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

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Florence

Will I get free internet to allow them to profile me for adverts?

The answer to that is no.

As for your comments to my previous remarks I just think you are agreeing with me. Even if you are not I am certainly agreeing with you.

I think I'm in danger of annoying the regulars again just because I try to have a reasonable point of view.

Again, please don't think I welcome Phorm, please don't think I'll accept it and please don't think I am not behind people here. I merely try to have a more factual based discussion on any of the issues raised in this thread than I prefer to just allow people to spout nonsense because they can.

[Florence]

I dont annoy easy jumping between two challenges on two different forums life could get hectic from here for me.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

claims that anything, in this case targeted advertising, is better than something else as always reverts to nothing more than a personal opinion unless backed up by a spot of science or at least some acceptable collected data.

It can only be misleading if you, as the recipient of these opinions choose to accept it as fact rather than collect information in that area yourself so as to evaluate as much data as possible and form your own opinion. Which again, is only your opinion but given some diligence on your part it could at least be called an informed opinion.

As I dislike all online advertising, whether adverts are targeted or not, I dislike them all and will never respond to them. How relevant they are is actually immaterial to me. That is fact.

Getting back on subject, Phorm, under the guise of 121 Media infected PC's of friends of mine and also PC's of their children with their targeted adverts of the day via their hidden software bombs. It was a nightmare to fix and leads me to say factually, I will never trust them and I will never remain with an ISP who is 'in bed' with them illegally intercepting my data. I will knowingly never have any of their adverts on my PC screen whether targeted or not!

There .... back on track!

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Florence

I dont annoy easy jumping between two challenges on two different forums life could get hectic from here for me.

You've not been to dinner with me where I drink too much wine and when we get home I choose to crash out rather than fulfil those obligations you might have expected
She tells me I can be annoying from time to time

[Florence]

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

[mark777]

Originally Posted by The Other Steve

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

About what you'd expect given Pinsent Masons LLP's relationship with BT, basically says that, yes, ISPs implementing Phorm are probably breaking tons of laws, but that's OK, where's the harm ?

Seriously, that's what it says. Can't comment further now, blood boiling.

This is yesterday's out-law link. Is that what you are after Florence?
---
Sorry, I can see now it's the same.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Florence

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

That's the only one I have seen but it is interesting to see it has been updated and in the author's opinion the covert trials did breach RIPA.

I find it highly contentious that he merely lays this off to one side as an isolated breach though. I don't call 128000 people spread over 2 years isolated. Neither do I expect that if I went out and stole a car or mugged someone it would be ignored as an isolated incident. Or if I was to break into BT's HQ and steal some kit and documents, I doubt that would be ignored as an isolated incident either.

Using his argument is basically putting corporations above the law.


Alexander Hanff

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Florence

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

I suspect the PR team is also in action on this thread, obfuscating the discussions.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

That's the only one I have seen but it is interesting to see it has been updated and in the author's opinion the covert trials did breach RIPA.

I find it highly contentious that he merely lays this off to one side as an isolated breach though. I don't call 128000 people spread over 2 years isolated. Neither do I expect that if I went out and stole a car or mugged someone it would be ignored as an isolated incident. Or if I was to break into BT's HQ and steal some kit and documents, I doubt that would be ignored as an isolated incident either.

Using his argument is basically putting corporations above the law.


Alexander Hanff

sorry Alexander just quoted this by you on ISPr

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/show...90&postcount=7

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

...if I was to break into BT's HQ and steal some kit and documents, I doubt that would be ignored as an isolated incident

Alexander, perhaps you need to break in 128000 times.

Please note I am not inciting you to do this.

Interestingly, Kent Ertugrul might say that even 128000 times would only be a handful, quite literally a handful only, of break ins. So between him and the legal experts on that site, I think you'd still be a free man

Hank

[mark777]

Anyone know how much I can shoplift from Tesco's before it becomes serious?

Originally Posted by mark777

Anyone know how much I can shoplift from Tesco's before it becomes serious?

128,001 ?

[The Other Steve]

Good grief you lot should get out more, it's Friday night. Oh wait, erm, hang on

Anyhoo, all this morose pessimism about how advertising will make the net a worse experience (I have to use that word, sullied as it has recently become, since I can not bring myself to call a communications medium a 'place') is making me all misty eyed and nostalgic for the early nineties, a time frame which contained, amongst other harbingers of allegedly certain net.doom, the year september never ended (1993), the first banner ads (same year) which caused untold controvesy and Canter and Siegel's mass "Green Card" usenet spam (1994). Truly it was the dawn of mass adoption of the web, and of the web based advertising model that we know and love.

(the younger, or more recent netizens, amongst you may need to pause to look some of that up )

Wired raved about the "New Economy" (an economy of eyeballs, which is a pretty creepy kind of economy, eyyeew!), and used lots of great sounding phrases like "Paradigm shift". Wired's readers complained to their opticians about eyestrain headaches, and the internet's user communities filled emails, usenet postings, web pages and magazine articles by the thousands with their vocal cries of horror that the net would never be the same again, that it would be awful, would become useless and unusable. That it would be broken To them it seemed as though the sky was falling.

I know this, I was there, I was one of those voices, I remember it as though it were yesterday, possibly because I have spent so much of the intervening period in various states of intoxication

And you know what, the net is still here, the web is bigger, brighter, better, faster and far far more useful than it was.

We were right, the net was never the same (it was stupid of us to think that it would be, change is truly one of the only two really universal constants)

But we were wrong about the sky.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by The Other Steve

Good grief you lot should get out more, it's Friday night. Oh wait, erm, hang on
/snip

We were right, the net was never the same (it was stupid of us to think that it would be, change is truly one of the only two really universal constants)

But we were wrong about the sky.

I was with you for that period and I was there for much, much earlier in the advent of whet is now the web.
Of course it all changes and mostly it changes for the better if only the user can become educated to look after their browsers.

As for Friday night? My wife works in London Mon-Fri and we live 212 miles away from our London residence so I'm not allowed to go out on a Friday when she gets home to see our boy ( and one would hope, me ), I'm lucky to be allowed on the net after being allowed to make dinner

[popper]

Originally Posted by Florence

Ok guys need help where was the other outlaw link to show
Phorm was illegal just had this one posted on ISPR today the pr team are back in action..

http://www.out-law.com/page-9090

it seems its more him being slippery when wet and he does twist the truth (as we know it..., any updates on the Home Office letters BTW?)to try and take the mick,and misslead the readers...

"
UPDATE, 02/05/2008: Some readers have asked for my opinion on BT's trial of Phorm, a trial that ran without user consent.

Did it breach RIPA? Personally, I think that it probably did.

But I doubt the question will ever come before a court.

The Home Office has already indicated that it does not intend to take action.

I expect that is because it views the trial as an isolated incident.

It would only take action if it believed that Phorm would normally operate without consent.

Some have compared BT's trial to the actions that led to the conviction under RIPA of Demon and Redbus founder Cliff Stanford. I think a court would consider the circumstances quite different, though.

Three readers have also noted that Pinsent Masons is one of the firms on BT's legal panel and asked me to disclose that relationship on this page. The firm is on BT's legal panel though we didn't advise on Phorm. As a large commercial law firm we are on lots of companies' legal panels.
"
its a very interesting response once you read between the lines and , he's clearly trying to underplay the real facts....

he's saying in effect, although a crime took place, it only happened once, so thats ok, the courts wount get the chance to rule on a punishment (even if that were to amount to a mear fine and suspended imprisonment)as no ones willing to bring it to court.....

that theres clear case law in the stanford case, but seeing as its BT and not a smaller firm with lower cashflow, and it involves far more than a single person's data being unlawfully intercepted then its fine...

just like for instance, other BIG business loan practices can slide and be written off,but you better not miss your morgage loan paymant or loose your house being small fry.....

you might get the impression he's under a lot of stress to try and deflect the real facts that the BT executive and involved employees are under real threat of criminal conviction ....

on the averages, as per the stanford RIPA case, its seems to be on the cards for next year or the year after, before we might see the people involved in the dock... perhaps.

is what your after Florence in this lot
http://www.google.co.uk/search?oe=ut...Search+the+Web