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

[Bonglet]

Ill take them to court if proved that vm was trialing in a certain peroid during last year as i have grounds to belive such equipment to have caused damage.

[Rchivist]

Can I ask those who are TalkTalk and Virgin Media customers - what attempts have been made to ask awkward detailed questions and get answers (or attributable avoidance) from VM and TalkTalk/Carphone Warehouse management and what responses have you had?

What I've noticed so far, have been some contradictory Virgin Media responses when reassuring statements in individual emails to customers are compared with more Phorm-friendly VM website statements. And that there is no VM logo on Phorm's Webwise site.

I'm also aware of the TalkTalk/Carphone Warehouse commitment to an opt-in solution (and I've quoted that regularly at BT, each time referring to BT as being on the moral low ground compared with CW as regards privacy, or "behind" or a "second class" ISP in terms of privacy compared with CW.)

While BT are the most obviously already in the legal firing line because of their trials, it's important for customers to remind VM and CW managers directly of their legal vulnerability and the fact that their customers do understand the arguments and are not just "uninformed privacy freaks" who can be fobbed off with a bit of Kent Ertugrul spin.

How much is being done to closely and persistently associate the trademarks Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse/TalkTalk with terms like illegality, criminal, unauthorised interception, privacy invasion, breach of trust, deception, forgery, and fraud in the public mind and in the google database?

BT customers can get emails to managers fairly easily as they have a very accessible standard email address policy and once you know their name you can 99% guess their email address. What's the situation with the potentially criminally liable managers of the other 2 ISP's toying with the idea of allegedly illegal criminal interception of internet traffic?

[jelv]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I'm also aware of the TalkTalk/Carphone Warehouse commitment to an opt-in solution (and I've quoted that regularly at BT, each time referring to BT as being on the moral low ground compared with CW as regards privacy, or "behind" or a "second class" ISP in terms of privacy compared with CW.)

Commitment to an opt-in solution? For how long?

We also note TalkTalk’s stated intention to launch its service on an ‘opt in’ basis – although this may change once initial trial results become known.

[Bonglet]

I have had no reply to any queries i made to virgin media r.jones

lets have a look at phorms pledge.

The Phorm Proposition
Phorm’s OIX platform promises a revolution in online advertising and privacy. By
guaranteeing the anonymity of the browsing activity of ISPs’ customers (Wrong The cookie linked to the ip can be classed as an identifier), the OIX effectively opens up the entire Internet to advertising.
For the first time, the
entire browsing behaviour of a consumer across the entire Internet can be profiled
– and not just within the limited confines of ad networks (Admission to profiling everything).
Also for the first time,potentially the entire stock of Internet websites becomes available to carry advertising, opening up the ‘long tail’ of hitherto un-monetisable sites (So even non oix sites will carry advertising they never had before and be more obstrusive while maybe cutting out the website owners add income by covering up their sponsors ads.).
The ‘opted
in’ consumer wins out by receiving more relevant advertising, and in the process
benefiting from a better funded Internet (How is scanning webpages i visit,forums i post on or private messages i send bringing me ANY benefit or provide anything relevant).

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

In case this has not been posted already

http://www.capmarkets.com/ViewFile.a...HRM_230408.pdf

and in particular

"And

third, the launch customers – BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media – have
also undergone extensive trialling of the technology, and none are in the business of

taking unnecessary risks on new technology adoption."

Is this the Charles Stanley document that brettypoos is going on about on iii.co.uk ? Looks like it.

I think this bears some careful reading. It's an interesting mixture of Kent's spin, and some stuff that "may" represent what is "really" being planned/has "really" been done. Some of the phraseology would be very embarrassing and not what I imagine Kent Ertugrul and the ISP partners would like to see in the public realm - the wolf beneath the Phorm grannie mask? "Grandma what good commercial prospects you seem to have!" "All the better to track you with my dear!"

Significant parts of the document are now out of date, it predates the third ICO statement, it predates the latest FIPR paper by Nicholas Bohm, and it predates today's smart "one step backwards" by the Home Office. It is wildly unrealistic about the legality of Phorm.

It also seems to contradict a number of statements from the ISP's about opt-in/opt-out, and about the relative "firmness" of any relevant contracts between them and Phorm.

It also is technically very light, and fails totally to engage with Richard Clayton's analysis of how the system actually works, and where its security weaknesses are - this document is wildly overoptimistic on security of Phorm.

Various parts of the document might well be worth throwing at the ISP's to ask them if various statements in it are true. They may have to contradict the bits they are definitely embarrassed by and that could be interesting!

For example, the assertions that VM and TalkTalk have conducted trials on Phorm/Webwise. Really? How interesting. When? With whose consent? How many customers affected?

Time for bed methinks.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Can I ask those who are TalkTalk and Virgin Media customers - what attempts have been made to ask awkward detailed questions and get answers (or attributable avoidance) from VM and TalkTalk/Carphone Warehouse management and what responses have you had?

I have had two conversations with a contact from Neil Berkett's office - not the customer service people but the CEO's office - as well as previous letters from the VM Group Data Protection Officer, Ian Woodham stating that customers will not be forced to use the [Phorm] system.

The conversations have included the following points: *fires up text editor and file where these notes were typed in*

VM have not signed up with Phorm, they have expressed an interest

VM are still looking into the [Phorm] matter and there is absolutely no foregone conclusion that a Phorm system will be implemented.

VM will also consider any negative effect on their reputation as part of their deliberations.

These points were made to me in conversation on the morning of 8th April.

Additionally I spoke to this contact on 22nd April; he reaffirmed these points and specifically said that the only agreement VM had signed with Phorm was by way of a non-disclosure agreement, that VM would not be looking at any other alternative technologies while this agreement was in force.

I have been assured that Neil Berkett has seen my letter so he is aware that Phorm is an issue.

The letter that Neil Berkett will get on Monday asks directly about any previous testing and points out the continued damage to VM's reputation by its continued association with Phorm.

I've mentioned here the address to write to Neil Berkett and get attention quickly. The more people who write to him (don't bother with customer services, write a concise, professional letter to the CEO) the more he will actually come to realise Phorm is a bad thing.

OK, I've got through with a message but I'm only one voice. Sure I've got a biggish gob and when annoyed can be cutting with words but I'm still just one voice.

Make a difference, write to the CEO and politely ask him the awkward questions about why VM hasn't dropped Phorm yet.

[3x2]

Where to start except to say - remind me not to invest on the recommendation of this outfit. The future is bright, the future is Phorm

Phorm’s technology therefore promises to monetise the ‘long tail’ of internet real estate – the 70%-or-so of web pages that currently carry no advertising messages

Assuming of course that the 70% want to "carry advertising messages" and that the big three don't just cut off Phorm's hands when the find them in the cookie jar. I'm already looking for a Apache module that will dump all Phormed requests to a modified 404 page.

The company has received support in principle from the relevant authorities, the Home Office (in respect of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)), and the Office of the Information Commissioner (the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR)), conditional on satisfactory commercial roll-out. We think this endorsement will grow stronger and clearer over time.

Well it's a point of view I suppose.

While the public debate has been vigorous, we think it has been within a narrow, selfreferring constituency, and it has often been poorly informed.

That will be us then? The ones who looked past the Webwise "safer more relevant Internet experience" drivel and asked the awkward questions.

At heart is a conflict – Internet ‘purists’ argue strongly for the right to opt out of all targeted advertising

No, we want to opt out of Phorm - I choose to let Google profile me in return for their search service. The key word here is choice

Phorm management likes to point out the seeming double standard being employed by those who might object to Phorm’s tracking of anonymised browsing behaviour, but who at the same time disregard the far lower
protection standards employed by Google and other search engines

What is it with these people that they cannot distinguish a compulsory, unavoidable Phorm wire tap from my voluntary use of Google?

Phorm received its first encouraging official public endorsement for the integrity of its platform from the UK’s Home Office, ultimately the gatekeeper on matters relating to RIPA (unlike most legislation, criminal prosecutions cannot be brought privately, but can only be brought on recommendations to the DPP by the Home Office).

Interesting statement.

Phorm’s response to this is that any website that has a Google tag can be assumed to be in the public domain, and is accessible by the OIX.

Again the assumption being that Phorm is free to steal anyone's content straight off the wires and use it to build their business. Content providers may have a different view.

it strikes us that Phorm has clearly won the technical argument, and appears also to have won the legal argument,

When did this happen?

after an initial favourable press response, was soon dealing with a firestorm of orchestrated vitriol from disgruntled bloggers, companies and self-styled privacy campaigners.

Phorm has clear potential strategic value to one of the established Internet giants such as Google or Microsoft.

Microsoft and Google in the exchange wire tapping my connection - where do I sign up?

All in all a very interesting read - a couple of points though ..

The assumptions on consumer uptake are based on what exactly? The upper end of 90% seems absurdly optimistic.

Confidence in Phorm's legality and Government backing seem to be equally optimistic.

The report avoids almost completely the issue of content provider co-operation. The view of the "70% long tail" as just an untapped resource ripe for monetisation under our new overlords is a dangerous one. As Kent himself pointed out the net is made up of the big three and a lot of amateurs. Those amateurs cannot be relied upon to tow the line in any situation, especially one where they are coerced.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Vm would have to do there own trials as there network is different to bt, therefore i still think vm have had some sort of illegal trial at some point, always the stance of we dont know if were in or out, never have i heard a statement of "i can state 100% vm held no trials in relation to phorm" from anyone and there silence gives me the feeling there hiding something .

I will let you in to a little secret NTL / Virgin Media have bean doing secret trials on there business customers, I will post the proof as soon as I get it, I am just waiting for NTL to send the letter to my friend, my friend owns his own network in scotland.

[popper]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

In case this has not been posted already

http://www.capmarkets.com/ViewFile.a...HRM_230408.pdf

and in particular


"And

third, the launch customers – BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media – have

also undergone extensive trialling of the technology, and none are in the business of

taking unnecessary risks on new technology adoption."

wow, that charles stanley securitys is so full of tosh and hype and totally ignores all the legal UK/EU law points and existing facts that were around here way before even the latest ORG documents.

if it wasnt so serious, and large potential to mislead many of the finantial institutional investors down the dark ally of massive losses, it would be laughable.

[DJ_Price]

I've seen that webwise.net & a.webwise.net cookies have been stored on my computer. Because of this I came accross a plugin for firefox & installed it so it will block cookies from websites I choose. It's called CS Lite, I also have the Dephormation plugin installed. Blocking the cookies, is that ok to do or blocking them will that mean I'm opting for Phorm? When I checked one of the cookies it had the detail OP_OUT or something along those lines.

[popper]

as i outlined previously the need and requirements to send your Data Protection Act Notices.

here's an interesting Virgin Media DPA Notice post, and in this case (most of you forgot about that PFPODM statute so i thought id remind you )the "the right to prevent Processing For Purposes Of Direct Marketing"

but the exact same approach is used for removal of their rights to process, and/or giving them your explicit instructions on how and when you will allow them to process your data collecting,processing,storing and Exporting outside the UK etc.

its your data, and you tell them what they can or cant do with it, remember.

i post it here for clarity and as a letter template reference later, but go over there and also contribute to the slow CAG phorm thread, as it seems the CAG ISP section is in need of a massive revitalisation of new ISP consumer blood

and i wont re-enclose the original quotes but rather use "---" so as to make it easyer to include if you want to, in any reply's
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post1490209
"
djdave
Gold Account Customer
Re: Phorm..... Here's my experience with Virgin Media so far.

I wrote to them a few weeks ago with this letter:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------start
Quote:
The Data Controller
Virgin Media
PO Box 333,
Matrix Court,
Swansea.
SA7 9ZJ

19 March 2008

Dear Sir / Madam,

Formal notice under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing)

Virgin Account number: xxxxxxxxx

Please take note that I do not give my consent for Virgin Media to share any of my data (including but not limited to browsing habits, keywords, search terms) with external advertisers, including but not limited to Phorm / Webwise.

This applies even if such data is considered to be Non-Personally Identifiable Information, anonymous or untraceable.

I am aware that the proposed Phorm service will enable me to opt-out using cookies on my PC, but take note that I do not consent for any of my data to be passed to Phorm or any external advertiser irrespective of cookies or any other technology.

You will be aware that the Home Office recently published a report which concluded that “targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users”. My consent will not be forthcoming.

I now expect your assurance, in writing, that you will put measures in place to comply with this notice. Specifically I require your confirmation that I will not need to take any measures on my PC or router to prevent my data being passed to Phorm or any third-party advertiser.

You will be aware that s11 Data Protection Act 1998 provides that where a Data Controller has failed to act on such a Notice within a reasonable period, a court may order the Controller to take such steps as the court sees fit to comply.

I would consider 28 days to be a “reasonable period” for you to comply.
I appreciate your due diligence on this matter.

Yours faithfully,
-----------------------------------------------------------end

The response I received (from Customer Concern, not the Data Controller) was basically "Webwise will be good for you, protecting you from phishing and those nasty irrelevant adverts. Ignore the anti-Phorm propoganda in the media, you can trust us. We know what's best.". Not in those exact words, you understand!

So I sent them this:

---------------------------------------------------------start
Quote:
Pete Moore
Customer Concern
Virgin Media
Matrix Court
Llansamlet
SA7 9BB


3 April 2008

Dear Sir,

Virgin Account number: xxxxxxx
Your reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter of 26th March which raises some fresh concerns, not the least of which is your inability to distinguish between my forename and surname.

I find myself disappointed that you have chosen to treat my letter as a simple complaint, rather than as a statutory notice under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Data Protection Act) as I believe I made clear in the heading of my letter.

You will surely be aware that Virgin Media has a statutory duty under the Data Protection Act to implement a request for personal data not to be used for the purposes of direct marketing, and your failure thus far to act on my request leaves you open to legal and regulatory action.

I trust that you will now ensure that a copy of my original letter is passed to your Data Controller for his immediate attention.

Furthermore, I am saddened to find that Virgin Media has apparently adopted the same “we know what’s good for you” stance as Phorm themselves. I am perfectly well aware of how the system works without your patronising effort to explain it.

The “Webwise” system is of absolutely no value or interest to me, as my browser already incorporates an anti-phishing system- although I choose not to use it. I also block the vast majority of advertisements whether relevant or otherwise, and in any case would not click on any such adverts.

You claim that “a lot of what is being touted [about Phorm] is ill-informed”. While I am sure there has been some degree of speculation about the system in certain elements of the media, my opinion has been formed from reading transcripts of interviews with Kent Ertegrul, the CEO of Phorm itself.

For the avoidance of doubt I would ask you one simple yes-or-no question as follows:

If I choose not to participate in this “service”, will Virgin Media take permanent steps to ensure that none of my data, internet traffic or browsing patterns will be passed to Phorm or any other third party irrespective of any settings or cookies on my computer(s) and router?

I have grave concerns that should you do so without my express consent you would be in breach of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

You should be aware that should Virgin Media not now act to address my concerns I shall report the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as well as bringing it to the attention of local and national media and to my local Member of Parliament.

Needless to say I would also terminate my contract with Virgin Media and move my internet and telephone services to a company which has undertaken not to use this “service”.

I trust that you will now give due diligence to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,
--------------------------------------------------------------end

Again I've received a reply apologising for any concerns I might have but assuring me that Webwise is wonderful and that when the time comes for Phorm to go live it'll be made clear - and I'll have the opportunity to opt out.

THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

As I understand it, if I opt out all that will happen is I won't see the ads - my traffic will still be routed via Webwise. Well I use IE7Pro and don't see adverts anyway! I do not want my data to be passed to Phorm, whether anonymised or not. I believe that to do so against my express wishes would be unlawful.

Virgin are treading a dangerous path legally, by failing to pass a valid Statutory Notice to their data controller. I'm about to pass copies of my correspondence to the Information Commissioner's Office, and I'll keep you posted.


"

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by DJ_Price

I've seen that webwise.net & a.webwise.net cookies have been stored on my computer. Because of this I came accross a plugin for firefox & installed it so it will block cookies from websites I choose. It's called CS Lite, I also have the Dephormation plugin installed. Blocking the cookies, is that ok to do or blocking them will that mean I'm opting for Phorm? When I checked one of the cookies it had the detail OP_OUT or something along those lines.

Don't forget that the Dephormation addon may be responsible for those cookies from a.webwise.net- it works by setting an opt-out cookie. Try disabling it and then deleting the cookies. They shouldn't come back.

You can run dephormation addon while at the same time blocking the relevant cookies via Firefox privacy tab. Dephormation will then warn you about Phorm related sites but it will NOT be able to set an opt-out cookie for you.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by popper

Again I've received a reply apologising for any concerns I might have but assuring me that Webwise is wonderful and that when the time comes for Phorm to go live it'll be made clear - and I'll have the opportunity to opt out.

It seems to me that as an organisation, Virgin Media do not appear to know what they have got themselves into. Popper, can I use your Notice in the sample letters page I'm building on http://www.inphormationdesk.org?

On a related matter, I've just received new Ts&Cs from them with a covering letter telling me that I "... recently entered into a consumer agreement with Virgin Media ...", which of course I didn't: I last entered into a consumer agreement with one of their predecessors some six years ago.

I assume this is just so that they can alter charges for the service, but I wonder if it's also an attempt to keep unwilling Phorm users subscribed for the full twelve months? Given I have not signed anything, if Virgin Media were to implement Phorm and I were to leave them as a result, at the minimum it would be arguable in court.

I note Paragraph B1(i) in the terms: "With your permission, we may monitor email and internet communications, including without limitation, any content or material transmitted over the service".

1. Does anyone know if this is new and put in place for Phorm?

2. "Any content or material" includes https. I will email the Consumers Association to ask what kind of consumer protection this offers.

[popper]

it's not my notice , its djdave 's but thats why it was put there for everyones use as a guide or template, so i dont see why not.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

It seems to me that as an organisation, Virgin Media do not appear to know what they have got themselves into.
...

On a related matter, I've just received new Ts&Cs from them with a covering letter telling me that I "... recently entered into a consumer agreement with Virgin Media ...", which of course I didn't: I last entered into a consumer agreement with one of their predecessors some six years ago.

I assume this is just so that they can alter charges for the service, but I wonder if it's also an attempt to keep unwilling Phorm users subscribed for the full twelve months? Given I have not signed anything, if Virgin Media were to implement Phorm and I were to leave them as a result, at the minimum it would be arguable in court.

I note Paragraph B1(i) in the terms: "With your permission, we may monitor email and internet communications, including without limitation, any content or material transmitted over the service".

1. Does anyone know if this is new and put in place for Phorm?

2. "Any content or material" includes https. I will email the Consumers Association to ask what kind of consumer protection this offers.

as in a real paper Consumer T&C contract in your hand?.....

dont assume anything about just future increases in price etc, if its anything like the current online version , its full of holes and looks like it was written or rather cut and pasted by an 6th form student (no offense to 6th form students OC).

they cant force you to sign it OC, and its werth giving it some serious thought BEFORE YOU DO.

your 6 years ago consumer T&C contract is the the original one you signed when the salesman sold it to you, and that has an effect, but i didnt look up exactly how that effects the new T&Cs they might include over time, i seem to remember no new ones are valid if there exists a written one before that date but you might have to look that up for the official court view.

BUT, if they require from now on a fully signed consumer T&C contract, to try the we have a paper signed contract bla bla.

thats also a very good thing in the future (keep your copy safe to reproduce in SC later), see, the fact is if you sign it and they keep supplying the service then you potentially have them cold...

the thing with (consumer) contracts is..., you as the other party can scrub out any and all clauses you do not agree with,and simply initial them to make them void without need to involve the small claims court process later etc.

and infact you can include your own clauses, the second they activate the new contract and supply the services they too are bound by this new contract and all the bits you scrubed out or amended.....

[The Other Steve]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._position.html

More from Charles Arthur, interestingly, following on from yesterday's deafening silence from BT, Phorm had this to say w/r/t the FIPR documents.

"FIPR is abusing its influence and promoting its own agenda by encouraging a frivolous debate about the legality of a legitimate e-commerce business. Internet users would be better served if FIPR focused on the benefits of the online technologies available today rather than undermine the online privacy debate and block technological progress. That would help people to make valid informed choices about the services they want to use."

So, not a refutation of the points, in any way, but straight on to the ad-hominem attacks. Rattled or what ?

And is it even possible to have a "frivolous debate about the legality of" something ?

Sounds like an epic fail to me. I don't think any decent PR would have let that statement pass, either, to combative, so perhaps Phorm have ditched their flying PR monkeys.