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

[vicz]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Wishful thinking perhaps?

Guilty!

[AlexanderHanff]

Can't remember off the top of my head.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Oh and forgot to say that I digged the dissertation news item Alexander as requested.

[unicus]

Originally Posted by mark777

@Alexander

Did Kent refer to the VM tie-in in the click interview?

Strikes me that if he did, the BBC can't not reference the VM statement. He might end up looking an even bigger idiot.

It's probably too late to add into this weeks Click which I thought came online on Friday but I just read a Click article ( Identity 'at risk' on Facebook) and at the end it says;

You can watch the full report on Click's website on Thursday, 1 May, 2008 from 2100 BST

Does that mean that report is available on it's own or as part of the full Click which Alexander is in?

[AlexanderHanff]

We need more digg and slashdot action, you would be amazed how coverage on those 2 sites alone can send an issue viral in hours. If more people here register on both sites and digg up/firehose articles as they become available it will make a significant difference to public awareness. So please everyone, go digg and firehose the following:

http://digg.com/tech_news/Legal_Anal...7_Phorm_Trials
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=650576

Lots of tech news sites and high profile bloggers use slashdot and digg as a primary news source.

As you can see here, Phorm articles performances on Digg have been particularly poor:

http://digg.com/search?s=Phorm&submi...all&sort=score

We need to keep the pressure on and make sure as much news gets posted to as many relevant web sites as possible.

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Had an email back from Amazon they are still checking phorm with their legal department and will update me on the 7th May.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rm_misleading/

About bloody time too.

Evening all.

Indeed, about bloody time. Of course this has to be in no small way due to the pressure put on VM by everyone here. We've been advocating a public statement from VM for how long now?

This statement exposes the "overzealousness" of Phorm's PR - something we already knew here but which deserves and is now getting wider exposure.

It also matches more closely the statement read to me by a contact from Neil Berkett's office which ended up being sent out to some people here as a standard response. The page seems to be a response to my direct questions about Phorm testing.

I do note that nowhere does it mention that no tests have previously been undertaken. That is still a concern but this statement is a definite kick in the unmentionables for Phorm.

But look at these phrases:

"possible implementation"
"preliminary agreement"
"not yet decided"
"not be forced to use the system"
"If we go ahead with deployment"

Spin that PhormUKPRteam!

Oh yes PhormUKPRteam - you might want to suggest that companies like Charles Stanley refrain from producing "documents" that suggest that things which haven't actually taken place have. I'm talking about the suggestion of testing on page 5. The language is sufficently obfuscating and vague but I read it as suggesting VM have done a BT. I'm sure Neil Berkett found that to be very interesting reading.

Anyone who's mooching this thread as a guest, please register and join in the discussion. I would also urge you to write and professionally suggest that VM drop Phorm (for reasons of legality and because VM's reputation is taking a serious hammering) to Neil Berkett at

Neil Berkett

Chief Executive Officer

Virgin Media

PO Box 333

Matrix Court

Swansea

SA7 9ZJ

I've got a missed call from a VM number on my phone, a different number too. I did ask for a written response as I'm engaged on other work now.

[Cogster]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Surely its a big no no to tell outright lies in your annual report. Or at least be misleading.

big no no is an understatement..

Making or certifying misleading financial statements exposes those involved to substantial civil and criminal liability.

..ask bernie ebbers

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

I'm choked, I really am Thankyou both.

I should point out though that I didn't know about the covert testing in 2006/2007 so that wasn't me. The diagrams were though.

I also like the nice little touch of the filename for Alex's award

Oh that one was originally named in honour of the first recipient.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by vicz

Whoa just up on the Reg
Virgin Media distances itself from Phorm 'adoption' claims

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...rm_misleading/

Might explain lack of Pro Video of public meeting.

If VM have been putting pressure on not to repeat the 'slur'.

Time to review the Good Captains footage and maybe ask 80/20 to comment on any misleading quotes.

C4 news may have some footage that they may like to review in light of todays news and do another article on it?

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Cogster

big no no is an understatement..

Making or certifying misleading financial statements exposes those involved to substantial civil and criminal liability.

..ask bernie ebbers

Do these financial statements need to be signed off by auditors?

E&Y?

[popper]

Originally Posted by unicus

It's probably too late to add into this weeks Click which I thought came online on Friday but I just read a Click article ( Identity 'at risk' on Facebook) and at the end it says;

Does that mean that report is available on it's own or as part of the full Click which Alexander is in?

the facebook story just got 3 minutes on bbc1 news and it referenced the url above.

it seems they can explain the facebook app linking threat just fine, but not so the Phorm DPI intercepting threat thats connected directly to the other end of your Broadband wires....

i beleaved they would lead with Alexanders Phorm threat and the IT show background (shame we dont know what was covered at the IT show to base some guesses on).

and it seemed they would lead it as a security related Click! Episode, but perhaps with the Facebook being the easyer to explain, they may lead on that instead.....

i guess it all cames down to what gets the viewers more angry!

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by mark777

Do these financial statements need to be signed off by auditors?

E&Y?

I rate accountancy houses only just above cockroaches and PR departments. I understood that financial statements had to be signed off by auditing accountants as a true and fair reflection of the situation and performance of the business.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by popper

the facebook story just got 3 minutes on bbc1 news and it referenced the url above.

it seems they can explain the facebook app linking threat just fine, but not so the Phorm DPI intercepting threat thats connected directly to the other end of your Broadband wires....

i beleaved they would lead with Alexanders Phorm threat and the IT show background (shame we dont know what was covered at the IT show to base some guesses on).

and it seemed they would lead it as a security related Click! Episode, but perhaps with the Facebook being the easyer to explain, they may lead on that instead.....

i guess it all cames down to what gets the viewers more angry!

The freeview programme guide for Saturday's Click says :-

"The tech team uncovers a security flaw in facebook which could compromise the privacy of it's users. Plus an interview with highly controversial online ad system, Phorm. Includes news and web reviews."

No hype then.

[popper]

Originally Posted by mark777

Might explain lack of Pro Video of public meeting.

If VM have been putting pressure on not to repeat the 'slur'.

Time to review the Good Captains footage and maybe ask 80/20 to comment on any misleading quotes.

C4 news may have some footage that they may like to review in light of todays news and do another article on it?

if anyones got the contact details of the Click! and C4 News researchers , it might be werth doing a recap of events in the last few days and remind them of the details that are getting aired in a very limited or abstract way, and others that are being swept under the carpet regarding the 2006/7 BT trials (outlaw etc),
the case law,lost RIPA appeal of Stanford's
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
"
Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal

3 February 2006

Stanford Loses Criminal Appeal..."

make their research easy and layed out in a simple and clear line, and they may thank you for doing the hard work for them, with nothing more than to simply confirm it all and re-edit the video footage they already have

i see alexanders used the CF news page to good effect and its got out on the wires far and wide now, i expect the CF hits to be rising this month

we perhaps need more good writers (so thats me out of it then ) to submit some related stories to help get the facts out as we know it in time for the Click! and other related stories.

rather than the obscure stuff of the last few days, perhaps you will write something and submit it?.....

[davews]

Many thanks for Alexander for your great paper on the 2006/7 trials. I am about a third of the way through it, but it looks good so far.

In para 3.1.3 you say "In the case of the secret trials carried by BT PLC in 2006 and 2007 Deep Packet Inspection went one step further in that it altered the contents of the network stream. In order to test the effectiveness of the targeted advertising system (OIX), software source code called Java Script was injected into the network stream to alter the webpage the end user was delivered on their screen, in order to display
advertising banners which had not been placed there by the content owner and download a cookie file onto the end user's computer.[15]"

In the case of the 2006 trial there is indeed evidence that javascript was added to webpages. However the 2007 BT trials appeared to use a different implementation and when I was 'trialled' at that time I am pretty sure there was never any javascript added to the pages I browsed. In particular when I found my own website accessed via sysip.net which raised my concerns I deliberately looked at the source which came back to me and it was exactly the same as my original. I also do not recall any suspicious cookies from sysip.net or elsewhere arriving on my computer either (I look through my cookies regularly and would have certainly noticed them). So I suspect they were just checking the 307 redirection process in those trials.

Will let you know if I notice any other errors (tomorrow now, about to go out).

Dave