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

[The Other Steve]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

He should leave the PR to the expensive PR teams he has hired, he is doing more damage to his cause than good.

Alexander Hanff

While I don't think his PR minions did him any good at all (quite the reverse in fact), I do agree that he's his own worst publicity, every time I see him on camera I can barely restrain myself from shouting foul imprecations at the screen. I'm a fairly volatile person (especially when it comes to shouting at screens), so I expect most people will have a less extreme reaction, but I imagine it will still be there.

That drawling, patronising, dismissive, "I'm so much more in the know than you, peon" attitude may go down a storm in the US, but in the UK, not so much.

Good work on the interview Alexander, I'd love to see the whole thing, that interviewer chap looked like he was going to faint at the end.

I'd have to watch it again, and I can't just now (because I have to go out and deal with the fact that I have accidentally melted my bank card into an interesting shape) but I think there is a moment in the whole pony adverts section where KE disses his own business model while trying to suggest that pony leakage is likely to be minimal. Doesn't he imply (in fact, I think he actually says it) that in fact the ads won't be all that relevant (as many of us have suspected all along) as an explanation of why pony confidentiality will be maintained?

I kind of missed it, because I was full of Kent inspired bile, and he was talking over the interviewer, displaying the cultured manners with which we have come to associate him, but I'm sure it's there.

Possibly be worth doing a transcript, if I'm not imaging it.

[mattyh]

Sort of off topic... Network Solutions have been hi-jacking peoples websites, using broken links, inactive pages etc:

Snippet

Network Solutions really didn't need any more public relations disasters after the controversy of automatically registering searched-for domains and "protecting" them for a $35 fee. Though this new controversy may not be quite the hyperbole it's made out to be in some places, it does come with some potentially serious issues.

Full story: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...er-controversy

[Dephormation]

Can someone ask on the Virgin Media feedback newsgroup... I'm an exVirgin these days...

If Phorm has been tested internally by VM then

a) What content was used to test it, and was that content drawn from the web, directly or indirectly? Who's content was used?

b) If it was purely internal, why does this Webwise site contain a Javascript which references Virgin Media users...

http://www.webwise.com/script/webwise.js

		else if (hostname.match(/^(.+\.)?virginmedia.com$/)) {
			userType = 'Virgin User';
			createCookie(userTypeCookieName, userType, userTypeCookieDuration);
		}

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I was trying to think of a simple way to explain the difference between Phorm and Google to web masters and less tech literate people...

Google:
Uses keywords from your page content to bring visitors to your web site.

Phorm:
Uses keywords from your page content to draw visitors to someone else's web site.

That is an excellent way to discribe it

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Can someone ask on the Virgin Media feedback newsgroup... I'm an exVirgin these days...

If Phorm has been tested internally by VM then

a) What content was used to test it, and was that content drawn from the web, directly or indirectly? Who's content was used?

b) If it was purely internal, why does this Webwise site contain a Javascript which references Virgin Media users...

http://www.webwise.com/script/webwise.js

<snip>

Hmm if not quite a smoking gun certainly an indication that VMs intent was a bit more developed than it is being touted as today.

What about the script - just something to 'tailor' the spin would you say?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by vicz

Hmm if not quite a smoking gun certainly an indication that VMs intent was a bit more developed than it is being touted as today.

What about the script - just something to 'tailor' the spin would you say?

It could be... But if you have no commitment to implement, why would you as a software supplier write code to adapt your product to suit Virgin's end users? Particularly on a machine external to Virgins network?

And what purpose would an internal test serve if it was not conducted on a substantial volume of web content from a variety of sources... ie drawn from the internet directly or indirectly. If I own that content and I deny you the right to process it in this way, then I'm not going to be a happy bunny if it is the data you use to test your spyware.

I believe, if only the Police/Home Office would investigate VM, they'd find more evidence. For end users its near impossible; everything is circumstantial without server side data. With Police powers VM offices could be raided.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by vicz

What about the script - just something to 'tailor' the spin would you say?

Spin? Did anyone see this post on El Reg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ents/#c_214160

By Jimbo Gunn
Posted Friday 2nd May 2008 09:18 GMT

Have any of the campaigners made a compendium of Phorm spin?

So far I've heard Privacy International endorse the system, Dr Richard Clayton praises Phorm's privacy measures, We cannot know who you are, choice is an important issue, The Guardian have not dropped Phorm, opt-in/opt-out is a red herring, Google are evil, Kent is not the prince of darkness, only a small number of people are against the system, it's good for the internet, a revolution in privacy, extensive legal advice, phorm is legal, phorm is good, Phorm definately did not spark the Rwandan genocide, it can save millions, feed the starving, find Bin Laden, end the surveillance society culture, cure Leukemia, cure Aids, help Tony Blair become the first EU president, deliver a lightening bolt to Mugabe and bring back the Zimbabwean crops, end the conflict in the Congo and Sudan too, free tibet and Australia with it, end the warlord domination of columbia and reduce opium supply from the far east and break up Coldplay.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

It could be... But if you have no commitment to implement, why would you as a software supplier write code to adapt your product to suit Virgin's end users? Particularly on a machine external to Virgins network?

And what purpose would an internal test serve if it was not conducted on a substantial volume of web content from a variety of sources... ie drawn from the internet directly or indirectly. If I own that content and I deny you the right to process it in this way, then I'm not going to be a happy bunny if it is the data you use to test your spyware.

I believe, if only the Police/Home Office would investigate VM, they'd find more evidence. For end users its near impossible; everything is circumstantial without server side data. With Police powers VM offices could be raided.

Yes as you say there are many unanswered questions. When BT did its 2006 trial the product was obviously different to now - witness the javascript injections. Did they spend the last 2 years on development - that's a long time. And they are still tweaking around how they mangle cookies and hastily how to have a non-cookie based opt in/out. My guess is that they started with their spyware ad-serving infrastructure and tried to mate it with DPI and the layer 7 switch much later. And maybe what they are pushing now is actually a stripped down version of the 2006 product - after all it is apparently only a subset of what is in the patent.

So what exactly were VM playing with 'in the lab.'?

[Florence]

Just spoken to a friend who is a wizard at scripting he said it looks fine legal coding but is scarey as it misses the else so if it doesnt match any rule it does nothing.

cookie lasts 24days which is long time it checks which internet you are using if you are on Bt then it checks to see if you are bt.com then adds the cookie same for VM if you are on VM then it adds cookie for VM will be same for TalkTalk if we had anyone who could visit it and copy and paste their findings.
When I visit it I get.

var localeCookieName = 'loc';

var defaultLocale = 'uk';

var userTypeCookieName = 'userType';

var userTypeCookieDuration = 730; // Days



function webwiseInit() {

checkUserType();

renderLocaleSelect();

}



function checkUserType() {

var userCookie = readCookie(userTypeCookieName);

if (userCookie == null || userCookie == '') {

setUserType();

}

if (getUserType() == 'BT User') {

location.replace('http://bt.webwise.com');

}

}

It sees I am on BT but not BT.com so does nothing

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Spin? Did anyone see this post on El Reg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ents/#c_214160

How about this one (taken from the original article on El Reg)

"The company's business model revolves around distributing its PageSense technology to as many users as possible and showing users as many advertisements as possible, without causing negative reaction, to maximise response. "

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

...and break up Coldplay.

If only that were true, I'd even consider opting in .

I would like to welcome our newer members to this debate but can I also respectfully request that our newer members refrain from using inappropriate language, regardless if you partially star it out. Thank you.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

How about this one (taken from the original article on El Reg)

"The company's business model revolves around distributing its PageSense technology to as many users as possible and showing users as many advertisements as possible, without causing negative reaction, to maximise response. "

I've always found it subtly ironic that their strapline should be

"The Phorm Privacy Revolution"

Did they really mean to start a revolution?

They've certainly provoked a rebellion.

[jelv]

Definitive response from Plusnet re Madasafish use of Front Porch:

Originally Posted by Bob

The deal to buy Madasafish from Iomart was announced in May 2001. You'll notice the article you linked to is dated April 2001.

The deal was signed by Iomart just before they offloaded Madasafish.

Brightview purchased Madasafish in September of 2001. All systems were migrated to the Brightview network and there was no contract with Front Porch.

We now hold the reigns and I can categorically state that we've no affiliation with Front Porch.

Hopefully that clears things up?

[The Other Steve]

Originally Posted by Mick

I would like to welcome our newer members to this debate but can I also respectfully request that our newer members refrain from using inappropriate language, regardless if you partially star it out. Thank you.

My bad. Sincere apols, shan't happen again.