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

[Tharrick]

To VM (admittedly to the customer service peoples, but I shall be writing to others when I get back from handing my dissertation in later)

Originally Posted by Tharrick

Dear sir or madam,

In our last communication you assured me that the Phorm/Webwise 'service' was not a foregone conclusion - you stated that 'we have not yet decided on if and, in particular, how the Webwise
system will be incorporated into our network'.

However, in a recent press statement, Phorm have stated not only that there is no question that you, along with talktalk and BT, will be going along with their system, but also that all three ISPs have already carried out 'extensive trialling'.

Somebody here is lying to me.
I have been a loyal customer for the last two years, and both years have been on your highest broadband package. I'd like to think that it's not you that's doing the lying - I'd prefer to believe it of the 'ex'-spyware company that's trying to get into bed with you. Nevertheless, I must ask for a definitive statement of whether or not you have carried out public tests of this technology. In addition, you will be receiving a DPA notice from me, sent straight to your data controller (given that several acquaintances of mine have sent them in to customer services, where they have been treated merely as complaints and responded to with stock replies), refusing my consent for any such system. I do hope you realise that a lack of response to this notice constitutes a criminal offence under the DPA.
And finally, if you have not trialled this system, and if you have not given a definitive statement that you WILL be going ahead with Phorm, I would recommend that you contact them and request that they stop using your name in their spin.

Thank you,

xxxxxx xxxxxxxx

[mark777]

Some interesting points about the Charles Stanley document over on Badphorm

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...pic.php?4672.0

Particularly the need to be careful about quoting from and linking to an intended 'subscription only' document. We may need to be careful about what we do and say about this.

Any legally minded bods might care to comment further.

(I've noticed Badphorm have removed links to the document itself and only reference the iii site where a link can be found.)

[icsys]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

On a tangent, how come Sky haven't waded in with a "phorm free" sales campaign? Not like them to miss a trick.

a spokesman for Sky, the UK's fastest growing broadband network with about 1.2 million lines, said: "Sky is interested in exploring the potential for targeted online advertising and is talking with a number of companies operating in this area.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...d_isp_targets/

[3x2]

From the report :

Phorm’s response to this [everything on the net being a free for all (my insert)] is that any website that has a Google tag can be assumed to be in the public domain, and is accessible by the OIX.

Perhaps someone at Stanley can see the irony here. I saw nothing that prevents access straight from either a direct link or from Google.

[Deko]

Ha thats funny 3X2. yup no problem linking to or taking that article then.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by 3x2

From the report :


Perhaps someone at Stanley can see the irony here. I saw nothing that prevents access straight from either a direct link or from Google.

But is the link we have to the original document location or to an unauthorised copy?

Mods may have a view?

[Frank Rizzo]

The file is hosted on the capmarkets.com site. It is not in a restricted directory and is directly available to the general public without the need to register or authenticate.

It will also more than likely end up in google's cache.

[3x2]

But is the link we have to the original document location or to an unauthorised copy?

Interesting point - www.capmarkets.com redirects to http://www.bigdough.com/ir/index.cfm and "company info" redirects to http://www.ipreo.com/pages/history.asp.

You may very well be right. That's the problem with the net though isn't it. If Phorm were operating now then they would be reading the document too and advertising "stock brokers" to me. Further Phorm would be the only ones making money out the whole (potential) mess.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by mark777

But is the link we have to the original document location or to an unauthorised copy?

Mods may have a view?

The link to the capsmarket site for the document has an ID number in the url -so it may represent a link someone got after logging in.
I've changed my BT post to simply link to the iii.co.uk forum post that contains the Charles Stanley note url
http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...ail&id=4006735

I suggest this forum does the same.

The capsmarket.com url on its own redirects to http://www.bigdough.com/ir/index.cfm

One question that comes to mind - if I had been logged into Webwise when I accessed that document, presumably its contents would have been profiled? And if it is actually a protected docuement, available theoretically only to logged in customers of the site, the owners wouldn't have given consent for it to be profiled?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by R Jones

One question that comes to mind - if I had been logged into Webwise when I accessed that document, presumably its contents would have been profiled? And if it is actually a protected docuement, available theoretically only to logged in customers of the site, the owners wouldn't have given consent for it to be profiled?

I think so. Of course Phorm would just slate anyone who suggested that and accuse them of trying to prevent technology advancing...

Anyone seen PhormUKPRteam today? I'm wondering what their response to my challenge is. Any decent, open, honest, transparent organisation which is keen to honestly discuss the issues put to it here and elsewhere would be happy to respond fully, honestly and without spin.

[thebarron]

PC-Pro have this article online and one coming up in the printed magazine on the 15th May.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/191901/h...-on-phorm.html

[AlexanderHanff]

I didn't see PhormUKPRteam log on to here at all yesterday or so far today. I am wondering if Kent has fired them all and has decided the best phorm of PR he can push is his own personal agenda laden with insults and personal attacks.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I didn't see PhormUKPRteam log on to here at all yesterday or so far today. I am wondering if Kent has fired them all and has decided the best phorm of PR he can push is his own personal agenda laden with insults and personal attacks.

Alexander Hanff

Perhaps reading just as guests to stop us asking them questions mind I would like them to know I am now officially looking after my mothers interests as a BT shareholder at future AGMs.

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I just got off the phone with Simon Davies. It was a brief call as he was about to start a radio interview, but he has promised to call me back this afternoon. He did state he has just returned from Italy (which verifies my comments earlier in the week that it may have been an extended trip).

I phoned him to find out if he had any more information on the official video from the PIA meeting, so hopefully I will have more information on the video this afternoon.

Alexander Hanff

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I didn't see PhormUKPRteam log on to here at all yesterday or so far today. I am wondering if Kent has fired them all and has decided the best phorm of PR he can push is his own personal agenda laden with insults and personal attacks.

Alexander Hanff

If he has fired them wouldn't someone like Dhaljit at Under Strict Embargo mention it in his blog? Haven't seen anything mentioned in PR Week or anything like that...

Forgot to get some English Breakfast Tea while out earlier. Ah well, back later