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

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

robots.txt is not a control mechanism in and of itself, it is an honour based rule set which can simply be ignored if Phorm so choose. It will not enforce access restrictions, we only have Phorm's word that they will adhere to it

And that's the whole point isn't it? We should not have to use it and if we do, as a consequence, we lend some support to their argument.

Phorm can use it as part of their defence; justificaion that if you don't like what they do you can stop it with robots.txt; if you don't like what they do and you don't use robots.txt... well, you don't dislike what they do enough. That's what they can say.

I dislike. But I will not be doing anything using robots.txt. The law says they can't do what they want to do. I don't have to take any further action to stop them.

Hank

[OF1975]

I am correct in thinking that the only way to stop phorm profiling a website (assuming they stick to their word) will also stop google and other search engines from using spiders to crawl the site too?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

I am correct in thinking that the only way to stop phorm profiling a website (assuming they stick to their word) will also stop google and other search engines from using spiders to crawl the site too?

Yes. At the moment they are claiming if Google have permission to access their content then they have implied consent to do the same. Which as we all know is utter tripe, but then that isn't really a surprise to any of us I don't think.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Yes. At the moment they are claiming if Google have permission to access their content then they have implied consent to do the same. Which as we all know is utter tripe, but then that isn't really a surprise to any of us I don't think.

Alexander Hanff

I thought that was the case but figured I would double check. This seems just as bad as the whole hosts file issue to me. Utter madness.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Yes. At the moment they are claiming if Google have permission to access their content then they have implied consent to do the same. Which as we all know is utter tripe, but then that isn't really a surprise to any of us I don't think.

Alexander Hanff

Then the only road open to those who don't want phorm on the websites will be to use the IP ban for all ISPs that use Phorm.

[dav]

Article on ZDNet...

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...9408146,00.htm

[jelv]

Does anyone know if they are using the specific user agent for Google or is it the any agent setting they use? So would

User-agent: Google
Disallow:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

work as it should - Google allowed in but Phorm/Webwise kept out?

[vicz]

Originally Posted by dav

Article on ZDNet...

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communicatio...9408146,00.htm

ZDNET! That's like Gordon Brown going on GMTV because he'd rather face Fiona Phillips than Jeremy Paxman! Come on Phorm PR, talk to the big boys on Cable Forum (if you think you're hard enough....)

[dav]

Originally Posted by vicz

ZDNET! That's like Gordon Brown going on GMTV because he'd rather face Fiona Phillips than Jeremy Paxman! Come on Phorm PR, talk to the big boys on Cable Forum (if you think you're hard enough....)

Dey ain't got da stonez

[Chroma]

Am i right in understanding that if a user manualy edits his HOSTS file then his BT connection would cease to work if Phorm was rolled out?

Am i also correct in assuming that if a politicaly minded individual was inclined to create a small program that would replicate itself and effectively "infect" users on the internet with the express purpose of delivering a payload that would merely edit the HOSTS file to block certain IP ranges or resolve them to the loopback present users with its own brand of "PR Spin" to the effect that it states:

"Hello user i am a virus, i have just altered your HOSTS file to exclude a range of adresses originating from PHORM. Dont be alarmed, im not in any way malicious i was merely operating to protect your privacy whilst online and feel that a third party being able to watch your every move online is wrong. I will of course delete myself from your system in 30days from this message.
I do this because i am aware that most UK residents dont understand what PHORM really is or does and that the majority of users are not technicly minded enough to put these measures in place themselves.
If you dissagree with my politics and feel happy to have an external 3rd party watching everything you do online without any regulation or restraint whatsoever then please feel free to remove the section commented as PHORM from your HOSTS file [found at C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS] using any standard text editor (IE: notepad)
Have a nice day.

If hypotheticaly such a dastardly program was created that basicly edited peoples hosts files to protect their privacy then deleted itself causing aboloutly no other changes on a users system, wouldnt it make life a little more difficullt for ISP's from a purely technical standpoint, considering that some users would be completely without a usable connection to the internet and the only fixes would be:
ISP's rolling out a patch to edit the HOST's
Changing the IP's used by Phorm.
Disabling phorm altogether.
Or radicaly changing the way phorm behaves.

Again this is from a purely theoretical standpoint, but wouldnt it put a spanner in the works.

[vicz]

Sounds like the cure could be worse than the disease

[Angry@VMedia]

Hi & sorry to butt in, i have been a long time lurker (how much woodwork does this place have) and i have been meaning to join but tonight was finally the time!
I've been trying to keep up with this mamouth subject for the last few weeks and i am finally up to date!

As reguards to the zdnet article, i feel that they are not grasping the point that no matter how badly phorm try to sell itself it is still ILEGAL, no matter how much spin they put on it, so with this in mind, why hasnt more sites that report on this phorm subject stating that this is ilegal and any provider of internet that accepts this is breaking the law?
All i keep seeing is its a better service than google and this bullcrap about extra security webwise provides, why cant these 'reporters' report on the most important facts of all - it is illegal?

if i had an online 'newspaper' i would just simply state "This phorm malarky is illegal, weither optin or opt out period, why are these people not grasping the true facts?

[vicz]

This is mostly how it works: Journalist (usually bored) turns up, watches a short presentation usually while doing emails or texting his/her gf/bf, picks up press kit which will include press release paper and usually on floppy or usb stick so the poor journo doesn't have to do too much typing. Attacks the buffet and booze, then maybe a quick 10mins 1-to-1 with K*nt, so long, thanks for all the fish, no thinking required. Anything controversial or potentially libelous then edited out by the sub 'so as not to worry legal' or p-off sponsors.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Angry@VMedia

if i had an online 'newspaper' i would just simply state "This phorm malarky is illegal, weither optin or opt out period, why are these people not grasping the true facts?

Its complicated. Allegedly Financial Times and others have a stake in this scandal. Even the Grauniad were involved until recently. Phorm have sold them a fairy story about advertising revenue, without considering 'frivolous' details like human rights, regulations, and the law.

The only daily paper that covered it in some real depth were the Daily Mail, but they've gone very quiet lately.

Contrast with Chris Williams amazing coverage on the Register. The guy has done a stunning job of exposing BT. See here; Net think thank: Phorm is illegal

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Angry@VMedia

Hi & sorry to butt in, i have been a long time lurker (how much woodwork does this place have) and i have been meaning to join but tonight was finally the time!
I've been trying to keep up with this mamouth subject for the last few weeks and i am finally up to date!

As reguards to the zdnet article, i feel that they are not grasping the point that no matter how badly phorm try to sell itself it is still ILEGAL, no matter how much spin they put on it, so with this in mind, why hasnt more sites that report on this phorm subject stating that this is ilegal and any provider of internet that accepts this is breaking the law?
All i keep seeing is its a better service than google and this bullcrap about extra security webwise provides, why cant these 'reporters' report on the most important facts of all - it is illegal?

if i had an online 'newspaper' i would just simply state "This phorm malarky is illegal, weither optin or opt out period, why are these people not grasping the true facts?

Hi and think one has to first look at what is happening then look at which people are being quiet, cagey, passing the book then you might get your answer.

The ISPs have seen £££ signs for our details ( OUR) clicks etc the government see this as a way to spy on what we see on the Internet so unless we boot Labour out of power and then kick our ISPs where it hurts them most ( by moving our internet to ISPs that will be phorm phree) this will be a hard fight.

Too many are doing selective reading and hoping that most internet uses will be good like sheep and herd along the paths these ppl want to drive us down.

We need to keep kicking and screaming to show we will not lie down and play ball .