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

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Peter N

BT have stated in their revised FAQs that opted out customers are completely removed from the profiling system.

I only include for the sake of accuracy and make no comment on the validity of the statement.

53. What happens when I switch off BT Webwise?

When BT Webwise is off you won't receive warnings before reaching fraudulent websites. BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit to see if there are better adverts to show you; no data, in fact, will be analysed, stored or passed to Phorm or any other partner if you are switched off. You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.

And, in the letter BT sent to R Jones, where they comment about RIPA compliance, BT clearly say that "If an interception is required to give effect to a customer's (or website owner's) decision not to participate, we do not consider that a consent is required."

Tie that in with the diagram at http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html and there is no doubt at all that everything is intercepted by the DPI system (level 7 switch) - "all HTTP traffic" goes through the cookie redirect circus.

I keep hoping that the diagram will be updated for the cookie-less version. If they are not storing the UID in a user cookie, where are they storing it? - somewhere in the green, blue or orange zones?

Also note, there is no path for data FROM the internet into the system, yet BT legal clearly say that data on that path is being intercepted by the system.

Here's a copy of the diagram Madslug refers to - this will save anyone from having to visit the Webwise site.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[madslug]

Originally Posted by rryles

Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was added in 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2498 as follows:



From here: http://tinyurl.com/58cwyw

I leave the interpretation to the reader

A good find.

My understanding is that that amendment ensured that there were no copyright infringement claims against the network for the caches made during the transmission of data. If BT are claiming this as their defence, does it mean that they are replacing the cache they used for earlier delivery systems [a layer 2 or 3 switch?] with the Layer 7 switch?

A conflict of interest?

(For the non techies. The cache is a copy of data packets between host server and the user browser and is necessary for efficient delivery of web content. As not the whole content of a site can be sent within one packet, copies of the packets are made by the system so that if there is corruption / dropping of one of the packets, that packet can be resent rather than having to re-request everything from the host server. You will see the effect of the delivery of different packets in the way in which your browser will sometimes redraw the screen as content and images are downloaded.)

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Here's a copy of the diagram Madslug refers to - this will save anyone from having to visit the Webwise site.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

I suppose as the diagram is already on the internet we can infer BT's consent to copying it - maybe even modifying it, or selling altered copies to another ISP? Or using it as the starting point for a money making scheme?

And of course we have yet to see (and won't be seeing for a long time yet) any diagrams of the cookie-free "not-opting-in" system they have been touting. Nor any clear verbal indication of what it will look like.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Here's a copy of the diagram Madslug refers to - this will save anyone from having to visit the Webwise site.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Does that mean that if you don't have a webwise cookie - perhaps you're using a different laptop, have cleared cookies, or for any other reason - you'll be constantly spammed by invitations to join 'webwise'?

[ImaJack]

Originally Posted by ImaJack

I seem to remember in the distant past in this thread (at least I think it was here) a poster putting forward TOR- Anonymity online as one way of escaping being profiled. I think also it was debunked.

Can someone confirm whether or not TOR would work and if possible an explanation why (if true) it wouldn't.

I am trying to raise awareness on an airline based message board which obviously has many aircrew members- good people to have onside I think. Being IT useless I need some help!

Thanks for the explanation of TOR.

Because this is way above my head do any of you who responded to my question mind if I cut and paste the relevant parts and and post them on the other message board?

I'll make sure I don't claim credit for it and won't put any usernames there either. I'll wait a couple of days to give you a chance to object, I read all the posts here so I'll spot it if anyone doesn't want me to do it.

If nothing else it keeps the thread I opened a couple of months ago on BT/Phorm appearing on the front page of the board.

I have posted a link to this thread too but I imagine it's a bit too much to expect someone to read right through 800+ pages!

[HaveToBeAnon]

Keep going boys and girls, you are winning, the message is slowly getting out there. There is now sufficient opposition that if BT ever start the trial, its going to be so high-profile across the entire news media and every web forum, that no one will want to sign up.

The man is the street will rise up and join the cause, and the few hundred here will turn into tens of thousands, but this won't happen until the battle starts, and people see the need to fight.

[Florence]

We must be getting near another post giving main points and links to important posts.

It is a massive thread and does at times get diluted with distractions but it is all in the discussion..

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Does that mean that if you don't have a webwise cookie - perhaps you're using a different laptop, have cleared cookies, or for any other reason - you'll be constantly spammed by invitations to join 'webwise'?

That is what I believe will happen, yes...

[davethejag]

Hi, Nebuad article -

"Has NebuAd Ruined Behavioral Targeting?"

From here -

http://www.adotas.com/2008/07/has-ne...ral-targeting/

Dave.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Does that mean that if you don't have a webwise cookie - perhaps you're using a different laptop, have cleared cookies, or for any other reason - you'll be constantly spammed by invitations to join 'webwise'?

The diagram - the only one available - illustrates the system that uses cookies for opting-in out. BT have since stated that they are working on a non-cookie based method for the full roll-out - no mention of how they'll operate the trial.

It's worth pointing out that BT and Phorm appear to have been muddying the waters ever since this thing came to light so no-one is entirely sure of how the system actually works. They even invented a whole new language using terms such as "mirrored" and "profiled" and "data digest" but refused to explain what they actually mean when we asked on the BT forum.

BT are now refusing point blank to even reply to emails, letters or phone calls regarding Webwise from many people and the few responses that we do see are shallow and often directly offensive.

The bottom line is that BT have become such a bunch of lying **** that anything they say is no longer to be trusted and everything should be taken as false until proven otherwise.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by davethejag

Hi, Nebuad article -

"Has NebuAd Ruined Behavioral Targeting?"

From here -

http://www.adotas.com/2008/07/has-ne...ral-targeting/

Dave.

I liked this quote from the above

"In a recent survey of online consumers conducted by Burst Media, only 2 out of every 10 respondents approved of having their information tracked, even if it meant more relevant advertising."

It is so weird that these surveys constantly seem to miss the huge demographic sample of tracking enthusiasts who want more relevant advertising, that BT surveyed. ;-)

Come on BT - publish "Premium Browsing:Research Findings" and put us all out of our misery.
It's got to be valuable - it will have a rarity value something akin to the Penny Black.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Does that mean that if you don't have a webwise cookie - perhaps you're using a different laptop, have cleared cookies, or for any other reason - you'll be constantly spammed by invitations to join 'webwise'?

No one except BT can say. And they won't say. They remain significantly, embarrassingly, incompetently, disgracefully, culpably, deliberately knowingly silent on the issue.

It's what they DON'T say that gives the game away.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Does that mean that if you don't have a webwise cookie - perhaps you're using a different laptop, have cleared cookies, or for any other reason - you'll be constantly spammed by invitations to join 'webwise'?

There should be a 'blacklist' on an IP address for some time (half hour?) so that you don't see the invitation before every page.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by madslug

There should be a 'blacklist' on an IP address for some time (half hour?) so that you don't see the invitation before every page.

That blacklist was another bit of the system that Dr Clayton effectively demolished with his technical analysis. It fails to account for the effect on different computers sharing the same IP address, and for the SAME computer using different ISP's during that "half hour".

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by madslug

There should be a 'blacklist' on an IP address for some time (half hour?) so that you don't see the invitation before every page.

and don't forget that if you use certain web browsers (safari is one) then the Phorm system in it's current form won't work and they don't even try to invite you/drop a cookie on your system - the layer 7 kit just automatically routes you straight to where you wanted to go in the first place.