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

[Kellargh]

Originally Posted by Toto

Er...yeh, possibly, but I suspect down in terms of the overall market performance, not about what Phorm are doing themselves.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------



Unless he doesn't live in a cabled part of Swansea.

She And nope, I don't live in a cabled area, something I sob about regularly on these forums :P

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Originally Posted by ceedee

Hey, at least BT Retail have a forum in which they're willing to discuss the issue with their customers!
VM can't even be bothered to revise their three-week-old, error-ridden statement!

And, particularly as a Virgin Media employee, how do you feel about VM "stealing our personal information"?
Shouldn't you be calling for VM customers to leave too?

Oh, from what I believe, unlike BT who HAVE done this on the sly to it's customers, Virgin Media haven't...and Virgin are in two minds about using it at the moment. But yes, if you feel threatened then move. The only way they will know they've done wrong is by the amount of feet that start to budge to another provider.

[dav]

Isn't it odd how quiet Phorm and their PR robots have become in recent days?
After the flurry of interviews and webchats over the last 2 weeks, it certainly seems as if Kent's out of ideas about how to further try to pull the wool over the eyes of Joe Public.

The pressure is certainly on. I wonder how long until Kent is sleeping under a bridge?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by dav

Isn't it odd how quiet Phorm and their PR robots have become in recent days?
After the flurry of interviews and webchats over the last 2 weeks, it certainly seems as if Kent's out of ideas about how to further try to pull the wool over the eyes of Joe Public.

The pressure is certainly on. I wonder how long until Kent is sleeping under a bridge?

He paid a flying visit ti ISPreview posted this in the news thread about Tim Berners-Lee Joins Camp of Phorm Criticism

Hi,
I work for the Phorm comms team.
Here is a statement from Phorm relating to this story, which may be of interest:

"We believe that it is wrong to store Internet users' personal data. Our technology is a real turning point in the protection of privacy online - it does not store personally identifiable information, does not store IP addresss and nor does it store browsing histories. By contrast, ad targeting from other major Internet companies means that potentially identifiable personal data is stored for over 12 months before it is even anonymised. Also, because these companies reach nearly all UK Internet users, consumers effectively have no real choice about being targeted in this way. With the Phorm technology, users can choose - they can opt out or in at any time; and again, no personal data is stored .

"We look forward to speaking to Tim Berners Lee to explain how our technology is a ground breaking advance in delivering targeted ads while protecting privacy online and consumer choice, as we have with other experts."

For more information about Webwise, see www.webwise.com, and for specific queries that aren't covered there, you can contact techteam@phorm.com

Phorm comms team

As if he needed any help understanding the www.

[mark777]

After the tip-off today on the BBC news site, I had a look for details on the virgin site. Couldn't find anything - what a surprise. Found the 'register' article on this site with the link to virgin's webwise page, read it, and directly cancelled all services after 7 years as a customer.

Trying to grasp those few extra pennies will cost them a lot of pounds. What contempt they must hold their customers in. Unfortunately, they will get away with it with 98% of them.

Great site, thanks for the info.

[CaptJamieHunter]

What a patronising little slimeball! This is the standard response from Phorm to every criticism, "We look forward to speaking to [whoever] to explain how our technology is a ground breaking advance in delivering targeted ads while protecting privacy online and consumer choice, as we have with other experts"

So why haven't Phorm come forward here and on The Register to directly answer the questions put forward by intelligent customers who can recognise a scam when they see one?

Simple answer: because they aren't willing to admit there are people out there who have the capacity to make their own decisions about what happens to their data.

Get it into your head, Kent, you and your slimy little scheme are not welcome here. You are being challenged and your broken record response fails.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by mark777

After the tip-off today on the BBC news site, I had a look for details on the virgin site. Couldn't find anything - what a surprise. Found the 'register' article on this site with the link to virgin's webwise page, read it, and directly cancelled all services after 7 years as a customer.

Trying to grasp those few extra pennies will cost them a lot of pounds. What contempt they must hold their customers in. Unfortunately, they will get away with it with 98% of them.

Great site, thanks for the info.

to the Forums

May have been a touch premature, they've not implemented it yet & if we all join the struggle they may not...

[mark777]

May have been a touch premature, they've not implemented it yet & if we all join the struggle they may not...

Thanks for the welcome. It's time to go, i've had enough of them - besides I don't like laughing-boy Branson!

[GuestUK]

So, to clarify from the reports that I've read - Carphone Warehouse is going for opt-in, BT is establishing a proper opt-out (not just the fake cookie "pretend opt-out" used for press), but Virgin Media is standing ground of having a fully unescapable system? Or am I mistaken (please)

[popper]

mark

Originally Posted by mark777

Cobby:May have been a touch premature, they've not implemented it yet & if we all join the struggle they may not...

Thanks for the welcome. It's time to go, i've had enough of them - besides I don't like laughing-boy Branson!

Ohh Yuck bright green, , plain black with bold is far better,see....

just some info for you really, 'laughing-boy Branson' is only a major share holder, he does NOT own the Virgin Media company.

its just the old TW/NTL/etc collective with a 20 year licence for the Virgin Name and someone stuck Media on the end, hence 'Virgin Media'.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by GuestUK

... but Virgin Media is standing ground of having a fully unescapable system? Or am I mistaken (please)

I think VM were hoping to let the dust settle before deciding which way to go.
I suspect that's why there's been a virtual news-blackout from within VM: somebody figured it was best to keep quiet and definitely not to open it up for discussion with users (which worked well for TT, not so well for BT)

But at the end of the day, VM will have to make a decision based on the PR cost of compromising their customers' privacy (and the relatively small cost of some users leaving) or the potential £x millions from Phorm's advertising.

Just the fact that they've needed this *time* to ponder the decision is bad enough -- it's cut and dried for me. And ought to have been for them too.

[popper]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

So, I read the EY report properly this morning. Some thoughts...

• it is performed by EY, LLP 5 Times Sq, in NY, not EY, LLP the UK entity, why? Both have sufficient expertise
• it is performed to AICPA standards, not ICAEW standards
• it is addressed to Phorm inc, 264 W 40th NY, NY. Not Phorm plc 222 Regent St.
• the process as described talks about opt out mechanisms. If this becomes an opt in process as TT are discussing then one of the key aspects has significantly changed (for the better IMHO) but how does that change the security process as auditited.
• the wording of the management control descriptions is interesting. Phorms systems do not use or store. Rather than phorms systems cannot use and store.
• it goes on to say this specific data cannot be accessed by our ISP partners. So our ISP partners are allowing hardware to be injected into their networks on their premises that scans data packets and they cannot see what this hardware is doing!
• Page 4 we have created a privacy policy - well it is easy to create a policy, less easy to stick to it.
• Page 6 Para 6 is it not an inconsistency that the doc says 'for example phorm may tell a merchant that our network contains 50,000 users who have visited a travel website URL in the past six months, but cannot disclose which randomly generated IDs have visited that URL because the information is not stored' yet they say on Page 5 Para 3 (end of) Phorm Service will retain only information about general categories of interest associated with an ID such as IDnnn is interested in travel [to paraphrase]'
• Again Page 5 Para 5 the bullet points Phorm does not collect, not cannot collect or will not collect.
• Page 7 Para 2 For a US report issued by a US firm to a US recipent why is the data protection officer located in the UK?
• Page 7 Para 7 nice clause about export of data to other countries there. 'if you use your computer and usual browser in a country other than your home country to log on to the internet via one of our partner ISPs in that other country, the data Phorm holds in its systems that is associated with that cookie may be automatically transferred to Phorm's systems in that other country.'
• Pages 8 - 13 is a nice piece of padding, basically the AICPA template for creation of a privacy policy. So if you get the Phorm privacy policy it should map nicely to this template.

Page 7 Para 7 nice clause about export of data to other countries there. 'if you use your computer and usual browser in a country other than your home country to log on to the internet via one of our partner ISPs in that other country, the data Phorm holds in its systems that is associated with that cookie may be automatically transferred to Phorm's systems in that other country.'
Gives another scenareo, you take your laptop usually connected to TTs firewalled implementation of Phorm around to your mates for some gaming or whatever and log on to his internet connection which is with VM, now your cookie from Phorm and your data will pass to the phorm harvester. Great.

I don't know where I read it, but someone wrote a great thing about giving data and the benefits of giving. Well I don't need anti-phishing I use IE7 and that has it built in and enabled by default, though the install clearly asks if you want to switch it off as you will be passing data to Microsoft.

I don't mind giving google my data as they give me fantastic search results in return. If they were mediocre results like MS Live then I woudl not be using them. There is a reason Google is the No.1 search engine.

time to remind people about your Page 7 Para 7 part of the post

[JackSon]

Taken from Florence's post:

Hi,
I work for the Phorm comms team.
Here is a statement from Phorm relating to this story, which may be of interest:

"We believe that it is wrong to store Internet users' personal data. Our technology is a real turning point in the protection of privacy online - it does not store personally identifiable information, does not store IP addresss and nor does it store browsing histories. By contrast, ad targeting from other major Internet companies means that potentially identifiable personal data is stored for over 12 months before it is even anonymised. Also, because these companies reach nearly all UK Internet users, consumers effectively have no real choice about being targeted in this way. With the Phorm technology, users can choose - they can opt out or in at any time; and again, no personal data is stored .

"We look forward to speaking to Tim Berners Lee to explain how our technology is a ground breaking advance in delivering targeted ads while protecting privacy online and consumer choice, as we have with other experts."

For more information about Webwise, see www.webwise.com, and for specific queries that aren't covered there, you can contact techteam@phorm.com

Phorm comms team

It is getting rather tiresome that Phorm are not listening to the fact that it is not only the saving (or not saving) of data that concerns a lot of us (including Sir Tim) but the actual process of being profiled itself that we are opposed to. The not saving data is frankly irrelevant, it's been read (opted in OR out), that's the first violation which should be stopped.

---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:32 ----------

I am taking Berners-Lee's line of "It's mine; you can't have it" to mean he doesn't want the thrid party to even collect and analyse the data - any coversation of whether it is then saved or not means it is already too late as far as his privacy wishes go.

[popper]

dont forget unnecessary collecting is also not allowed under the DPA, everyone seems to miss that one, alongside explicit in the RIPA, they are important.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by JackSon

Taken from Florence's post:
It is getting rather tiresome that Phorm are not listening to the fact that it is not only the saving (or not saving) of data that concerns a lot of us (including Sir Tim) but the actual process of being profiled itself that we are opposed to. The not saving data is frankly irrelevant, it's been read (opted in OR out), that's the first violation which should be stopped.

---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:32 ----------

I am taking Berners-Lee's line of "It's mine; you can't have it" to mean he doesn't want the thrid party to even collect and analyse the data - any coversation of whether it is then saved or not means it is already too late as far as his privacy wishes go.

Have to agree with you and one reason why on the 28th a BT line wil be fitted and my cable number ported over to BT. Had a cable phone since nynex completed laying the cables in Manchester, we signed up while the street was still being dug up and one of the first to go online,
This has broken all trust I had in VM I am off.

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by popper

dont forget unnecessary collecting is also not allowed in the DPA, everyone seems to miss that one, alongside explicit in the RIPA, they are important.

Indeed so, good point well made.

I was more addressing the statements from Kent/Phorm/PRTeam that they can't understand why we are so opposed if nothing is being saved from a point of view of what we want to happen rather than the legislation - it's if they seem reluctant to realise that saving data is not the only personal issue we have, and also as you point out, a legal one.