Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 539

Rchivist · 05-06-2008, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

One thing none of you have picked up on yet is the mention of the sample size for the Phase 2 trials (the 2007 trials). 350 000. Now BT have reportedly stated they scaled back on original plans for the 2007 trials but have refused to give a number. So how many do we really think were involved in the 2007 trial?

Alexander Hanff

Well - haven't you got the relevant document?

Come on Alex, you're slipping.

I'm off to bed now, there'll be a lot to read tomorrow.

mark777 · 05-06-2008, 00:29

Page 5

"BT will design and re-engineer the network to enable the integration of such a facility"

They are not going to just walk away from this are they?

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

Well - haven't you got the relevant document?

Come on Alex, you're slipping.

I'm off to bed now, there'll be a lot to read tomorrow.

Well I wanted one of you lot to find it, I didn't want to spoil all the surprises.

Alexander Hanff

05-06-2008, 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

I've had a re-read as well. Here's my take.

There were two lots of ad purchasing.

Prior to the trial - to get 121Media cookies on BT customer's machines (covertly) 121Media purchased ads for 2 weeks PRIOR to the trial, on "3rd party popular websites" so they could drop their own cookie secretly on as many computers as possible.

On cookies: Reading 4th section (page 46 of 52 in footer) - I see the 3rd paragraph states cookie dropping could not be done in this trial due to the legal position. So I'm not sure they did do this but if someone has evidence or has read in the hefty document that they did, I'll happily stand corrected.

Hank

labougie · 05-06-2008, 00:52

Anyone know what Phorm's fixed assets are? Would it be worth offering Kent a fiver for the lot in the morning?

BadPhormula · 05-06-2008, 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Looks like we just come back shouting louder though.. This needs to be sorted and if Emma has to answer questions on a lie detector so be it, after all it is only the same amount of invaision on her privacy as she plans on BT customers

You don't have to worry about that too much.. As long as Emma appears in front of a microphone (Radio, TV or YouTube) her voice can be analysed by a 'voice stress analyser' (the same technology used by Insurance companies to catch claim cheats).

Unfortunately this technology isn't going to work on liars like Kunt Ertugrul because he is a 'pathological liar' and can beat these kind of presentday A.I. primative systems. However make sure everybody saves all his YouTube videos, TV, and Radio stuff because in a few years the voice analysis A.I. technology will be good enough even against a sociopathic *******s like him.

OldBear · 05-06-2008, 00:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

On cookies: Reading 4th section (page 46 of 52 in footer) - I see the 3rd paragraph states cookie dropping could not be done in this trial due to the legal position. So I'm not sure they did do this but if someone has evidence or has read in the hefty document that they did, I'll happily stand corrected.

Hank

Hank, on page 7 in the document, and I mentioned it in this post: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post8018.html

Quote:

Normally the PageSense system deploys cookies directly to user's machines. BT's broadband terms and conditions prevented this approach. Instead 121Media conducted an initial cookie drop exercise. For two-weeks prior to the trial proper 121Media purchased advertising space on popular third-party websites from which cookies were dropped directly onto users machines.

Phorm dropped 3rd party cookies to users themselves in the 2 weeks ahead of the trial, and then all the way through it.

That's how they got round BT's T&Cs.

I'm surprised that no-one has made more mention of the Javascript injections. Given that Emma S. keeps stuttering out her "it's err... umm... not illegal" carp, I would say that injecting this sort of thing into hundreds of thousands of [intercepted] pages (without permission) before sending them to unsuspecting users is not exactly legal.

I'm also sure that the admission of collecting IP addresses also blows a few holes in the "we don't collect personal information" argument. JHMO

OB

mark777 · 05-06-2008, 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

You don't have to worry about ...
{snip}

You might want to think about using a '*' or an 'e' in the first name of The Prince of Darkness.

05-06-2008, 01:43

Having worked in call centres there are a couple of points that make BT's statements regarding the call centre's ignorance dubious.

The software, recording equipment and internal monitoring would all be at the call centre and under the control and supervision of call centre staff - not BT head-office. In order to keep a record of the nature of calls which are likely to relate to the trial, especially given the extremely wide nature of possible queries, there would have to be a change in work routines and the call centre managers would have to be aware of that.

Call contents are not analysed by listen to the call - BT technical support has only one phone number and there are no "press button 3" type options so the only automated record they could have relate to total call volume.

There's also no way that BT's call centre has software with tick-boxes to cover every type of question such that it could be analysed for the "right type" of question as there are so many types of questions that they will receive. BT couldn't look at all if the reports of slow speeds or crashing browsers for example and work out how many relate to the trial.

By far the likeliest scenario - one I seen used dozens of times - is the low-tech one where the staff are told to write down the details of any calls regarding quite specific circumstances such as discovering strange cookies or problems with very specific websits - the ones showing 121Medias adverts.

Either way, the call centre must have known that BT wanted an unusual data analysis and it is ridiculous to suppose that the call agents, supervisors and managers who will have handled the calls.

Do BT really expect us to believe that the call centres knew which calls to report for their stats but didn't query whether or not the calls themselves needed handling differently form usual?

If the call centre believed that these were just regualr problems, how was it possible for that same call centre to provide those figures for BT?

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 03:20

Nobody else noticed yet that the network latency doubled during peak load from 3s to 6s?

Alexander Hanff

SMHarman · 05-06-2008, 03:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

NO

I found out my mother still has her 220 shares in BT shse was given when she retired from work. She is 86 she used to go to the AGM's with a friend from work they made a week trip out of an AGM. The last 5 yrs she hasn't been going ill health I didn't know she still had therm until I started talking to her about her shares. seems she has 200 TSB shares which pays her more divi than BT's ever have.
From now I will handle the shares for her no more letting the chairperson handle the proxy vote.

Sorry, YES. You own a share of the company, you have no participation in the day to day operation and control of the company, you have delegated that to the board of directors. As an owner if you are not happy with that you can change those people that control the company. This is basic company law.

popper · 05-06-2008, 03:54

for Cf you mean?, i always have higher latency on the VM cable this time of night for some strange reason so i didnt notice, and i cant even find the cf latency No on the page right now doh! i know it got one somewere but i forget were LOl.

BTW, still nothing on the wires, i use one of the same one's ELReg uses
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/?JavaScri...=&search=phorm

and still nothing on Google News yet
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8...nG=Search+News

but at least Technorati has finally started collecting and displaying related links.
http://technorati.com/search/phorm?a...y=n&language=n

and theres no visable mod on the CF site right now to PM so we could'nt get a CF news item up there right now to have the wires find it.

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Sorry, YES. You own a share of the company, you have no participation in the day to day operation and control of the company, you have delegated that to the board of directors. As an owner if you are not happy with that you can change those people that control the company. This is basic company law.

Yes but I think what she means is she gets a right to question the board during the AGM.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 04:00 ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by popper

for Cf you mean?, i always have higher latency on the VM cable this time of night for some strange reason so i didnt notice, and i cant even find the cf latency No on the page right now doh! i know it got one somewere but i forget were LOl.

No part of the report measures the latency caused by the PageSense system and during peak load it went up from 3s to 6s also packet loss increased too if I remember correctly. I will have another look at the report tomorrow and cite it.

Alexander Hanff

popper · 05-06-2008, 04:09

LOL, i downloaded the BT PDF, but didnt get around to reading it as im busy trying to get the storie(s) linked far and wide.

i always think wednesday evening stories have a far greater impact on the share prices, as the news hits home, and the shareholders get to hear thursday, and act by friday at the latest...

the usual 3 day turn around on most news stories is a good rule of thumb.

SMHarman · 05-06-2008, 04:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Yes but I think what she means is she gets a right to question the board during the AGM.

Alexander Hanff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Was wondering on that since I am holding 220 shares would be wondering where this leaves us shareholders who knew nothing since Bt didn't do any informed reviews to shareholders over this. Or my mother glazed over at the technical stuff and gave chair control of her proxy vote but BT have shown you need to keep ontop of them as a share holder and this will never happen again..

I was picking up on the "BT Bt didn't do any informed reviews to shareholders over this." Equally on many other strategic decisions, the spin off of O2 for example did not have shareholder involvement, they are board decisions to be made and questioned after the fact.