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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Love IT!

If anyone is interested I am currently writing a new article summarising the last 4 months. The first 5 pages are available as a pdf here:

http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm.pdf

I am about to take a quick break from writing and setup a gallery page on NoDPI for all these anti Phorm images, please let me know if I miss any.

Alexander Hanff

Thanks Alex, I pulled it as I thought it was rubbish

[AlexanderHanff]

Kursk, where did the image go?

Alexander Hanff

Give it back! I was about to add it to the gallery!

[Tharrick]

Originally Posted by me

Dear Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer,

I notice that you have recently spoken about the company 'Phorm' and their new 'Webwise' system in a debate about the issue of data privacy. In this debate, you state that Phorm is 'a company on the cutting edge of what can protect the public.' - in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Phorm as a company was until a couple of years ago known as '121Media', and they developed a system called 'peopleonpage'. This system covered up a rootkit (a rootkit being a program designed to achieve access and control of a third party computer, without the permission of the computer's owner).
The new 'webwise' system takes it a step further, by placing their system at the internet service provider point. I have reviewed the patent information for their system, and it terrifies me.
The use that Phorm tout for their webwise system is the protection of online privacy, as it uses a filtering system to block pages associated with phishing. However, the two widest used internet browsers in the world (Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Mozilla's Firefox) already come with built-in phishing protection, rendering this system completely unnecessary.

Despite the phishing protection so often touted by Phorm, the main use of this system is purely commercial - it is designed to spy on everything that passes between the ISP and their customer, essentially to allow Phorm to sell this information to advertisers. A fitting analogy would be a company in agreements with the post office that workers at the post office will open and read every letter sent, and make a profile for each individual receiving letters. This profile would then be sold to companies who could target the end recipient with junk mail.
In addition, from the patent information, it is revealed that the system also has the ability to add and remove parts of the website before it's sent to the end user - imagine trying to surf the internet and finding adverts displayed in pages which would not normally display adverts, and in which the owner of the website has not actually included adverts. This leads on to more sinister potential abuses, including the complete blocking of websites or even the injection of viruses into websites. To continue the post office analogy, this would be the equivalent of the letters opened at the post office having advertisements literally glued onto them, and possibly certain areas of the letter excised.

As for 'privacy', leaked documents from a previous BT trial of the system stored the IP addresses of everybody involved in the trial. The upgraded system still creates a profile of each user, and the only way to do this is to store information that can be linked to an IP address - despite Phorm's repeated assertions that no data is stored.

There is also an issue with copyright protection in this debate. The Webwise system creates a copy of any website requested by the user, without the permission of the website owner. It then stores this on the system for analysis - this is a clear-cut case of creating an unauthorised derivative work for profit.

Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information Society and Media, has stated in correspondance with me and with several others that this system potentially breaches articles 7 and 8 of the EU charter of Fundamental Rights, and also the ECHR.

The Information Commissioner's Office is required to investigate this matter. However, having received assurances from Phorm and BT that everything done so far is legal, they have ceased all investigation and refuse to discuss the matter further.


In summary, this system is not a 'cutting edge' method of protecting the privacy of UK broadband users. It is a malicious method of commercial gain through the exploitation of personal data and the breaching of copyright, relying on fraudulent misrepresentation and illegal wiretapping. At the time of writing, over 14 thousand people have signed a petition on petitions.pm.gov.uk calling for this system to be investigated and banned.


Further information about this issue can be found at https://nodpi.org




Yours sincerely,

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

This look sufficient?

[serial]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:

Official website:

http://www.suemiller.org.uk/

Has an email contact: info@suemiller.org.uk

Or the "Send Views" page: http://www.suemiller.org.uk/views.php

[Dephormation]

Does anyone know where I can find more information about the EC hearing in London on Friday?

It seems blummin strange to have a hearing, but not publish the location, and not invite key opinion sources like FIPR for example (who are apparently unaware and uninvited).

I wonder if Privacy International or 80/20 are attending. Wonder which hat they will wear. Bowler hat. Top Hat. Clown hat. If you want to get ahead, get a hat.

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
Groucho Marx

Pete.

[Privacy_Matters]

Banners

Hey Guys, had to take a little time away, and will complete the two left to do today.

If anyone wants a banner for their website, PM me with the specs, filesize limit and so on. They will all be the same format for the next week, to ensure familiarity and cohesion within the campaign. Please ansure that the dimensions are started ie 250 (W) x 300 (H), file limit 80kb etc. And include the prefered text.

I will create in bulk and post here and on badphorm, in the fightback section.

The Templates I have can throw up a Banner/Signature etc within minutes, except when animation is required - this will take a little longer.

Don't ask for reference to your own website, your site is your own responsibility, and the goal of this effort is to ensure a coherant body to oppose Phorm.

I've checked the Petition today, and only about an extra 100 signatures, can all website owners please put the button below onto their sites:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8...nbuttonhf3.gif

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Create a link by clicking the button to:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

Please add a short editorial comment to explain Phorm, and what the site is for.

The sooner we can create a cohesive network, and start to work together solidly on this matter, the sooner we can help to educate the majority of the population.

Thanks

Sammy

I will create banners to link to your website too (Anti Phorm Sites only). If you have a Google AdSense Campaign, and are wishing a few additions, let me know.

Tharrick - That letter is fantastic. I'll post mine below, but I think that receiving letters that are different in thier content and main approach is good, it shows the strength of opinion is sufficient to stir different poeple into action (not simply a copy of a standard letter - although I think that would be better than no letter at all)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
The House Of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
Friday 13th June 2008

Dear Baroness Miller

Phorm – Intercepting communication to profile individuals members of the British public

I read with some concern, and even alarm, your comments during the House Of Lords debate on Data Protection.

I was talking with the chief executive of Phorm this week who told me that once something is stored you have lost control over it. Phorm has been the subject of an interesting article in the Economist recently which some of your Lordships may have read. It is a company on the cutting edge of what can protect the public. A bit of controversy surrounds its work because, with its client BT, it intercepted people's online business without BT customers knowing. But Phorm is certainly correct when it says that if consumers knew what was actually stored they would decide to opt for true anonymity online. This is what Phorm is trying to develop with major telecommunications clients on a global scale.

The very idea that you could believe Phorm are working to “Protect the public” and that you stated so in The Lords is very concerning indeed. I know and respect the fact that you are a member of the Liberal Democrat group of Lords and so I hope that I may take the time to offer my thoughts and a suggestion.

Kent Ertugrul has been known to individuals such as I for many years and the history of his output is very well known amongst Information Technology professionals. I stress he is not 'Personally known to me'.

I very much doubt that Kent explained that the two most common Anti-Virus software systems, produced by the highly respected companies F-Secure and Symantec, classified his Kent's products as Spyware, Malware or Adware. F-Secure and Symatec products are widely used and include processes to remove the software created by Phorm (previously known as 121Media).

Furthermore, controversy is not at all limited to the current work of Phorm with BT and their trials. Kent's '121Media' developed a technology called 'Rootkits' which was specifically designed to reduce the chances of discovery of his system on a personal computer and to make subsequent removal more difficult. The old phrase relating to 'Leopards' and 'Spots' comes to mind.

When Mr Ertugrul described that, “Once something is stored you have lost control over it,” I suspect he did not explain that the Phorm system, if implemented, will indeed need to “store” information, even if it is only for a short time. Will you be happy to lose control, for any period of time?

Anonymity cannot be enhanced by the allowance in our country of interception systems running 24/7 and sited at our ISP. To try and “sell this” as a benefit is a nonsense, but that is what Mr Ertugrul will work to do. The benefits he and BT are pushing of “Anti Phishing technology” are a smokescreen. Anti phishing technology is already available in the most common web browser on any Windows home PC and it is already free. So what benefits does that leave us getting from Phorm?

Please consider: Would you accept all your letters being opened and your communication being profiled before the postman delivered them to you? Would you accept your telephone conversations being listened to, with someone sitting half way between you and all those whom you speak with? What is the difference between these two scenarios and the interception of all your web browsing data by Phorm?

Please be aware that Phorm spin wonderfully about how they will not read emails or other personal data. They cannot guarantee this. They may have lists of hundreds of web services providing email utilities, but they cannot list them all, there are simply too many.

The Phorm business proposition is morally reprehensible. It should not be permitted and one would hope that we have members of The Commons and The Lords taking sufficient interest in the detail of how Phorm and others propose to implement these intrusive methods of making a profit. If we do not have people in these places of power investigating the issues in detail, if we only listen to those who wish to profit from exploiting privacy in this country, we will open the door to them and despite our desires to go back, it will not close afterwards.

There is no need for Phorm's system to be permitted and there have been many occasions where people in our sphere of interest have seen that Mr Ertugrul is presented as a wolf in the clothing of a sheep.

More can be learned by a visit to www.nodpi.org and you or any of the members of The Lords would, I am certain, be welcomed by concerned members of the public who are meeting at the BT AGM on July 16th (The Barbican Centre). As I understand it there will be eminent experts in the field available to discuss the issues.

I know of no experts in the field of 'The Web' who think that Phorm's system is a good idea. I refer to Dr Richard Clayton (Cambridge University), Sir Tim Berners-Lee ('Inventor' of the web) and Alexander Hanff (activist who has studied Phorm's system and this issue in detail).

I do hope that this letter has been received in the manner I wish. I am deeply concerned that in our country we must have the systems in place to detect and investigate terrorism and crime, but that we should work to ensure that this is achieved within a framework that does not lead to a deterioration of the freedoms that we enjoy in Great Britain. I do not see Phorm's system co-existing with the maintenance of privacy at all.


Yours sincerely



I recommend hard copy in the post rather than email if you can send it that way. It carries more impact than electronic communication.

Hank

[Tharrick]

I recommend hard copy in the post rather than email if you can send it that way. It carries more impact than electronic communication.

Already sent by writetothem, but I may well print it out and get a hard copy in the mail as well. Signing up for the royal mail stamp printing, since I'm out of stamps :P



EDIT: Well, that worked really well. Won't let me send it unless there's a street name. What's the street name for the houses of parliament, anyway?

[Privacy_Matters]

120x600

Vertical Banner:

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/670...lbannerih1.gif



Dimensions: 120 (W) 600 (H)

Filesize: 118kb

Ext: .gif (No compression)

[AlexanderHanff]

Gallery now up on https://nodpi.org/gallery

I will add new pics as I get them.

Please make yourself known if you want your name added next to any images you worked on, via PM.

Alexander Hanff

[Privacy_Matters]

Hey Alex

If your have your quote, please PM me

Also, it would be interesting to know hit stats for your site?

No name required Alex, all free to use (Conditions apply*).

* Images I submit are free to use by any individual/website, unconditionally, involved with the campaign to stop the implementation of the Phorm System, which is not limited to the original, ie copies can be altered for a website/individuals own use.

NO PERMISSION is granted for BT, VirginMedia, Talk Talk, Phorm, OIX, Webwise, or associated Companies or individuals (with the exception of any individual within these organisations that are actively involved in the campaign to stop the implementation of the Phorm System - any such individual will be treated as an Anti-Phorm Campaigner). The Copyright remains with myself, and the Template Creator, and we will commence legal action against any individual, Company associated with the Phorm System, or related to, if they breach the said copyright.

The Media are permitted FULL Rights, and will be treated as Phorm Campaigners, in respects of use of the Images, however the Media are NOT Permitted to alter the Images in any way, and must display the images as originally created, however the Media are permitted to resize, or crop the Images to fit on any webspace theywish to display the Images. This does not, however, limit the usage of the Images by the Media to create Links, and Link back sources.

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Does anyone know where I can find more information about the EC hearing in London on Friday?
...
I wonder if Privacy International or 80/20 are attending.

Pete.

Let's hope they don't arrange for the meeting to be professionally filmed, or promise that the entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly. That London meeting was when... back in April? 80/20 Thinking still says "NB The video footage is not currently available" on their website.

Shame that Phorm has done the dirty on them because I do think that Simon would not have ever wanted to be in the current situation - it's not good for a company to say "will be placed unedited on the Web shortly" in April and "The video footage is not currently available" in June really is it?

Kent has really been very bad to them (bet he hasn't paid his bills either - if he had, and it was my website, I'd be saying why the video was not available... We all know WHY!!)

Hank

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Hank

I recommend hard copy in the post rather than email if you can send it that way. It carries more impact than electronic communication.
Hank

My succinct hardcopy letter to her has been sent off first class in time for today's post. Given her comment that "we are poorly equipped for this debate" I've offered to meet her to provide a briefing.

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

My succinct hardcopy letter to her has been sent off first class in time for today's post. Given her comment that "we are poorly equipped for this debate" I've offered to meet her to provide a briefing.

Succint - I like that. She'll probably never read all of the long ones, but they will help her realise the issue is real. Your letter could therefore get the response desired.

[Privacy_Matters]

IMPORTANT

The Petition, http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/, is not available at this time.

The site is down for maintenance, with no indication of when it will return.