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

[smcicr]

on this whole technology thing I'd love to know how many people who own PVR's (Sky+, V+ etc) do NOT fast forward through adverts in programmes they have recorded.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by feesch

So my point is that advertsing and technology ARE part of the debate - and how both are combined and used is a given. You are not going to win this one by saying advertsing doesn't work and we don't want progress - there has to be a smarter and more navigatable solution.

Phorm is not progress,it is far too intrusive, it is a retrograde step back towards spyware.

Advertising works if people see it, when advertising on the web starts to annoy people they will block it.

Nor is it appropriate in certain cases , such as listening into my phonecalls to sell me something or keyword scraping my instant messenger chats - when I am searching for info fine, not when I am communicating with friends. Facebook take note.

What's so very different about phone calls and messenger chats, many people will anonymously discuss very private issues in a public forum that they wouldn't discuss with their friends or family.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by smcicr

on this whole technology thing I'd love to know how many people who own PVR's (Sky+, V+ etc) do NOT fast forward through adverts in programmes they have recorded.

It's a great question, and I know that I certainly would fast forward through all advertising if I were given the chance.

However, a protracted debate on this specific subject (whilst I can see the merit in it as a discussion, and would certainly encourage it as a topic of debate elsewhere on CF) wouldn't actually be relevant to the issue of Phorm/WebWise and their implementation, or to the debate for/against it

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Hi Feesch welcome.
We are not luddites and loombreakers we are called geeks by some because of our love of the technology ,This debate is mainly about choice and the way one ISP in particular has ignored peoples privacy and it was not until there underhandedness was made public that the issues arose.IT (acym Information tech) is a typical way that function creep has now led it to be akin to AT(advertising Tech).When you steal peoples right to choose then you must accept the consequences not sit in the corner sulking and spreading untruths,like a spoilt brat(KE).

Tarquin G Loombreaker-Smythe.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by feesch

but if you don't realise that you are being 'persuaded' then all credit to the 'persuaders', because that is their job.

Phorm is more akin to being stalked than persuaded.
Great advertising understands the underlying needs of customers. It doesn't need to stalk people to persuade them.

Originally Posted by feesch

So my point is that advertsing and technology ARE part of the debate - and how both are combined and used is a given. You are not going to win this one by saying advertsing doesn't work and we don't want progress - there has to be a smarter and more navigatable solution.

In nearly 1000 posts I don't think I've read one that says advertising doesn't work.

However, for an economy to work properly, you require private, secure, and trustworthy communication services.

If you deny those principles, a society will reinstate them for themselves, for example by encrypting data, and communicating & trading in secret. It has profound implications for Government; how do you detect criminal misconduct in such a situation?

There have to be limits on marketing, else why not break down my front door, take an inventory of my living room, and decide whether I need a new TV and sofa.

Communication interception by private companies for targeted advertising is obscene, and crosses the line for me.

[phormwatch]

feesch

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the majority of people opposed to Phorm's intrusive technology are somehow anti-technology luddites, and believe the advertising doesn't work.

Either you genuinely misunderstand our arguments or you are being disingenuous.

To re-enforce what's already been said, we are not anti-technologists or luddites. In fact, many of us are 'geeks'. We love IT and technology. Many of us work in IT or technology related fields and hold degrees in IT or technology.

Secondly, we did not say that advertising doesn't work (though many of us, myself included, studiously avoid advertising whenever possible). What we are opposed to is the method of advertising delivery used by Phorm. The technology is intrusive and almost certainly illegal.

Finally, you claim to be concerned about the ethical side of marketing. What do you think of BTs covert trials using Phorm's technology in 2006 and 2007, and BTs subsequent lies about it? Do you think the 'product' which 121Media produced called 'PeopleOnPage' was ethical? If so, do you disagree with the decision of anti-virus companies to label it 'Spyware'? Finally, do you think it was appropriate/ethical for Kent/Phorm to organise a 'Town Hall Meeting' with technologists and the press in order to have an 'open debate' about Phorm, claim that the whole event will be filmed and released on the web shortly afterwards, and then subsequently refuse to release the video when the meeting put Phorm in a bad light?

I'm genuinely interested in your responses to these questions. Do you talk to Kent often? Have you discussed these things?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by feesch

Waking up to find I have ruffled a few more feathers this morning...

Good, that was my intention. hello peoples. This is Dean Donaldson. Note I deliberately did not state my personal aspect on all this, I was merely posing a viewpoint to the counter-measure .

Advertsing works. Cookies are a part of the web - and you leave footprints. Whether we like it, agree with it or not - it is now here. 10% of ALL company revenue is spent on advertisng, and has been for last 90 years - whether on posters, TV ads, or sales men - because it works. Anyone think thet are immune to advertising must live on another planet, (and a quick check through your cupboards and wardrobes and garage will prove it!) but if you don't realise that you are being 'persuaded' then all credit to the 'persuaders', because that is their job.

How did you find my blog? Some "automated" system that enabled you to find content - that did not exist a few years ago. So you obviously appreciate technology advances to have your voice. So are we to herald all technology as inherently evil? Is it the medium or the message? Questions that have long been posed around - or you going to say 'rock music is evil, TV is evil' and go live in a Hamish community?

So my point is that advertsing and technology ARE part of the debate - and how both are combined and used is a given. You are not going to win this one by saying advertsing doesn't work and we don't want progress - there has to be a smarter and more navigatable solution.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 ----------



@PhormWatch: Think you would do better to read this one.
http://deandonaldson.wordpress.com/2...ing-in-the-uk/

You may get a MUCH bigger picture of what is coming...

Welcome Feesch. Good to read your post.

My objection to Phorm/Webwise is not an objection to tracking per se. It is an objection to the technology being used to carry out the tracking, and the technology being used to present the targetted ads. I am fully aware that I am tracked on the internet, on the road, by my mobile, when I shop with my store card, and perhaps also even when I walk round the supermarket should certain wireless technology be widely adopted in packaging. I am not naive.

It is an objection to the use of DPI and Layer 7 for commercial purposes such as behavioural targetted advertising, involving the monitoring of my entire data stream when on the internet.

It is an objection to companies with dubious ethical histories being given access to the entire data stream of a massive ISP, including my data stream without my informed consent.

It is an objection to my ISP conducting illegal covert trials without my consent and being untruthful about it.

Adverts, and targetted adverts, are a related but different issue. I already am able to make an individual choice regarding what adverts I choose to see while browsing.
I am already able to make an individual choice as to whether I allow all cookies, individual cookies, and third party cookies.
I am already able to block any domain I wish from either setting cookies or by adding it to my hosts file.
I don't object to adverts, I just actually watch,see,read very very few of them - on any medium.

In all the other areas I am aware of, where behavioural targetting occurs I am able to make an informed choice - (store cards, Nectar cards and such like). With Phorm/Webwise DPI my choice is negated, and all my data stream is intercepted whether I like it or not.

My ISP is giving me NO choice about this technology being inserted between me and the internet. My data stream will pass through this technology whether I am opted out or in of Webwise. Their own diagrams make this clear, and I'm afraid I don't trust them with that amount of access to my data stream. I have good cause to mistrust them.

I also object as a webmaster (of charity sites), to this technology intercepting and exploiting the data stream between my site and my site visitors.

I also object to this technology forging cookies from my sites that purport to come from my site, and doing so in contravention of my site privacy policy, my legal rights, and my publicly viewable site terms and conditions.

I also object to this technology "assuming" that if I allow google web crawling bots access to my site, that I also want the Webwise technology to intercept my datastream, forge cookies, copy my site content and exploit the unique personal data exchange I have with my site visitors for THEIR commercial gain with no payment to me.

I have been unable to get any satisfactory answers from my ISP or Phorm to the above points. They have supplied answers, but they are fudges, and ignore all the key issues I have raised above. They are deceptive answers.

I am not prepared to be diverted into a discussion about the trends in advertising, until my own reasonable questions have been answered. My ISP and their lawyers seem unable to answer the questions.

Feesch has a very nicely written blog but it is irrelevent to this discussion.

We are discussing whether or not it is acceptable and legal for any company or organisation to intercept our web-traffic and process that data in order to profile us for any reason without a warrant being issued based on a specific requirement pertaining to the individual.

The fact that one potential use for such systems is to deliver targetted advertising is only relevent because that is Phorm's stated purpose but the financial benefit to ISPs, advertising companies and High St brands is neither here nor there especially since the ISPs - the only group that we are contractually involved with - have not made any claims or statements regarding the use of any income derived from this system.

Feesch's case boils down to a single statement - DPI should be used because it can make a lot of money for a few people involved in sales.

Don't let these people draw attention away from the core issue - our right as law-abiding citizens to chose who has access to our personal information regardless of why they want it or how they plan to use it.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Feesch has a very nicely written blog but it is irrelevent to this discussion.

We are discussing whether or not it is acceptable and legal for any company or organisation to intercept our web-traffic and process that data in order to profile us for any reason without a warrant being issued based on a specific requirement pertaining to the individual.

The fact that one potential use for such systems is to deliver targetted advertising is only relevent because that is Phorm's stated purpose but the financial benefit to ISPs, advertising companies and High St brands is neither here nor there especially since the ISPs - the only group that we are contractually involved with - have not made any claims or statements regarding the use of any income derived from this system.

Feesch's case boils down to a single statement - DPI should be used because it can make a lot of money for a few people involved in sales.

Don't let these people draw attention away from the core issue - our right as law-abiding citizens to chose who has access to our personal information regardless of why they want it or how they plan to use it.

Couldn't have said it better myself I still haven't had time to read this blog but snippets are coming to light and I wonder just where the main body of the information generated from.

[madslug]

Hi Dean - a few weeks back I made a post which related to the history of one of the tracking scripts. Even though I linked to a google cache, when people visited the page they had malware download warnings.

The big problem is that for the last 4/5 years, adverts relying on javascripts, etc have been associated with the downloading of malware and rootkits. DPI is seen in the same light as that malware and rootkits.

The risks are the origins of the adblockers, cookie removal/blocking and hosts file restrictions far more than the adverts themselves.

My personal view is that the advertising industry needs to clean up its act and start to use methods which do not expose anyone viewing ads to such risks, not look for methods to increase those risks. And DPI is a method too far. Ad delivery needs to go back to what it was doing before the malware and rootkits got added by the hackers.

Give us adverts backed by a secure system. For current technology that means that a lot of the current ads are not acceptable: no gifs, no flash, no javascript. Spend the development money on a secure delivery system, needs to be developed from scratch.

[gnilddif]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I have been unable to get any satisfactory answers from my ISP or Phorm to the above points. They have supplied answers, but they are fudges, and ignore all the key issues I have raised above. They are deceptive answers.

Another BT customer, I concur wholly with Robert's points. This is very powerful technology, and is capable of far more than BT has admitted. They claim that our PII and private data is safe in their hands, and that phorm/Webwise is fit for purpose. It is not, and I am very disturbed that BT has demonstrated that they are incapable of controlling the technology. Cookies have leaked, PII has leaked, and they have negligently failed to consider many aspects of implementing the scheme. If they were really on top of the system, had done thorough research, and were fully confident to be implementing the scheme they would be able to answer the many questions that customers have been asking, but, as Robert says, significant fundamental questions remain unanswered, while BT desperately claws at the sides of the deep pit in which they find themselves.

gnilddif

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Originally Posted by madslug

My personal view is that the advertising industry needs to clean up its act and start to use methods which do not expose anyone viewing ads to such risks, not look for methods to increase those risks. And DPI is a method too far. Ad delivery needs to go back to what it was doing before the malware and rootkits got added by the hackers.

I wholly agree.
g

[phpscott]

Over on the reg there is an artilce about Google Street view in the UK, their chat with the ICO and how the ICO is satisfied with what Google plans to do. Fair enough. The part that is kinda of odd is what Simon Davies of Privacy International has to say. Where do we know him from.
Quote for the reg article:

Privacy International spokesman Simon Davies said Street View's lack of transparency is its fundamental problem. "We've asked for details of the [blurring] technology and Google will not yield it... Google is claiming commercial secrecy, but they won't even show us how effective it is," he said. "The ICO is of course entitled to form its opinion but we'll continue to press Google."

Privacy International also asked the firm to explain if and how it consulted with the UK public on its plans, but has again been stonewalled

Not wanting to spark off another round of Simon Davies bashing but it does seem kind of odd considering his role in the Phorm debate?

[ilago]

Originally Posted by Florence

Reading this in the register today and it really has you thinking is this really the path our government wants us to head.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has admitted cutting a deal with the Chinese to allow the blocking of press access to some sensitive websites during the forthcoming Beijing games - despite previous assurances there would be no such censorship.

It would seem that they are heading that way with the allowing of Phorm as even if they don't authorise this type of use on the internet how can they be 100% sure that Phorm doesn't start to do this?

I originally found out about Phorm when researching the system the Australian Government is planning to put into place. Our Government has been conducting tests on this level of filtering since 2005-2006. There is nothing commercial about it, it will be under the control of the Government but placed in the ISPs switching equipment in the same way that Phorm and NebuAd and the others are.

The Australian one is sold to the community as a porn filter and as protection for children. It is also proposed that it is opt-out. The range of sites to be blocked has yet to be published. It's censorship in any case. Purely political to placate a single member of our Senate who happens to hold the balance of power and is a member of a somewhat puritanical religious group. It is still in testing in lab conditions.

Dephormation Pete has a copy of the Government report to have a look at when he's got time. While it's not exactly the same issue as Phorm and Nebuad, it is almost the same equipment. There are a number of Australians that are not happy about this as you'd expect. It is another use of DPI and demonstrates the other possibilities. It would dovetail nicely into some of the anti-porn rhetoric of your government.

There's a strong possibility that the management of the filtering could be outsourced to a commercial organisation already in situ in an ISP's network and switching.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by smcicr

on this whole technology thing I'd love to know how many people who own PVR's (Sky+, V+ etc) do NOT fast forward through adverts in programmes they have recorded.

What a wonderful thing is catch-up tv.
All the C4 programmes without adverts interrupting them. Bargain!

Originally Posted by dav

....Personally, I do recognise that advertising is a necessity and I get hacked off seeing a screenful of ads that mean nothing to me. Here's the thing though, I would happily TELL advertisers what ads I want served to my browser. All they have to do is ASK and leave me in control.

Control is the important factor to me. I've said this before...If a web ad agency can set up some system that gives me ads I'm interested in, I'll probably use it. It has to be on my terms though. Let me register with them, have my own personal preferences page where I tell them as much or as little as I'm comfortable with so they can match these against their current campaigns to send me ads on their partner sites. As my interests change, I'll change my preferences myself and see the effects immediately in the ads I'm served with. There's no need to track me. I'll tell you what ads I want. How much more targetted do you want?

I absolutely agree.
Although I would probably not even use a system like that either.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by phpscott

Over on the reg there is an artilce about Google Street view in the UK, their chat with the ICO and how the ICO is satisfied with what Google plans to do. Fair enough. The part that is kinda of odd is what Simon Davies of Privacy International has to say. Where do we know him from.

The enthusiasm of Simon Davis (wearing his Privacy International hat), to berate Google (hurrah!) is laudible.

So why have Privacy International got nothing at all to say about Phorm? Literally not one single word. Click here to search their web site.

You can search news.google.com for Google and Privacy International. 61 results. But do the same for Phorm and Privacy International and you get zilch.

So, PI simply stinks to me.