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

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

OK let me clarify a little. Say for example you are searching on Google for a family member who shares the same surname, or you are searching for information about yourself; those search terms will be profiled based on the BT explanation posted. So clearly stating that no identifiable information is taken from search forms is incorrect. That was my only point, just a simple example of how those search terms can actually contain personal information.

My other point was that even if you never use anything which might be considered as personal information, you can still be identified from your searches as happened with one elderly woman in the US who was identified and tracked to her home address as a result of her anonymised search data being leaked by AOL.

So my post was more about the inaccuracies of BT's FAQ as opposed to anything ground breaking or new.

Alexander Hanff

Okay I've got you now. A general point that the Phorm/Webwise collection/profiling that is going on, must include a lot of personally identifiable information (including google search items in Get requests- they can't prevent it (just as the BTYahoo cookies include our post-codes, and they are shorter than US zip codes but Kent forgot that) - and that all that information DOES end up in the profiling machinery under a Phorm UID, even if Kent tells us it doesn't. And if he feels like it, he can do what he likes with it once he's got it (or some "associates" have obtained it by whatever means they choose, CD's in the post, laptop in a taxi, server maintenance crew etc. "taking a backup", essential BT Webwise network "maintenance" on BT servers - sorry correct that - FASTHOSTS servers etc etc).

I can understand that and agree.

And as for the BT FAQ being inaccurate - I took that for granted anyway. I'm a long time connoisseur of BT customer informationl. The Webwise stuff is up to their usual low standard.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

I trust what you're saying on this Alexander but it's difficult to trust companies who are commisioned by Phorm to give appraisals particularly if their findings seemingly don't get to be made public. Particularly when we were told on this forum that it would be a warts and all affair and Phorm were aware of this also and had a publish and be damned attitude...

More than once with 80/20 Thinking I've felt like I've been fed verbal rohipnol

- it sure feels like you've been shafted but you're never quite sure enough to start shouting about it!!

The PIA isn't finished yet, I spoke to Simon yesterday on the phone and he said there is about 3 days work left to do on it but until he can schedule those 3 days to do it then obviously it is going to be delayed. I could go on and tell you all about the things he has been doing for the past couple of weeks but that would be a breach of confidence. I would hope people trust me enough to accept that when I say Simon has been occupied by other very important issues, that I am not telling lies.

I keep in regular telephone communications with Simon to keep a flow of information running, but we also talk about a lot of stuff that is nothing to do with Phorm (which is understandable given his work in privacy advocacy and my interest in the same area) and I can't possibly be expected to run around the web shouting all that information for anyone to hear. I wouldn't do it with any of you guys, or any of my other friends and I am not about do it with anyone else.

Yes I am as frustrated as you guys are that the PIA hasn't been released yet and that the videos have not been released but I also make an effort to find out why and get updates.

As soon as I get notice that the PIA is completed I will post that information here immediately.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

MPO is this working party shouldn't be started using 80/20 thinking until the published PIA is realsed and phorm an ex customer.. Until then it is like putting the leader of the armed forces in charge of parliment and not saying it is a military coo...

Nothing against Simon but surely he can see the conflict of interest this will bring if Phorm is still a paying customer and the doubt it will bring on the outcome of this working party....

[icsys]

The PIA isn't finished yet as there are about 3 days work left to do on it.
But what of the video? Is it's release delayed because the PIA isn't finished?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by icsys

The PIA isn't finished yet as there are about 3 days work left to do on it.
But what of the video? Is it's release delayed because the PIA isn't finished?

The video is nothing to do with 80/20 Thinking, they were told by Phorm that the video would be released unedited to the public (before the event) and therefore added the info the event notice (granted they didn't clarify that Phorm were responsible for the video but I don't believe that was to try and hide the fact, merely a mistake).

Phorm seem to have chosen to not release the video now (although nothing official has come from Phorm regarding this either to myself, any of you guys or Simon) but there is nothing 80/20 can do to change that, it is not something within their control.

Simon apologised for the confusion about the video here in person, there isn't much more he can do in that regard.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

MPO is this working party shouldn't be started using 80/20 thinking until the published PIA is realsed and phorm an ex customer.. Until then it is like putting the leader of the armed forces in charge of parliment and not saying it is a military coo...

Nothing against Simon but surely he can see the conflict of interest this will bring if Phorm is still a paying customer and the doubt it will bring on the outcome of this working party....

I think you are mis-understanding what a working group is. 80/20 Thinking are leading the group, bringing people together from industry, regulators and others to build a framework. But they are not in "control", they don't decide the policy they are more like mediators but mediators who have experience of the law and issues being discussed.

Or at least that is my understanding of it, I could be wrong but 80/20 will be an objective party in the group as opposed to subjective (the industry would be subjective as they are debating how it effects them as opposed to looking at the issue from a neutral point).

The above is my personal opinion and interpretation though, I haven't discussed the issue at length with Simon, just comments in conversation.

If Simon manages to visit us again on cableforum people could ask him and I am sure he will be more than happy to respond.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------

On a more uplifting note, Phorm shares down almost 7% so far today and heading back to where they were before the unusual boost the other week.

Alexander Hanff

[icsys]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

The video is nothing to do with 80/20 Thinking, they were told by Phorm that the video would be released unedited to the public (before the event) and therefore added the info the event notice (granted they didn't clarify that Phorm were responsible for the video but I don't believe that was to try and hide the fact, merely a mistake).

Phorm seem to have chosen to not release the video now (although nothing official has come from Phorm regarding this either to myself, any of you guys or Simon) but there is nothing 80/20 can do to change that, it is not something within their control.

Simon apologised for the confusion about the video here in person, there isn't much more he can do in that regard.

Alexander Hanff

Sorry Alex, I understand that.
I wasn't very clear with my post. I meant that perhaps Phorm were delaying the release of the video until the PIA is finished.

Presumably if the video reflects the content of the written PIA, (or the other way around) then the video would be released.
If it doesn't.... well....

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by icsys

Sorry Alex, I understand that.
I wasn't very clear with my post. I meant that perhaps Phorm were delaying the release of the video until the PIA is finished.

Presumably if the video reflects the content of the written PIA, (or the other way around) then the video would be released.
If it doesn't.... well....

I really don't have an answer to that and wouldn't want to speculate. All I know is the video hasn't been released and that Simon has chased it up but has had no further information on it.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

The video is nothing to do with 80/20 Thinking, they were told by Phorm that the video would be released unedited to the public (before the event) and therefore added the info the event notice (granted they didn't clarify that Phorm were responsible for the video but I don't believe that was to try and hide the fact, merely a mistake).

Phorm seem to have chosen to not release the video now (although nothing official has come from Phorm regarding this either to myself, any of you guys or Simon) but there is nothing 80/20 can do to change that, it is not something within their control.

Simon apologised for the confusion about the video here in person, there isn't much more he can do in that regard.

Alexander Hanff

That should show Simon the type of person he is dealing with plus shows a valid reason for peoples distrust in what he says. Since he has proved he cannot be trusted to complete the tasks he says. Personally Simon should open his eyes and see Phorm managment for what they are.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I think you are mis-understanding what a working group is. 80/20 Thinking are leading the group, bringing people together from industry, regulators and others to build a framework. But they are not in "control", they don't decide the policy they are more like mediators but mediators who have experience of the law and issues being discussed.

Or at least that is my understanding of it, I could be wrong but 80/20 will be an objective party in the group as opposed to subjective (the industry would be subjective as they are debating how it effects them as opposed to looking at the issue from a neutral point).

The above is my personal opinion and interpretation though, I haven't discussed the issue at length with Simon, just comments in conversation.

If Simon manages to visit us again on cableforum people could ask him and I am sure he will be more than happy to respond.

Alexander Hanff

One big issue of this is that 80/20 seem to see just the benefits without the full impact of the consiquencies. Bring people together some might be not as wise in the ways to handle someone like Kent. They might beleive every word Kent says which the Video proves you cannot trust his word.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

On a more uplifting note, Phorm shares down almost 7% so far today and heading back to where they were before the unusual boost the other week.

Alexander Hanff

That is the only good news I have read so far today.

[Frank Rizzo]

Don't make the mistake of mixing up the working group projects with the PIA.

A working group would consist of diverse representatives - like a parliamentary committee would consist of labour, conservative, liberal democrats.

The PIA is a paid for assessment paid by Phorm.

The delay would surely be due to the draft copy 'not right' for Phorm and thus re-written until it is. He who pays the piper calls the tune...

Just as with the video: if the PIA does not paint Phorm in a good light then Phorm can choose not to release the PIA at all or delay it ad infinitum.

The PIA is not going to be independent and IMO it is tainted and can not be relied upon.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Okay I've got you now. A general point that the Phorm/Webwise collection/profiling that is going on, must include a lot of personally identifiable information (including google search items in Get requests- they can't prevent it (just as the BTYahoo cookies include our post-codes, and they are shorter than US zip codes but Kent forgot that) - and that all that information DOES end up in the profiling machinery under a Phorm UID, even if Kent tells us it doesn't. And if he feels like it, he can do what he likes with it once he's got it (or some "associates" have obtained it by whatever means they choose, CD's in the post, laptop in a taxi, server maintenance crew etc. "taking a backup", essential BT Webwise network "maintenance" on BT servers - sorry correct that - FASTHOSTS servers etc etc).

I can understand that and agree.

And as for the BT FAQ being inaccurate - I took that for granted anyway. I'm a long time connoisseur of BT customer informationl. The Webwise stuff is up to their usual low standard.

BT just looking to tell the same old lies in a new way. The fact is that whatever they say we have no way of knowing if it is true even if it is possible - no one is auditing this on our behalf. Similarly BT have no way of knowing what the phorm code is doing and are in no position to warrant its behaviour. In any case it is irrelevant, it is the interception that is illegal, makes no difference what is or is not done with the information.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by vicz

BT just looking to tell the same old lies in a new way. The fact is that whatever they say we have no way of knowing if it is true even if it is possible - no one is auditing this on our behalf. Similarly BT have no way of knowing what the phorm code is doing and are in no position to warrant its behaviour. In any case it is irrelevant, it is the interception that is illegal, makes no difference what is or is not done with the information.

Its not just what is going on inside the Phorm/Webwise/FASTHOSTS equipment that BT can't control and don't understand. They don't even tell each other what they are up to within BT itself. I think that the best form of information for BT support staff or other staff is to subscribe to a wire service, to pick up the press releases.

Remember - those BT Webwise trials are due to start before Monday according to the last press reported public statement from BT - except that the Director of Value Added Services says they aren't. It's all perfectly clear and everyone knows exactly what they are doing.

Still - the BT Beta forums seem to back online after only 3 days of malfunctioning.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Its not just what is going on inside the Phorm/Webwise/FASTHOSTS equipment that BT can't control and don't understand. They don't even tell each other what they are up to within BT itself. I think that the best form of information for BT support staff or other staff is to subscribe to a wire service, to pick up the press releases.

Well as neither a BT customer nor employee I can only take your word for it! But my general point is that all this talk about what fields they will or won't scan, or whether they will look inside cookies, etc., is pretty arcane. There is no way for a webwise customer to validate anything they are told, and no licensing mechanism to verify that they only do what they say they will or that there will not be accidental or deliberate function creep. And there is no specification for an 'acceptable' amount of interception in RIPA, save for the clauses on bilateral consent, and that essential to provide the service. Everyone enjoys phorm-bashing - and why not, they deserve it! - but it is the ISPs who are planning to do the dirty on their customers and it suits them to retain a certain amount of ignorance or even to mis-represent how phorm works so that they can point the finger of blame if the going gets tough.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by vicz

Well as neither a BT customer nor employee I can only take your word for it! But my general point is that all this talk about what fields they will or won't scan, or whether they will look inside cookies, etc., is pretty arcane. There is no way for a webwise customer to validate anything they are told, and no licensing mechanism to verify that they only do what they say they will or that there will not be accidental or deliberate function creep. And there is no specification for an 'acceptable' amount of interception in RIPA, save for the clauses on bilateral consent, and that essential to provide the service. Everyone enjoys phorm-bashing - and why not, they deserve it! - but it is the ISPs who are planning to do the dirty on their customers and it suits them to retain a certain amount of ignorance or even to mis-represent how phorm works so that they can point the finger of blame if the going gets tough.

The best path for anyone who feels they cannot trust their ISP once phormised (if ever) is to do as I have already done move to an ISP that is not signing up to phorm. Remember Kent will say he is talking to loads of ISPs as this suits his needs the more doubt he places in our minds our new ISP might be talking the less chance there is of us moving. To be sure you are safe you need an ISP like Zen or Aquiss where the extra phorm would bring is not what they are looking at since both look to customer services and keep their call centers in the UK. Unlike the three that are signed upto phorm where your help is offshore.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by vicz

Well as neither a BT customer nor employee I can only take your word for it! But my general point is that all this talk about what fields they will or won't scan, or whether they will look inside cookies, etc., is pretty arcane. There is no way for a webwise customer to validate anything they are told, and no licensing mechanism to verify that they only do what they say they will or that there will not be accidental or deliberate function creep. And there is no specification for an 'acceptable' amount of interception in RIPA, save for the clauses on bilateral consent, and that essential to provide the service. Everyone enjoys phorm-bashing - and why not, they deserve it! - but it is the ISPs who are planning to do the dirty on their customers and it suits them to retain a certain amount of ignorance or even to mis-represent how phorm works so that they can point the finger of blame if the going gets tough.

I agree - I'm much more focussed on my ISP than on Phorm. Kent's out to make a fast buck, and he's a spyware/rootkit merchant and performing exactly as we might expect someone to perform who has been involved in deceiving/fooling the public in the past - in one sense - good luck to him (butI hope he fails).

But my ISP pretend to be good guys, a blue chip mainstream national comms provider, and yet they spin even faster than Phorm do, and much less cleverly. My ISP ran secret and illegal trials, my ISP lied about what they were doing, my ISP holds its customers in considerable contempt, as well as holding quite a few of its staff in considerable contempt too. My ISP have been stupid enough to fall for Kent's spin, or evil enough to be partners with him in this unprecedented Layer 7 interception technology, and even NOW they haven't clearly explained even that it will be only be available by active informed consent to opt-IN.

I just hope that my country's legal system will do the decent thing and prosecute some of the BT executives for breaking the law - instead of just chasing teenage file-sharers to protect Sony and EMI - why won't they prosecute a big company like BT to protect ME!!?

---------- Post added at 15:51 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Florence

The best path for anyone who feels they cannot trust their ISP once phormised (if ever) is to do as I have already done move to an ISP that is not signing up to phorm. Remember Kent will say he is talking to loads of ISPs as this suits his needs the more doubt he places in our minds our new ISP might be talking the less chance there is of us moving. To be sure you are safe you need an ISP like Zen or Aquiss where the extra phorm would bring is not what they are looking at since both look to customer services and keep their call centers in the UK. Unlike the three that are signed upto phorm where your help is offshore.

Point taken Florence, but I'm much more trouble to my ISP if I stay with them at the moment, and anyway - it is THEY who should have to change, not me! After all - it's illegality, I'm complaining about, not targeted advertising.

[BetBlowWhistler]

<OT>

Originally Posted by Florence

Until then it is like putting the leader of the armed forces in charge of parliment and not saying it is a military coo...

LMFAO

I just had this picture fly through my head of a big pidgeon with a peaked cap on !

or did you mean coup ?
lol

</OT>