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

[isf]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

There's no "Referer:" header in your browser's request so their opt-in script is rejecting it with an error 403.

Probably the least of their XSS problems given the presence of special redirect URL used to set the domain cookie.

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /services/OO on this server.

Funny that, the feeling's mutual!

[tarka]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

The ISP check is carried out from the home page :- http://www.webwise.com/index.php

If you look on the left hand side it should say:-

"The Webwise feature
is not available
at this time."


The opt-in and opt-out are on separate pages


OPT-IN = http://www.webwise.com/privacy/opt/in.html

OPT-OUT = http://www.webwise.com/privacy/opt/out.html

Bypassing the homepage and using either these links works for me (I'm not with one of the Phorm Three)

The opt-out link deletes the UID cookie and creates the opt-out cookie "OPTED_OUT=YES".



I believe they "fixed" the opt-in/opt-out script to check referrer a few months after I mentioned the remote opt-in issue over on ISPReview - So directly accessing the actual opt-in url http://a.webwise.net/services/OO?op=in without spoofing referrer will give an error - I guess people who block referer wouldn't want to opt-out anyway.

Ah, I think I know what I did. I went back to the same page and the link is actually "keep webwise off for now" not "turn webwise off". My bad. Going to the opt out page and clicking opt out does remove the uid cookie and set an opted out cookie.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

More thoughts on retention of browsing history by Webwise.

thats very interesting ass they have always denied knowing the URL you visit.

you can take that one stage further, what about keeping search engine URL's with the search data in them?

peter

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

Originally Posted by ilago

The correct term is Without Prejudice and it should be at the top of the letter centred, in bold, above the Dear Sir/Madam bit.

With the NebuAd and Phorm lobbying about to get off the ground in the US, I would suggest you prepare for an onslaught of anti-Google, anti-social-networking (MySpace, Facebook etc.) propaganda. It will be designed to demonstrate how lilly-white and clean NebuAd and Phorm really are, while these other organisations have been really doing worse than them for years.

It might be a very good idea to prepare well thought out rebuttals. This sort of informercial stuff usually does get into the mainstream.

The Netflix DeAnonymiser algorithm is one place to start on unravelling their arguments on anonymity. The Gator connections to NebuAd and Phorm's previous life as 121Media "rootkit installer", origins should be useful as well.

in my house / networks all of the following are banned

search engine browser addins (spyware), social networking sites (virus and security risk),nice big hosts file to block majority of ads, and only me and the wife have unfiltered web access

peter

[Graham M]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

social networking sites (virus and security risk

Virus risk, how do you figure that? And it's only a security risk imo if you put your full address down

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by feesch

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result. And what happened to the ISPs – Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

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).

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Create demand, drop the price, fuel the masses… Look at iPhone G3 for a case in point. Its marketing.

So human rights, privacy issues are all thrown into this argument (and rightfully so I equally want to make sure these are given adequate consideration and why I personally went to a Parliament debate last month) but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising. No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

you are taking things out of context like phorm and BT

we all know we can't block ALL advertising , but we can serverly limit the amount we are exposed to as it is wasted screen space and bandwidth to most of us

the google pay per click argument is irrelevant as google only serve adverts on the own and affiliate sites the same with their tracking only works in those sites.

phorm spies on everything as it is imbedded in your (suposedly unmonitored) pipe to the net

we agree that there needs to be investment in core internet infrastructure by the ISP as the current infrastructure was not designed to handle the vast array of sevices, content and sheer volume it has to cope with these days.

but Talk Talk for instance offering a £299 laptop and reduced broadband line rental to try and get customers is not the way to generate the income required, the sums just do not add up, as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.

the likes of BT, VM and TT etc all try to lock you into multiple services on long contracts and have to realise poeple are getting wise to these smokescreens and tricks

as to privacy and how much you give up for a particular reason is a personal choice and should not be taken away from the individual by a company or government.

phorm is removing ALL PERSONAL PRIVACY as you can't bypass it other than leaving your ISP and hoping the new one does not get bought out by a phormette ISP

the ISP Partners of phorm need to completely change the model that phorm / BT Webwise is using, to give control of privacy back to the stakeholder / end user / client, but in doing this there will not be sufficient revenues for phorm to make a profit due to reduce data for them to sell (AAAWWWW SHAME)

and no we are all realistic on here and realise phorm will not die, but hopefully go away and return with a more acceptable product that does not remove a person basic right to privacy if they wish to have any.

peter

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Graham M

Virus risk, how do you figure that? And it's only a security risk imo if you put your full address down

ok let me rephrase that as malware risk. there are numerous reports of social network pages being laced with malware, some adware, some trojans and a few viruses

and my 9 an 15 year old daughters are banned from them , due to the above policy and the fact only my wife and i are admins on the PC's in the house all the computers in my house are clean and only have had viruseprotection alerts on my own PC due to some of the websites i visit to research things for work


peter

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by feesch

Agreed! DO I agree with Police having access to little black boxes at ISP level, What about your boss monitoring what goes on via your exchange server? So you look at something online, against company rules, and you get sacked. How would that stand in court? That is generally the thrust of that argument.

Snip

I am answering your question to show their side, as opposed to endorsing methods, here.

again you are trying to blur facts and service

my employers content monitoring systems monitor me at work or when i connect to services via the VPN to our offices. this is totally different to monitoring EVERYTHING AS PHORM / BT WEBWISE does. to that is a totally irrelevant argument

also we have to agree to a monitoring policy as part of our employment contract, not have some change slipped into small print via a click on a website

and the content is not routinely monitored

this is relevant to the topic as it shows smoke and mirrors being deployed to try and confuse issues by pro-phorm community is not comparing like with like, to try and justify the spyware boxes ISP's and phorm are trying to foist on unsuspecting punters

peter

[ilago]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

in my house / networks all of the following are banned

search engine browser addins (spyware), social networking sites (virus and security risk),nice big hosts file to block majority of ads, and only me and the wife have unfiltered web access

peter

I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. I think the heavy PR and lobbying hired by Phorm and NebuAd will be using google and social networking as one of their arguments to make Phorm and NebuAd look good or become more acceptable.

I do seriously expect something like a rash of anti-google "research" results to appear and be published in the mainstream media. Even scare tactics like "google data leak" are not beyond the imagination. This will then be pointed to as some sort of twisted reasoning to make DPI wiretapping/interception look somehow better

Do you remember the movie "Wag the Dog"?

[TheBruce1]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

but Talk Talk for instance offering a £299 laptop and reduced broadband line rental to try and get customers is not the way to generate the income required, the sums just do not add up, as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.

the likes of BT, VM and TT etc all try to lock you into multiple services on long contracts and have to realise poeple are getting wise to these smokescreens and tricks

This is so true, VM for example are offering broadband for £4.50 for new customers, come on, how are they going to make money on those accounts, would they even be able to cover their costs, this is why the like`s of BT, VM and TT have to crawl into bed with phorm, pooerly run ISP`s.

The internet was around long before ISP`s were and the internet was not founded on advertising, its only greedy ISP(and it seems the government also)that wish to control the content of the internet, this is what it is all about.

Is this where it is leading too.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage559762/pg1

In this day and age where greed is abound, i will not rule anything in or out, with phorm`s kit inside the ISP the points above do not sound too far away, this and many other reasons, Phorm(and others)must be stopped

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by feesch

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

As others are also pointing out - and we really are quite tired of doing so - especially this late in the game - google and Webwise are quite quite different.

It's very simple. Just draw a diagram showing you, the isp, and the rest of the internet, including other websites, and also including the google search site and their webmail system, then insert the words "Google" or "Webwise" in the appropriate place on the diagram. Then see how much choice is left for the consumer.

Webwise is between me and the rest of the internet. No bypass available. If my ISP adopt it, I go through the DPI kit on my way to the internet. No choice. opted in or opted out, it's between me and the internet. I have to go through that DPI kit and get intercepted, and probably profiled too (even if I can't be tracked - and quite frankly I don't trust them not to do that either)
Google tracking only occurs when I use the google search engine (if I keep google cookies and a constant IP address). If I don't like gmail I don't have to correspond with anyone with a gmail address (except once to tell them so).

But I CAN'T avoid Webwise/Phorm DPI. I can't get out of my "front door" without going through their kit. It's like they've built a porch over my front door. They own the porch. They decide what furniture is in the porch, They have hidden cameras and microphones in that porch. They strip search me as I go through it, and want to know who I am going to see, where I am going. And I don't like that. I wouldn't like it if they were honest. But they have phorm, previous, a record. So I like it even less. And it is just so they can make money, and probably also so the government can use the facility whenever they might feel like keeping an eye on me.

I take that seriously. As a church pastor, I am a member of a people group that experience this sort of surveillance in various countries around the world ALREADY. I'd rather it didn't catch on here.

It really is that simple. It's not the tracking, it's not the adverts, it's WHERE it's happening, it's HOW it's happening, it's the lack of genuine choice, and of course it's the multiple layers of illegality and the stealth that goes with criminal behaviour that we object to. As well as the corporate arrogance.

Have we got that clear? Can we discuss the finer points of advertising and media elsewhere? Can we stick to the point?

Thank you for listening.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by R Jones

As others are also pointing out - and we really are quite tired of doing so - especially this late in the game - google and Webwise are quite quite different.

It's very simple. Just draw a diagram showing you, the isp, and the rest of the internet, including other websites, and also including the google search site and their webmail system, then insert the words "Google" or "Webwise" in the appropriate place on the diagram. Then see how much choice is left for the consumer.

Webwise is between me and the rest of the internet. No bypass available. If my ISP adopt it, I go through the DPI kit on my way to the internet. No choice. opted in or opted out, it's between me and the internet. I have to go through that DPI kit and get intercepted, and probably profiled too (even if I can't be tracked - and quite frankly I don't trust them not to do that either)
Google tracking only occurs when I use the google search engine (if I keep google cookies and a constant IP address). If I don't like gmail I don't have to correspond with anyone with a gmail address (except once to tell them so).

But I CAN'T avoid Webwise/Phorm DPI. I can't get out of my "front door" without going through their kit. It's like they've built a porch over my front door. They own the porch. They decide what furniture is in the porch, They have hidden cameras and microphones in that porch. They strip search me as I go through it, and want to know who I am going to see, where I am going. And I don't like that. I wouldn't like it if they were honest. But they have phorm, previous, a record. So I like it even less. And it is just so they can make money, and probably also so the government can use the facility whenever they might feel like keeping an eye on me.

I take that seriously. As a church pastor, I am a member of a people group that experience this sort of surveillance in various countries around the world ALREADY. I'd rather it didn't catch on here.

It really is that simple. It's not the tracking, it's not the adverts, it's WHERE it's happening, it's HOW it's happening, it's the lack of genuine choice, and of course it's the multiple layers of illegality and the stealth that goes with criminal behaviour that we object to. As well as the corporate arrogance.

Have we got that clear? Can we discuss the finer points of advertising and media elsewhere? Can we stick to the point?

Thank you for listening.

Very well put.

[icsys]

Some news just in.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), has released a tool known as 'Switzerland', currently an alpha version, for testing the neutrality of internet service providers (ISPs).

The EFF says that Switzerland should be able to detect advertising injection systems like Phorm, anti-P2P tools from Sandvine and AudibleMagic and censorship systems like the Great Firewall of China, but is not limited to these detections as it can spot any packet modifications.

here's the link to the full story

[roadrunner69]

Originally Posted by R Jones

As others are also pointing out - and we really are quite tired of doing so - especially this late in the game - google and Webwise are quite quite different.

It's very simple. Just draw a diagram showing you, the isp, and the rest of the internet, including other websites, and also including the google search site and their webmail system, then insert the words "Google" or "Webwise" in the appropriate place on the diagram. Then see how much choice is left for the consumer.

Webwise is between me and the rest of the internet. No bypass available. If my ISP adopt it, I go through the DPI kit on my way to the internet. No choice. opted in or opted out, it's between me and the internet. I have to go through that DPI kit and get intercepted, and probably profiled too (even if I can't be tracked - and quite frankly I don't trust them not to do that either)
Google tracking only occurs when I use the google search engine (if I keep google cookies and a constant IP address). If I don't like gmail I don't have to correspond with anyone with a gmail address (except once to tell them so).

But I CAN'T avoid Webwise/Phorm DPI. I can't get out of my "front door" without going through their kit. It's like they've built a porch over my front door. They own the porch. They decide what furniture is in the porch, They have hidden cameras and microphones in that porch. They strip search me as I go through it, and want to know who I am going to see, where I am going. And I don't like that. I wouldn't like it if they were honest. But they have phorm, previous, a record. So I like it even less. And it is just so they can make money, and probably also so the government can use the facility whenever they might feel like keeping an eye on me.

I take that seriously. As a church pastor, I am a member of a people group that experience this sort of surveillance in various countries around the world ALREADY. I'd rather it didn't catch on here.

It really is that simple. It's not the tracking, it's not the adverts, it's WHERE it's happening, it's HOW it's happening, it's the lack of genuine choice, and of course it's the multiple layers of illegality and the stealth that goes with criminal behaviour that we object to. As well as the corporate arrogance.

Have we got that clear? Can we discuss the finer points of advertising and media elsewhere? Can we stick to the point?

Thank you for listening.

Well said Rob.
The Anti DPI for profit campaign encapsulated in a single post.
Stripped of all the fluff and side tracks, this is the core of all our objections that our ISPs, advertisers, pro-phorm bloggers and many in government, just don't get.

Christ, it's not THAT hard to understand...... is it?

[icsys]

Originally Posted by madslug

While on the subject of Webwise, I notice that the Phorm site is still talking about TalkTalk starting to use Webwise in the summer of 2008.
There is still nothing about Webwise on the TalkTalk site. Their Privacy Statement says little that could indicate a 3rd party like Webwise being used.

Does anyone know where TalkTalk customers 'hang out'? I have not noticed anyone on any of the Phorm-aware forums mentioning that they use TalkTalk.

http://www.talktalkmembers.com/

[TheBruce1]

Originally Posted by feesch

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash

AOL ruined Netscape, many left and started the Mozilla Foundation(Firefox).

Originally Posted by feesch

Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result.

Google stayed afloat because they gave people want they wanted, no what ad-men said that they customers wanted.

Originally Posted by feesch

Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

Absolute nonsense, i can watch any number of movies/sport/ tv-programs online without the need for advertising, as for AOL/Compuserve they where/still poorly run ISP`s, nothing more.

Originally Posted by feesch

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Here we go again, more PR talk, if your business model cannot handle expansion then maybe they should invest in that model first, some ISP`s can do this without the need for spyvertising.

Originally Posted by feesch

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago

What does this mean, dynamic advertising, me thinks you do not know, its all double-talk, says nothing, means nothing, please clarify.

Originally Posted by feesch

We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

Maybe the networks should start taking a look at their content, if you broadcast rubbish, what do you expect.
One of the great things about the internet is it is not Television, i can watch what i want and when i want, no advertisement, which is great.

And yes i could live without TV/internet as i have done so before.

Originally Posted by feesch

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).

Which is why many people i know are moving away from using one media company for all(phone, tv, internet), with the onset of phorm i see moving away from quad service`s increasing dramatically.

Originally Posted by feesch

but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it.

What has this do to with Phorm watching you online, i do not mind adverts on tv, but not on my internet connection.

Originally Posted by feesch

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Do not be so sure, internet users can make a differnece, we can blacklist certain ISP`s, we can do many things online, maybe such as Alliance of Non-Phormed Internet Providers(ANPIP), these are ISP that could be recommeded, no customers, no phorm.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

thats very interesting ass they have always denied knowing the URL you visit.

you can take that one stage further, what about keeping search engine URL's with the search data in them?

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 ----------

in my house / networks all of the following are banned

search engine browser addins (spyware), social networking sites (virus and security risk),nice big hosts file to block majority of ads, and only me and the wife have unfiltered web access

peter

My understanding always was that they use the resulting URL from the GET request to read the search query - they can't read the form input. No point in processing the whole results page as the content will only dilute the search phrase relevance.

Any site that allows user input, whether search engine, networking site or forum is a security risk from malware and viruses. Any ad network can be infected by ads that download malware and viruses. Search engines have been used via redirects to the final destination or sending people to spoofed pages that looked like the original site. Banners have long been used to download malware and distributed via ad networks. Even 3rd party tracking scripts which have been used for years have become infected with malware.

Any site visited should be considered a security risk. User input just increases the risk.

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

..... as we have said all along the likes of BE, Zen and co offer UK call centres, no gimicks, no discounts, no long term contracts and they make a reasonable profit and provide excellent quality of service so it can be done.


peter

BE's call centre is in Bulgaria.

And just to keep on topic I like the quote from the ACLU:

"DPI allows ISPs to have access to all of your searches, friends and family, anything you read and email, any sites you visit and any comments you post. DPI is a virtual strip search for you and your computer."
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/internet...s20080721.html