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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ceedee

I guess at a push you could check Wikipedia's references for yourself?
Or Google his name? I can't think of any better way than researching what he's been up to for the last couple of decades.

Perhaps there's somebody active in internet or privacy fields that you would accept as a respected authority?
If so, I expect they'd be happy to give him a reference.
Why not start with the advisory boards of Privacy International and 80/20?

And if third-party testament doesn't convince you then, yes, I suggest you have a chat with him.

Ceedee I am not having a go; you and I share a common cause. I am a little facinated by gullibility but there you go. I suppose Privacy Advocate is a bit like Estate Agent - anyone can set up as one and people have confidence in them because of what they appear to be. Incidentally, I mean no sleight to Simon in this, it is the principle of naivete that is interesting. Depending where you look Kursk is a submarine; it is also a battle. It is also both and in my case neither. What to believe eh? Perhaps I need a little more wide-eyed innocence and to be more trusting. Phorm is good for me (I saw that written somewhere too).

[Florence]

My daughter has just watched the video from click and pointed out that the computers at uni do not have phishing switched on as when they login in it asks if they want it on. When they go to some links IE still warns them it might be a phishing site...


So the need for anti phishing as Kent put it switched on isn't relevent.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------

Faster service remember the old proxies they slowed the internet experience down so how can redirecting you 3 or more times make it faster?

Ok this infighting will stop right now, Alexander might urge for it to stop and some of you feel the urge to ignore him, but I will not be ignored.

There is too much emphasis on this video, why? Because when it boils down to it, you are all not missing anything. You know what Phorm's PR machines will have been spewing out, the same old, the same old. You do not need to see yet more evidence of it so why the need to see it?

The bottom line is - Alexander has spent endless hours, half the time sleep deprived working on this to fight for us. There should be a little bit more respect shown.

I don't like Phorm and I don't want Phorm any more than the next guy, you only have to read my news stories on this when this first came out in Feb. But I don't give a stuff about any video because I don't need nor want to see Phorm's PR machine spewing its vile any longer, my decision was made the second this news came out two and half months ago.

If the video is released, its released but there is no need for a song and dance because its not been released yet.

So less of the falling out and back to a constuctive debate please, I will not have this spoiling, what has been best debated subject of all time - on this forum. Thank you.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ceedee I am not having a go; you and I share a common cause. I am a little facinated by gullibility but there you go. I suppose Privacy Advocate is a bit like Estate Agent - anyone can set up as one and people have confidence in them because of what they appear to be.

Personally I'd normally judge somebody by their endeavours and achievements, backed up by professional recommendations and, if the opportunity arises, some personal contact.

Recommend you do some research yourself if you still don't know what to believe.

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by Florence

Faster service remember the old proxies they slowed the internet experience down so how can redirecting you 3 or more times make it faster?

Indeed. The problem in many cases was scaleability. The ISPs used a cacheing proxy to cut down on their backbone traffic but the proxy solution wasn't really scalable and in the end the proxy degraded customer experience instead of improving.

So one of my concerns is how the Phorm proxy will scale. Last summer I'm 100% sure I was caught in the trial, my connection was AWFUL but I was busy with a project and the only analysis I did was an ethernet trace and I only looked at L4 which was problematic because of duplicate TCP ACKs and out-of-sequence traffic. I worked around the problem by re-routing all domestic traffic via my office gateway.

Oh - and to complete a tale about proxies in general, in the last few years backbone capacity has increased whilst backhaul has become more contentious so it never really made sense to develop better, more scalable proxies. Also a lot of dynamic web content sets no-cache and cache expired so caching these days helps a bit on images but that's about all.

[serial]

Originally Posted by Mick

There is too much emphasis on this video, why?

The emphasis is that there is content within the video that is damaging to Phorm.
The emphasis is that Simon Davies misled members of the public regarding this video.
The emphasis is that Simon Davies was annoyed that people didn't turn up when in fact they were told they didn't need to as there would be a full unedited video released for all.

Maybe the PI/8020 - Good/Evil discussion needs to be taken to a different thread, but the discussion of the video should remain here until we get a full response as to why it is not being released.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Personally I'd normally judge somebody by their endeavours and achievements, backed up by professional recommendations and, if the opportunity arises, some personal contact.

Recommend you do some research yourself if you still don't know what to believe.

Ok thanks. I've already decided what I believe.

Alexander might urge for it to stop and some of you feel the urge to ignore him

Apologies Mick, I must have missed the deification.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by serial

The emphasis is that there is content within the video that is damaging to Phorm.

Most likely why it wasn't released but we are lucky there is part of the meting gives enough of the meeting out to get a general feel.

Originally Posted by serial

The emphasis is that Simon Davies misled members of the public regarding this video.

Simon has apologised and had you thought he was also mislead no longer important.

Originally Posted by serial

The emphasis is that Simon Davies was annoyed that people didn't turn up when in fact they were told they didn't need to as there would be a full unedited video released for all.

Those that couild make it went if you were able to go and didn't on the promise of a unedited video, knowing phorm and Kent

Originally Posted by serial

Maybe the PI/8020 - Good/Evil discussion needs to be taken to a different thread, but the discussion of the video should remain here until we get a full response as to why it is not being released.

Think after watching Kent on numerous times can you see him releasing the video or the reason why it wasn't released. Perhaps this should be taken as a warning by the three named ISPs that this is the type of person you are signing upto releasing all your customers details to.. Can you still trust him....

[warescouse]

I have to admit I am a little disappointed in Simon Davis but I repeat, I am hoping to be proved my concerns are unfounded. His previous work is beyond reproach.

I liken his current position to that of a employed RSPCA inspector who started up a company on the side and his first job was to write a report for the badger baiting society on behalf of the badger baiting society. I see a conflict of interests and whether it was naivety on 80/20's part I don't know.

If I was to give any advice to Simon it would be: If he sees misquotes and misunderstandings in the press regarding PI and 80/20 and the correct 'hat' is not acknowledged, he should be seen to be quick to correct the statement when necessary. Allowing the BBC to run an article that misquotes 80/20 as PI for many days is unforgivable and if he values his continued respect he has to be seen to be doing the correct things promptly.

Allowing things to go unchallenged for any length of time only adds to peoples suspicions. The bottom line in my humble opinion is that in certain cases where 'beliefs' are involved, you cannot wear two hats. That's all I will say on the matter.

[vicz]

Bit obvious really (with 80/20 hindsight) "Don't bother filming, we are making a video". Never used that one myself, though I have used "Don't bother making notes, I'll copy you the slides". Keeps you in control. Oh, and I always do send the slides! But fool me once etc etc perhaps nice guys are always too reasonable. We are after all dealing with someone who has made a fortune pushing scumware that caused frustration, financial loss and hours of wasted time for literally thousands of people. And he obviously sees Google "Don't be evil" as a soft touch and clearly that is who phorm is really aimed at.

[80/20Thinking]

I'd appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about the broader perspective here, while also conducting a little expectation management regarding the PIA.

I mentioned at the start of the public meeting that tectonic shifts are occurring in the online environment. Many of you will know these shifts well. Microsoft makes a play for Yahoo, while Google acquires Doubleick, capturing more than half the ad potential of the Web. Yahoo responds by cutting a deal with Google. Meanwhile, Time Warner through advertising.com via AOL launches a rival global ad platform.

Meanwhile, back in the EU, the national privacy commissioners, tired of missing the boat on online issues, raise the privacy bar via the Article 29 Group to drive a wedge through the ad space market and lay down an unprecedented set of demands that could, who knows, spark a mini trade war between the EU and the US.

There's about $20 billion up for grabs in ad space margins, which accounts for much of this activity. That accounts for the existence of Phorm, as it accounts for its rival platforms along with the consolidation spree you read about every day.

At the moment I'm trying to come to terms not just with these tectonic shifts within industry, but also the extraordinary chasm that is opening up between the ad market and the new regulatory regime. Phorm accounts for a very small part of that vast picture. Every week I speak with people from each of the key online corporations and the regulators in an attempt to understand where this is taking us as consumers.

Enter the PIA into this equation. Please do not make the mistake of believing that the PIA is likely to be either judge or white knight. It is merely a process that will lead, we hope, both to greater clarification and to a better outcome for consumers. Neither it nor 80/20 carry any legal standing whatever. Our role is not to sit in judgment, but to set out facts. We cannot "set matters right", but we can make recommendations for reform. The market or the courts may decide the ultimate outcome in whatever field we explore.

I can't be the "hero" some of you would like me to be - at least, not as a result of doing a PIA. You may feel confident about some of the points I will make, but you may also be disappointed that some of my observations will be set against those tectonic shifts I mentioned earlier.

Simon

[Kursk]

Now that is what I call a good post. Thank you Simon.

[OF1975]

http://digg.com/tech_news/BBC_Click_Phorm_discussion

Digged/dugged* as requested Alexander.

*delete as appropriate

Originally Posted by serial

The emphasis is that there is content within the video that is damaging to Phorm.

I don't need to see any content which shows how damaging Phorm is - I already made my mind up when I realised their business which is basically 'Spyware'. Phorm is damaged goods with or without the video.

Originally Posted by serial

Maybe the PI/8020 - Good/Evil discussion needs to be taken to a different thread, but the discussion of the video should remain here until we get a full response as to why it is not being released.

I will decide that and if I feel the continuation of the discussion surrounding the video is causing rifts and upsets within the contexts of this debate than I will suggest that the discussion element surrounding the video ceases until at least there is conclusive information to its imminent release, quite frankly I could discuss the fact that I want some hot weather, doesn't mean I will get it. Perhaps there is too many negative assumptions about the video - assumptions are the mother of all problems and falling out with each other solves nothing.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by Mick

Ok this infighting will stop right now, Alexander might urge for it to stop and some of you feel the urge to ignore him, but I will not be ignored.

There is too much emphasis on this video, why? Because when it boils down to it, you are all not missing anything. You know what Phorm's PR machines will have been spewing out, the same old, the same old. You do not need to see yet more evidence of it so why the need to see it?

The bottom line is - Alexander has spent endless hours, half the time sleep deprived working on this to fight for us. There should be a little bit more respect shown.

I don't like Phorm and I don't want Phorm any more than the next guy, you only have to read my news stories on this when this first came out in Feb. But I don't give a stuff about any video because I don't need nor want to see Phorm's PR machine spewing its vile any longer, my decision was made the second this news came out two and half months ago.

If the video is released, its released but there is no need for a song and dance because its not been released yet.

So less of the falling out and back to a constuctive debate please, I will not have this spoiling, what has been best debated subject of all time - on this forum. Thank you.

cheers. What you are saying is I have no right to defend myself when being insulted?

Ban me by all means, no matter I'll leave you armchair warriors to your own devices. It's pathetic to be accused of infighting when only trying to uphold one's comments.