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

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Shall we ask her?

I know I have

Hi,

I found your details on Journalisted after reading the above mentioned article on the Telegraph web-site.

I was wondering who the experts you mention are?

You also have a quote from "a spokesman for Phorm"; are you aware of the huge invasions of privacy in which Phorm wish to indulge in order to make money from advertising?

Also having read the article I can't seem to find a reason for the article? I am unsure why anyone would write that article if not approached by said "spokesman for Phorm" in the first place. Would you be able to comment?

I shall be posting a copy of this mail onto the cableforum.co.uk discussion thread regarding Phorm, and if you reply without explicitly asking for me not to, I shall be posting the reply also.

Regards

Simon Hickling
Concerned internet user who values his privacy.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

With me been Dyslexic I don't tend to read T&C's I can not stand to listen to my Text Reader for 1.5 hours.

tdadyslexia, have you checked this out yet?
http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Theoretically it should solve your problem.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Kate Devlin, from the Torygraph article, doesn't say who these 'experts' are, and I can't see any reason why Phorm should be questioned about this matter over someone more qualified.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------

Shall we ask her?

http://www.journalisted.com/kate-devlin

Perhaps her attention could be drawn to the Terms and Conditions of the Telegraph Website

Section 4 "Use of the Site" is particularly relevant should a Webwise linked visitor use the Telegraph site. It is very comprehensive and seems to ban just about anything that Webwise would be doing during a visit to that site, as well as defining the intellectual content, controlling the extent of copying, and making it clear that there are a variety of "agents" or means of access in the mind of the author of the paragraphs.

Of course she also needs to remember that according to BT's Ms Sanderson, the Telegraph website Terms and Conditions aren't worth the pixels they are written on as Webwise won't be paying any attention to them - it's "unreasonable" to expect them to do so. Probably because it's too difficult - like it's too difficult to explain to thick people like me, how a small scale technical trial illegally intercepting my data might work.

Sorry - getting in a rant there. Slapped own wrist. Ouch! That's better. I love everyone again.

Website Terms and Conditions are rapidly becoming a hobby of mine.

Edit update

Took my own advice and sent her an email about the things she left out, discussing the site T&C's and also asking about any relationship between Telegraph and OIX. Also included links to the Register article about Phorm and Congress, and the BBC one about EU

[Dave_C]

I'm still here lurking, but post under the same name over on the BT forums.

Every day in every way it keeps getting better, unless you have shares in phorm.

Keep up the good work, thanks

Dave

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

Ofcom's consumer advice indicates it is covered by RIPA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...qs/prvfaq3.htm

Here's a quote about Ian Blair's recordings from http://www.out-law.com/page-6730



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...l1g2-l1p1-l2p8




Anyway, I note according to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/about-ripa/ RIPA also covers "access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords" - Presumably one good reason why Phorm will not be profiling sites using HTTP Basic access authentication.

EDIT: Ah, having just glanced though the ACT I see it is only regards compelling the disclosure of Passwords.

Yet here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2559...-internet.html a Phorm spokesman is quoted as saying

"There are many things that consumers take for granted that rely on cookies, for example passwords to enter certain sites, or even that when you go to Amazon you don't have to sign in and that the site remembers your address.

"Turning cookies off makes using the internet a more frustrating experience."

So Phorm clearly understand that many password protected sites use cookies rather than http basic authentication - but they're yet to explain how they will avoid profiling such content...

This part need querying as well:
---
A spokesman for Phorm, which analyses data sent from internet providers, said:
---

The ISP profiler is only supposed to present the Phorm System with anonymized keyword data for presenting Adverts?

Originally Posted by madslug

PR team seem to be back at work.

"Privacy drive 'could slow down the internet'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2559...-internet.html
"It is predicted that more and more of us will try to stop our habits being followed, by turning off the "cookies" which remember which internet pages we have visited.
However, experts warn that this could cause delays in how we use many websites."

I think those same 'experts' should be looking at basic web standards. If they and the people who wrote the specs for website designs were more expert in those standards, there would not be so many cookies.

OMG what a pile of doo doo!! Perhaps if they only thought a bit about the articles they publish (or perhaps if it was not in their interests to support the advertising industry of course)... perhaps they might say "If the public block cookies and slow down/damage the internet service they receive for specific websites, it might be necessary for those websites to think about re-engineering the way they work, so that people are happy to accept their cookies." I have to say it again (sorry)... pile of doo doo!!

The use of DPI and Phorm certainly has the capacity to disrupt much of the basis of the internet



Hank

---------- Post added at 22:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

@ SimonHickling

I can't see ANY reason why Kate would suddenly be interested in this stream of journalism either. None of her previous work seems to link with this field. Yes it smacks of "paid for" - IMHO ONLY - willing to hear from her to the contrary but actions speak louder than words and she should consider a broader piece to cover the real issues in full for a quality paper...

[Ravenheart]

Kate seems to be the medical correspondent, strange she should write about Phorm.

[serial]

Originally Posted by madslug

PR team seem to be back at work.

"Privacy drive 'could slow down the internet'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2559...-internet.html

Hilariously vacuous.

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Kate seems to be the medical correspondent, strange she should write about Phorm.

Unless of course she is an old friend of Kent's sister. She [Ms Ertugrul] would not want, or may not be able, to write pro Phormy pieces too easily, and it would attract attention to her personally which she might not be willing to do (even for her beloved brother)... So what better than to call in a favour from a friend on another paper?

Of course I could be wildly off the pace and she might just be completely open to payment for a random story or she might just have been writing stories about the web etc for years and finally got one past the editor. Maybe she will surprise us and do a better more researched piece which gets into the paper later? Baroness Miller was originally unaware of the reality behind the PR spin, so we could forgive Kate

[phormwatch]

Don't forget, Hugo Drayton, CEO of Phorm was the former managing director of both the Telegraph Group and Advertising.com.

I'm sure he has quite a few connections...

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Don't forget, Hugo Drayton, CEO of Phorm was the former managing director of both the Telegraph Group and Advertising.com.

I'm sure he has quite a few connections...

I suspect when the muck finally hits the fan (which cannot be too far off IMHO) the connections will possibly self destruct. (Every man for himself ... the calling cry!).

I also detect a little movement in the big anti-phorm flywheel? difficult to start but harder to stop! I firmly believe Phorm UK's days are numbered.

IMHO it is a no win situation for any Phorm webwise ISP's. The only question they (ISP's) should answer to themselves is: how much business and good PR are they prepared to lose?

Surely whatever point any ISP's public rating starts at, there must be only one way it can go with WebWise and I firmly believe that is down down down. Not good at all!

How can any ISP put any positive spin on WebWise if my assumption is correct?

[popper]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Thanks for the update Alex. Good to know there is actually a crime reference number allocated. I wonder how BT feel about being the 2006/2007 Webwise trials being the subject of an active official City of London Police criminal investigation?

One presumes the investigating officers won't be going through the overseas help desk, and that BT may just have to do a little bit more than refer them to the April 2008 Webwise FAQ.

It could be a novel experience for some people, answering police questions, and having to really think hard about whether the answers are true.

Certainly a bit different from dealing with customers, when you can just decide to turn off the tap and keep silent.

It is obviously time now for certain people to be seeking/obtaining legal advice/er/opinion, again...

did any users begin to compile a list of executives and their teams trail that were directly involved in actioning and installing the trials at the time(s)?

such a list of people and their involvement in it might be very useful in the next set of actions such as a mass of small claims for various activitys these BT employees actioned etc.

it appears many of these BT people are personaly looking at big fines and other serious options surely....depending on the court ordered discovery facts and actions already known,and the sitting judge at the time (if people see fit and chose to make the time to bring these N1 [small claims court form]proceedings)OC.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by warescouse

IMHO it is a no win situation for any Phorm webwise ISP's. The only question they (ISP's) should answer to themselves is: how much business and good PR are they prepared to lose?

Surely whatever point any ISP's public rating starts at, there must be only one way it can go with WebWise and I firmly believe that is down down down. Not good at all!

How can any ISP put any positive spin on WebWise if my assumption is correct?

I am recalling how, in the early days, many posters were saying that Webwise would be OK if it could be shown to met all legal requirements. Basically that means that a few 'things' need to be disclosed and managed differently. If those things are changed, then there could be positive spin.

I imagine that there are a few investors / shareholders who are putting a lot of pressure onto the Board of Directors / Senior Management of ALL companies concerned to ensure legality and protection of data, communications and computer systems before any trial is initiated. Will the earlier calls (and welcomed by Phorm) to open up the scripts to independent quality control and verification by qualified independent experts happen before the trial commences?

For new readers, the minimum that needs to be changed from the webwise system that was analysed in May this year:
* opt-in system [verification that minors do not opt-in without adult consent?]
* no forged cookies
* no leaking of cookies to 3rd parties
* no fraudulent 307 redirects
* opt-in system for 2nd party content to be intercepted, as per RIPA requirements
* licence fee system for websites and other content providers [audit trail open to independent verification, and royalty payments including provisions for copyright infringement]
* webwise useragent [making use of a new Allow protocol, not to be confused with the robots.txt Disallow protocol]
* privacy policy which discloses the loss of privacy and confidentiality of communications and provides a layman's explanation of behavioural targeting by 3rd parties, etc per informed consent requirements.
* etc [only the main items listed]

The only 2 items that have been mentioned in press releases are the opt-in and removal of reliance on cookies, with no timescale on when these changes will be implemented.
Updates on the other items are eagerly awaited.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by warescouse

tdadyslexia, have you checked this out yet?
http://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Theoretically it should solve your problem.

I will do next week wen I get some more ink for my printer.

[Rchivist]

I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.

Legal milestone for open source

I think it may have a bearing on the Emma Sanderson "If it's on the internet there is an implied consent to copy" argument.

It relates to the licencing and commercial exploitation of open source software, and material in the public domaiin. It's a US case but that is still significant to Webwise issues in relation to Websites.

I rather like this quote: (my emphasis with bolds)
The ruling has implications for the Creative Commons licence which offers ways for work to go into the public domain and still be protected. These licenses are widely used by academic organisations like MIT for distributing coursework, scientific groups, artists, movie makers and Wikipedia among others.

Creative Commons filed an amicus or friends brief on behalf of Mr Jacobsen. Its general counsel Diane Peters told BBC News "The federal court recognised that even though licensors give up some rights it doesn't mean they have any less rights to access the remedies our law provides.

"This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn't change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy."

It seems to me that my website content may be freely available but if Kent Ertugrul or Emma Sanderson want to make copies of it, make derivative works based on it, and gain commercially from it, they need my active, explicit informed consent. And if I have put a copyright notice on my site, they are bound by it, EVEN IF THE WORK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

They have previously denied this point. Does anyone think this US ruling may dent their confidence?