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

[Florence]

Originally Posted by rryles

That would come under "they've got funding recently". I wasn't aware of that. It confirms that they were getting low and needed a top up.

Wasn't that when Morgan and stanley invested into this diabolical idea...

[Dephormation]

http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/4...with-more-isps

From April...
"Phorm said it was funded by $5 million from Morgan Stanley Principal Investments in February 2007, a $30 million share placing in June 2007 and raised a further $65 million last month, boasting: “In these current times of uncertainty in the financial markets, the fact that we were able to raise significant funds is testament to the strength and potential of our business model.” It’s now got $16.6 million in the bank. "

So after raising $65M, they had $16M in the bank in April, if I read that correctly. Where did $84M go? And how much of that $16M is left now?

That same article says they burned $22.4 million cash in the previous year... At that burn rate they won't have much left by November.

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by madslug

It looks like only BT gets hopped around. I have similar hops from the DNS router out to google for the 216 address.
Has anyone checked the internal BT hops from mid-June when there were also multiple hops? - I thought that was less than the current 7 hops?

How does one check for a traceroute on port 443 - i.e. to nodpi.org?

It would be really interesting to be able to see if port 443 traffic has the same 7 internal hops.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34577959 some old ones

[fidbod]

Gather round boys and girls and let me tell you about MPs and their concern for data protection and privacy.

I have as many have been, in regular contact with my MP about Phorm albeit with limited sucess. So to my surprise there was a letter waiting from me when i got home last night.

Unable to contain my anticipation I opened to find a rather bland letter confirming that she has written to BERR on my behalf and has enclosed the reply from Shriti Vadera.

Not so bad a hear you musing but here is the kicker.

The letter from BERR did not reference me at all. In fact it was the photocopy of a response from BERR that my MP's office has recieved from a seperate complaint about Phorm. Bad enough and yet there was worse....

The response from BERR contained the full name, address and phone number of the other individual who had written to complain about Phorm.

It really makes me wonder if the majority of Parliament live in cloud cuckoo land and have no concept of data protection!!

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/4...with-more-isps

From April...
"Phorm said it was funded by $5 million from Morgan Stanley Principal Investments in February 2007, a $30 million share placing in June 2007 and raised a further $65 million last month, boasting: “In these current times of uncertainty in the financial markets, the fact that we were able to raise significant funds is testament to the strength and potential of our business model.” It’s now got $16.6 million in the bank. "

So after raising $65M, they had $16M in the bank in April, if I read that correctly. Where did $84M go? And how much of that $16M is left now?

That same article says they burned $22.4 million cash in the previous year... At that burn rate they won't have much left by November.

They sure do know how to spend money. Can't wait until September when we'll see their interim results. (Assuming they are still around then )

Originally Posted by rryles

They sure do know how to spend money. Can't wait until September when we'll see their interim results. (Assuming they are still around then )

Paying PROs to patrol forums like this one is an expensive business, I imagine.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Paying PROs to patrol forums like this one is an expensive business, I imagine.

I assume you weren't referring to the mods

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Wildie

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34577959 some old ones

Looking at the IP ranges people are seeing bouncing around, they are basically made up of 4 different ranges:

217.32.99.186
inetnum: 217.32.96.0 - 217.32.103.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: BT-MIDBAND
country: GB

217.41.176.17
inetnum: 217.41.168.0 - 217.41.176.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: BT-MIDBAND
country: GB

213.123.109.161
inetnum: 213.123.96.0 - 213.123.111.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: BT-MIDBAND
country: GB

217.47.73.13 - common to many traceroutes
inetnum: 217.47.30.0 - 217.47.153.255
netname: BT-MIDBAND
descr: RAS Boxes
country: GB

The following named routers, birmingham, ilford, etc - 194. ranges look like DNS routers

Here is a theory, techies welcome to tear it apart.

it looks like the 217.47 and 217.32 ranges are the reverse DNS for the broadband connection - can this be confirmed from the router settings? That is what picks up the data stream from your computer, before it is sent anywhere. What does not make sense is that the in and out IP addresses are different (that was commented about as a possible problem with the 2006 trial)

That leaves the 217.41 and 213.123 ranges sitting with question marks over them and the jury is still out on the 217.47 range.

Two questions:
What are the browser logs showing - in and out responses?
What happens if you block the 217.41 range at your router/firewall level?

3rd Question - any BT customers who are not seeing the bounces?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by fidbod

Gather round boys and girls and let me tell you about MPs and their concern for data protection and privacy.

I have as many have been, in regular contact with my MP about Phorm albeit with limited sucess. So to my surprise there was a letter waiting from me when i got home last night.

Unable to contain my anticipation I opened to find a rather bland letter confirming that she has written to BERR on my behalf and has enclosed the reply from Shriti Vadera.

Not so bad a hear you musing but here is the kicker.

The letter from BERR did not reference me at all. In fact it was the photocopy of a response from BERR that my MP's office has recieved from a seperate complaint about Phorm. Bad enough and yet there was worse....

The response from BERR contained the full name, address and phone number of the other individual who had written to complain about Phorm.

It really makes me wonder if the majority of Parliament live in cloud cuckoo land and have no concept of data protection!!

Of course you are reporting all that to the ICO aren't you? Report the DBERR and report the MP. Did neither of them spot that? Oh definitely - make a formal report and then follow it up for the enforcement response. At least it will get a correspondence going between BERR and ICO. if they don't say much back to you, then someone else can stick in an FOI response (in a few weeks once your complaint has run its course) and ask if the ICO have had cause to warn the BERR about DPA breaches.

Then when you have all that in your hands, (having anonymised any information provided by anyone else!!) go back to the BERR via your MP, and ask them both if they think DPA is important, in the light of their slackness, and start again with your question, on the basis that maybe now they appreciate the subject a little better and pay a little bit more attention to you than they did last time. I think they will be a little more focussed second time. These people hate being caught out.

The wheels of justice do grind slow - the trick is to keep turning them.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by fidbod

Gather round boys and girls and let me tell you about MPs and their concern for data protection and privacy.

I have as many have been, in regular contact with my MP about Phorm albeit with limited sucess. So to my surprise there was a letter waiting from me when i got home last night.

Unable to contain my anticipation I opened to find a rather bland letter confirming that she has written to BERR on my behalf and has enclosed the reply from Shriti Vadera.

Not so bad a hear you musing but here is the kicker.

The letter from BERR did not reference me at all. In fact it was the photocopy of a response from BERR that my MP's office has recieved from a seperate complaint about Phorm. Bad enough and yet there was worse....

The response from BERR contained the full name, address and phone number of the other individual who had written to complain about Phorm.

It really makes me wonder if the majority of Parliament live in cloud cuckoo land and have no concept of data protection!!

Personally, I would call the other person, apologise for the inconvenience, aim them in the right direction, light the blue touch paper, retreat and watch the fireworks.
<edit>
The reason being, they have a right to know their privacy has been compromised.

Which government department(s) is/are directly responsible for IT and communications as it relates to the general public?

It seems to me that there is no ministerial responsibility and that we are scatting about trying to find someone with knowledge and authority. Is it worth asking the known contacts at Westminster if establishing such a department is a possibility especially as we are now in the 21st century.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Are you taking into account $65M raised in March?

Yet another piece of information that states "exclusive agreements with UK internet service providers BT plc, TalkTalk and Virgin Media Inc, to implement Phorm's advertising platform".

Granted, the document is dated March 2008, and Virgin publicly announced that it had not agreed to deploy or adopt the system on May 1st. But the fact is this company is gaining funding on false claims.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by icsys

Yet another piece of information that states "exclusive agreements with UK internet service providers BT plc, TalkTalk and Virgin Media Inc, to implement Phorm's advertising platform".

Granted, the document is dated March 2008, and Virgin publicly announced that it had not agreed to deploy or adopt the system on May 1st. But the fact is this company is gaining funding on false claims.

Don't forget, whatever Virgin Media might be saying at the moment, no one forced them to put these words on their website (captured in April)

We are currently at the early stages of working to deliver the Webwise solution and will be writing to you nearer the time to advise when the solution will be ‘switched on’ providing more detail of what this will mean to you. Given the benefits of Webwise, we’re pleased to be offering you this service and making your web experience safer and more relevant.

Why has Virgin Media partnered with Phorm?
We are very keen to ensure our customers have a safer online experience, but without blocking access. In this respect Webwise allows us to alert customers that they may be attempting to visit a site known to be fraudulent. Additionally, by providing customers with more relevant advertising, they should be able to find products and services that are more interesting for them.

Brings back happy memories of asking questions... then being confined to Fergals 'Webwise' thread... getting no answers... Fergal and Alex not responding to anything for months...

[icsys]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Personally, I would call the other person, apologise for the inconvenience, aim them in the right direction, light the blue touch paper, retreat and watch the fireworks.
<edit>
The reason being, they have a right to know their privacy has been compromised.

Reference this article:

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Finnish government to pay out €34,000 because it failed to protect a citizen's personal data. One data protection expert said that the case creates a vital link between data security and human rights.
http://www.out-law.com/page-9287

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by icsys

Yet another piece of information that states "exclusive agreements with UK internet service providers BT plc, TalkTalk and Virgin Media Inc, to implement Phorm's advertising platform".

Granted, the document is dated March 2008, and Virgin publicly announced that it had not agreed to deploy or adopt the system on May 1st. But the fact is this company is gaining funding on false claims.

After what Virgin Media has subsequently said regarding their relationship with Phorm according to reports over the last month or two, I think either Virgin Media or Phorm have been possibly somewhat economical with the truth.

If I was a self respecting ISP owner and considering all the outrage against Phorm by ISP customers, I would go out of my way to ensure anything quoted about my company's current relationship with Phorm, was correct, even if I was considering dealing with Phorm in the future.

Something smells fishy IMHO and has done so for quite some time. Virgin Media seem happy to leave hard evidence by Phorm about their relationship, open on the table.