase background noise which would effect the quality of the recording.

I am trying to be objective on this and as such I believe it is important to consider the above points.

Alexander Hanff

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by mark777

I think the 80/20 video of the London meeting is now pie in the sky.

Regardless of feelings about 80/20, would it be a good idea for people to post key points of their recollections of the parts of the meeting that are missing from the good Captains own record?

Not so many days ago members were agreeing to 'wait for the pro video' regarding these areas, but I don't think it's going to happen. Phorm legal threats perhaps?

Hi Mark,

If you have a search under my user name I posted up my best recollections of the meeting. If you have got any specific questions I will trawl through the memorybanks and see if I can remember anything of use

---------- Post added at 00:04 ---------- Previous post was at 00:01 ----------

Alexander,

at the risk of repeating many other posters. Thank you and well done.

More generally lets keep the pressure up

[Bonglet]

I miss simons comments tbh ill be drinking tea and quaffing rich tea biscuits here waiting for this video strange the delay though .

I think that the report said that even if users did consent then the isp's would be liabel alexander as they couldnt rely on who issued the consent and was still illegal for a number of reasons even if they denied it the isp's dont know what the phorm kit and software actually does.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

As I explained after I returned from the event last week, they used 2 cameras to shoot the event with a single, separate audio recording...

There is an awful lot of hiss on the videos so audio clean up may well be an issue. 360 minutes of video at 30 frames per second... lack of tea slows my brain down... editing that lot might not be as easy as I might have thought.

I'd love to see the footage of the group Q&A so of course I want it posted quickly. It's a bit frustrating that it isn't online yet given how quickly this issue moves.

Equally it was important (from my perspective) that the footage I got be posted online as soon as I could manage so that Phorm realise that we who challenge Phorm deserve to and will be taken seriously. As soon as Alexander spoke at the meeting I think Kent realised this wasn't just a case of an academic and a few geeks being a pain in the rear.

Time for lights out here in the hangar.

[3x2]

(Just catching up a bit)

Alexanders question about demographic targeting is a good one - though not one likely to be answered by Phorm. As a prospective OIX client it would be one of the questions at the top of my list. Many products are region specific and so is the marketing. I can see only two ways to do it, IP geolocation or send the wire-tapped exchange ID along with the rest of the "anonymous" package. Of course, depending on the size of the exchange, this begins to look remarkably like an IP address itself <ISP>.<exchange>.<user>. Take my VM address - 192.168.1.1 : 192.168(Phorm VM block) .1(Phorm exchange ID) .1(Phorm user id). This option seems just a short hop from having my real IP address - perhaps I should RFC my new found PIP address?

I was very disappointed to read the Amazon reply. I really don't see what Amazon get from the deal. They obviously get "targeted" advertising but, given that anyone that has been anywhere near the Inter-tubes knows Amazon anyway, is it worth it? Phorm on the other hand get to watch everything I do on Amazon short of the actual (https) purchase. All that Amazon deliver (searches, also viewed, reviews, shopping cart ... etc) is now available to Phorm to distill and sell me similar products from a competitor. Perhaps I have missed something crucial - I just don't get it.

080423phormlegal : Dynamite. I am only part way through it but it condenses our entire argument, in legal terms at least, into 16 pages. Alexander you are right to look at moving yourself into this area - you certainly have a gift and what BTPhorm and the like fear most - a man with a library card (apologies to avid viewers of "The Wire")


I have been thinking about the issue of "Search engines" (read Google) as outlined in (21). If we view the connection between me and Google as a transaction between two machines (or customer and service) - that is to say remove the internal complexities of the Internet. We end up with a situation where Phorm, with their "man in the middle" attack, get to use Google, and everything that lies behind it, to enhance their own product at no cost. Why develop and build your own search engine when you can simply steal the "end product" of a competitor? Whatever the internal complexities of Google, the "end product" is what matters and if Phorm can simply steal that "end product" directly from "the wires" and, worse still, use it to compete against you why would you ever entertain the idea? Perhaps if Phorm were caught digging up the road outside "Google" in order to install a wire-tap then the "jury" would have a clear view of what is proposed here.

par·a·site
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Alexander : "This is a significant change in my original academic plans" Like I said in an earlier post (to paraphrase) - I'm here on a Friday night reading RIPA when I could be "down the pub" (thanks BTPhorm). I'm more used to reading up on the internals of a particular IC or hammering out an FPGA - strangely, law now looks easy. As an aside, care to give us the e-mail address(es) of the lecturer(s) that will be dealing with your dissertation? I'm sure they will appreciate the full impact of your work once our comments start to fill their in-boxes.

At the risk of being throttled (again), any idea why we've not heard from Simon of late? Contrary to opinion, I rather enjoyed his frank contributions to this thread.

I have to say that although Phorm is a big (4600+ postings) issue here that I seem to remember Simon pointing out that he (always) has other issues to deal with. Issues, in some cases, that may result in far worse than "targeted advertising" for some poor soul(s). Give the man a chance, he has to prioritise. He may be out there (in the - not in the UK - sense) dealing with something else ATM. If he never comes back to this thread then by all means e-mail him asking why. Just pointing out that just because <xyz> from (for example) Amnesty International can't be here to deal with the "Birmigham one" doesn't mean anything - <xyz> could be in Somalia dealing with the "Mogadishu 10,000".


Anyways - time for bed - can't wait to watch Phorm's share price tomorrow. Even the shorters will be thinking twice now.

Hey that reminds me ....

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by 3x2

I have been thinking about the issue of "Search engines" (read Google) as outlined in (21). If we view the connection between me and Google as a transaction between two machines (or customer and service) - that is to say remove the internal complexities of the Internet. We end up with a situation where Phorm, with their "man in the middle" attack, get to use Google, and everything that lies behind it, to enhance their own product at no cost. Why develop and build your own search engine when you can simply steal the "end product" of a competitor? Whatever the internal complexities of Google, the "end product" is what matters and if Phorm can simply steal that "end product" directly from "the wires" and, worse still, use it to compete against you why would you ever entertain the idea? Perhaps if Phorm were caught digging up the road outside "Google" in order to install a wire-tap then the "jury" would have a clear view of what is proposed here.

This is an issue I touched on a couple of weeks ago and I published an entry to the denyphorm blog here

It is also mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for Phorm. I have spoken to friends who work both at Google and Microsoft and they are passing along my concerns to the relevant people. I have requested that Google and Microsoft implement an SSL version of their search page to circumvent the Phorm DPI system.

I also made contact with Yahoo and posted a summary of the response here a few dozen pages back.

Alexander Hanff

[bigsanta11]

Originally Posted by jelv

What brainless idiot did this? You might find it amusing, but it totally undermines the validity of the petition. You might just as well have signed it Micky Mouse or Donald Duck.

If I had known that it would be corrupted like this I'd have had second thoughts about signing it myself!

In all this recent serious debate ,it's nice to find something to change the mood a little ,don't you !.

And when something is opened to the www, then you know there's a tiny chance things like this will happen, unless there are more,i seriously doubt that the petition could be tainted by that one name.

[Florence]

I think we should ask for its removal as it isnt a good enough name to share the pages with the good cisitzens of UK.

[3x2]

This is an issue I touched on a couple of weeks ago and I published an entry to the denyphorm blog

Just had a look. I don't think the danger ATM is alteration. Lets suppose for a moment that you offer consumer related legal advice over the net. I send you a question "what can I do about..." and you send me a reply (ignoring https or payment issues) "You have the following rights.." Phorm, if they were in the consumer law business, don't need to spend one moment studying consumer law they have full access to my question and your (commercially valuable) reply and can use it in any way they see fit. The key issue here is that they propose to place themselves in the intestinal tract of the Internet. Your food is our food. (jeez - I should have gone into marketing)

[popper]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Thanks. Incidentally, imho there is an obvious parallel between your dissertation and the FIPR report; even though the 'independent' support is useful, I think you can at least claim to have been the catalyst .

yes, i agree, it seems very likely that if Alexanders paper didnt exist we would still be seeing them only covering RIPA,and one other, not the multiple laws we got yesturday, so credit were it's due i think wel done.

[Valerie]

Phorm has made it into the latest issue of Which? but they don't appear to have understood the issues, pointing us to webwise to switch it off! I've emailed them (below) - not a very complete letter as I'm not sure I understand ripa and dpi etc - so maybe some of you with better minds could write to them as well letters@which.co.uk


"Dear Which?

I was glad to see that concern over Phorm and internet privacy made your ‘Consumer News’ section (May 2008) – however your ‘take action’ box which says we can switch Phorm off makes me concerned that you might not have fully understood what is being proposed.

I am not a computer or legal expert but my understanding of the system is that once active all my ISP traffic would be routed through the Phorm system. Opting out would place a cookie on my computer so that adverts from analysis of my web use would not appear. The problems here are:

a) all my ISP traffic would continue to route through the Phorm system – I will not be able to opt out of this
b) although we are told only general categories of web pages are stored every page I visit would be ‘read’ by Phorm
c) when my security software deletes cookies I would need to opt out again

There are many forums discussing this issue – a very good one can be found here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated.html which gives great detail on the legal ramifications and privacy concerns and will explain things much better than I can!

I hope Which? as a consumer champion will look further into the Phorm issue as I and many other people have very grave concerns regarding our internet privacy being taken away. I have posted this letter on the Cableforum thread and hope you will give permission for me to post your reply.

Many thanks"

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Valerie

Phorm has made it into the latest issue of Which? but they don't appear to have understood the issues, pointing us to webwise to switch it off! I've emailed them (below) - not a very complete letter as I'm not sure I understand ripa and dpi etc - so maybe some of you with better minds could write to them as well
{ snip }

Not sure that I meet the criteria of having a "better mind" but I will add it to my list of people to write to LOL

Yesterday I also posted a letter to the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. They should receive my letter this morning.