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

[feesch]

Originally Posted by lucevans

That's a very patronising attitude. There are people on this thread who are far more technology-literate than you, and who have dissected and understood every technical detail of how the Phorm system works. There are others who are legal and human rights specialists that have considered at great length the social and privacy implications of this system. Contrast that with an individual who makes a living in the media and technology (advertising) industry, who has a vested interest in ensuring that this system is accepted.

Accepted and apologise on patronisation.

Did I not say there were "many"? Was a statement against a narrow-minded point of view - and you yourself are running media down as some lesser actvity. So thanks!

Point being no-one here wants isolation, its a debate isn't it - and and am not pushing wares, but happy to look at both points of view - and happy to bring a different perspective.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Some people might be interested in looking at this:

http://about.bttradespace.com/

Check out The Lounge:

http://communities.bttradespace.com/

What I find so hard to understand is why BT is making so much effort to track everyone everywhere. Their tracking cookies are reaching the stage where I don't want to go anywhere near any BT sites.

One domain for the hosts files: btcom.112.2o7.net

I really don't like scripts that send someone like 2o7 information about my computer, including what plug-ins are installed.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

@ feesch
and that perspective is ..............

[feesch]

Originally Posted by Bobcat

@feesch.
On here and on your own forum you have said: "That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi)"
This is totally incorrect as I subscribe to Sky and do not have a telephone connection to the box. You state this as a fact after telling us you KNOW all about the subject and yet if you are wrong about tis what else might you be wrong about?

Last time I tried to get sky (couple of years back), and knowing from others who subscibe to service, it 'was' a requirement. Would need to check if has subsequently changed then. Either way, that was their reason and intention. Why else would there there be a need to faciliaite a two-way connection to a satellite box? Curious to know if they have ditched this or have some technological improvement to facilitate this another way, as they would need to 'see' what the viewer is doing for business justification surely?

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by feesch

Accepted and apologise on patronisation.

Did I not say there were "many"? Was a statement against a narrow-minded point of view - and you yourself are running media down as some lesser actvity. So thanks!

Point being no-one here wants isolation, its a debate isn't it - and and am not pushing wares, but happy to look at both points of view - and happy to bring a different perspective.

How many steps do you need to go down a particular road (possibly in the wrong direction), before it you pass the point on "no" return!

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1130481.php?mpnlog=1

[feesch]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

The law says intercepting communications is illegal.

The law says copying content without a licence is illegal.

The law says misuse of computers is illegal.

The law is sufficient to make Phorm illegal to operate.


At risk of putting words into Peter's mouth...

There is no scope for negotiation or compromise. Nothing to "work through".

Privacy, security, and integrity of data communications must not be violated by unethical parasitic advertising systems.

Last time people met to discuss Phorm, we were promised a video, but apparently Kent doesn't want that made public.

I am not a lawyer, and that is something we will need to see if can be upheld, or if there is some way around either the law or their method of operations to come within the law. Surfice to say DoubleClick got around it,
http://www.junkbusters.com/new.html#DCLK

and even more recent Google did with hedging off length of time they needed to store cookies - the fact that data can be passed to police before they needed to clear their cache, or users accessing Google refreshes their date of access, just shows what an ass the law is in legislating privacy concerns.

Agree on 'unethical' aspects. Can't state that advertsing per se is unethical though, and that is the role of the ASA to ensure that.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by feesch

>You know, you're not doing a very good job at selling Phorm, here...

I neither work for them, nor agree with everything they do, but I can see some technological merit - which is bizarre as I myself do not want to be tracked.

This discussion on Phorm, Webwise, and the use of DPI interception for targetted behavioural advertising purposes, has become diverted temporarily Off Topic into a discussion about advertising per se. I personally object to this and do not wish participate in this diversion.

I don't wish to discuss advertising. I wish to stay on topic and put a halt to the illegal interception of my internet data, as an ISP customer, and the illegal exploitation of my intellectual property as a webmaster, and my private data exchange with my site visitors, for the commercial gain of those who have no legal right to do any of these things, and who have dissembled, diverted, obfuscated, lied, misled, broken promises, hidden the truth, and are continuing to do so to further their own ends at my expense.

I'd personally rather you promoted your particular digital advertising interests in another thread or confined yourself to the specifics of this one.

Perhaps you might like to start a separate thread to discuss advertising and also to advertise your expertise in the subject?

[feesch]

Originally Posted by isf

It's just data, it's exactly what the internet was designed for.

Is it? Was it?

Web is unicast, TV is broadcast... there is no way an ISP will be able to deliver real-time TV content to every individual user at a time they want to watch it. That is why Sky's films on demand is like 30 min intervals to find a middle ground.

Thats also why the idea around moving over to multi-casting as a way around this before the internet grinds to a halt.

Different discussion.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by feesch

Last time I tried to get sky (couple of years back), and knowing from others who subscibe to service, it 'was' a requirement. Would need to check if has subsequently changed then. Either way, that was their reason and intention. Why else would there there be a need to faciliaite a two-way connection to a satellite box? Curious to know if they have ditched this or have some technological improvement to facilitate this another way, as they would need to 'see' what the viewer is doing for business justification surely?

If you took the subsidised box it had to connect it to the phone line for the first year - I think if you did not comply you would have to pay the full price for the box. There are two reasons for the connection, one to monitor what you watch, the other (probably more important to Sky) is so that you can puchase pay per view content. Anyway as this is totally OT I suggest you search on google, or ask in a sky forum.

[feesch]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

So full of Double standards & trying to use such statements as:-

"They want to watch it when they want, on a device that may be other than their TV set, and in a location that suits them"

As a a possible excuse to SPY on everthing they Surf about!

My Thoughts, actions & intellect are shared with the people & instutions I decide are worthy.(That includes both parties interlectual property)

"No other entity has the right to intercept, record, modify or adjust such actions or data without specific consent, with the exception of lawful processes in order to protect society!"

Phorm aside, i have issues with that last statement - WHO has that right? We are setting systems in place that can you imagine if someone like Hitler got his hands on what could be done?! I think you find Hitler stated something like 'protecting society'...

[phormwatch]

feesch-

Originally Posted by feesch

I am not a lawyer, and that is something we will need to see if can be upheld, or if there is some way around either the law or their method of operations to come within the law. Surfice to say DoubleClick got around it,
http://www.junkbusters.com/new.html#DCLK

Agree on 'unethical' aspects. Can't state that advertsing per se is unethical though, and that is the role of the ASA to ensure that.

I'm amazed that you link to articles such as the junkbusters article above, and then in the same breadth say that it is 'something we will need to see' whether there is some way around the law - and then expect us to support it.

DoubleClick seems to have convinced the FTC that it did not actually associate names and addresses with its previously anonymous cookies, despite the fact that this was their stated intention prior to their backdown in March. Even assuming that DoubleClick did not actually get around to matching up any of its massive stockpiles of online and offline data, they are still technically able to do so, and they continue to collect huge amounts of identified and identifiable information in ways that are unfair and unacceptable violations of privacy. And the practices of DoubleClick and other ad companies could go from bad to worse at any time, particularly in the case of competitors who have been quieter about what they do and subject to less scrutiny. The FTC's action did not respond to the relief requested in EPIC's complaint, that the DoubleClick be permanently enjoined from linking cookies to names without consent. It's deplorable that there is still no law restraining these enormous databases of clickstreams and transactions. The FTC's investigation resembles a hypothetical case where the police cleared a company called the Molotov Cocktail Lounge after finding warehouses full of empty bottles and stolen gasoline -- in a country where theft and arson aren't illegal unless the perpetrator promised not to steal or incinerate particular goods.

Laws relating to privacy concerns are there because people don't want their privacy violated. This is a fundamental human right, and is enshrined in both EU and UN human rights charters. Furthermore, if people do not feel confident about their privacy (online or otherwise) then this will affect the information they divulge, the technology they use, and the business they do transactions with - all of which may negatively damage the economy.

Privacy laws are not some problem which need to be worked around or rescinded. They are something to be cherished and re-enforced. If Phorm and related spyware technologies are incompatible with privacy legislation and the expectations of the public, then they must be stopped. It is they who have to change.

PS: You still haven't answered my questions in post #13116. What, specifically, do you think of Phorm's conduct in terms of ethics?

[feesch]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

feesch-

In the interests of transparency, could please state whether you are here *solely* on your interest, or are here as part of a campaign, in your professional capacity as an employee of Eyeblaster, on behalf of Phorm or Kent Erturgrul?

http://eyeblaster.com/company/

Totally personal.

Like I said, I do not agree in being tracked, but to some degree goes part and parcel with the web - and has been the contention (i.e. cookies) since June 1994 prior to Netscape release in Oct of same year.

But working in the indsutry I have a vested interest in hearing both sides of the argument for sure, but that is only to ensure that things can move forward, as we said 'ethically'.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by feesch

Is it? Was it?

Web is unicast, TV is broadcast... there is no way an ISP will be able to deliver real-time TV content to every individual user at a time they want to watch it. That is why Sky's films on demand is like 30 min intervals to find a middle ground.

Thats also why the idea around moving over to multi-casting as a way around this before the internet grinds to a halt.

Different discussion.

[phormwatch]

R Jones

I agree that we should stick to the topic, but a diversion for a few hours will not do any harm. This thread will remain a focal point for the campaign against Phorm.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by feesch

Totally personal.

Like I said, I do not agree in being tracked, but to some degree goes part and parcel with the web - and has been the contention (i.e. cookies) since June 1994 prior to Netscape release in Oct of same year.

But working in the indsutry I have a vested interest in hearing both sides of the argument for sure, but that is only to ensure that things can move forward, as we said 'ethically'.

We are not discussing "tracking" - we are discussing the use of DPI, illegal interception of web traffic, and the illegal copying and exploitation of website traffic and website/visitor data exchange. There are no ethical ways of breaking the law. Please can we stay on topic?