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

[80/20Thinking]

Right. I don't have time to answer every one of the fifty or so questions just at the moment (we're lodging a legal appeal tomorrow on an issue close to all your hearts) but let me try to get through as many items as possible.

Let's deal wit the Burson Marsteller issue first. I do find it fascinating that so many people have been passing judgment on 80/20 for some weeks and this is the first time anyone has spotted the huge B-M logo on the "about us" page of the 80/20 site.

Do we have an ethical conflict with this relationship? No. I've been following the B-M saga for many years and I'm fully aware of that aspect of its history. Just about every major corp in the world has multiple dimensions, B-M included. The bigger you get, the more obvious that becomes. There are many aspects to B-M, including the (until recent) role advising Hilary Clinton.

80/20 is a company operating globally with global clients. Such companies need strategic partnerships. Yes, B-M is one, but the LSE is another. B-M helps us with advice and will host breakfast meetings and the such that we will organise. There is no B-M person on our board or our advisory group. And of course, it's nonsense to say they are our parent company. Check out Companies House and you'll see that.

Oh, and in answer to a related question, no 80/20 employee or director has any financial interest in Phorm or B-M.

As for the question about our ethics code and why we haven't resigned from the Phorm contract, we make it clear that there has to be some clear decision by an authority on this matter. A court, a regulator whatever.

Craig asked me to cease mentioning my work with PI. Excuse me, but I didn't start that controversy. I find it highly relevant that I, as director of PI, am constantly kicking the heads of potential clients. If you find that situation difficult to handle, welcome to the wacky world of unfunded advocacy.

Back to Phorm. Let me state unequivocally that Phorm did not "buy" a PIA. Here's a scoop for you. Phorm came to us before there was even the slightest controversy about its plans. At the executive meeting that preceded our work I gave a warning along the lines of "you realise that once you take this road there's no turning back". Kent Ertugrul, the CEO of Phorm, responded by saying that the chips should fall as they will, and that the company wanted an independent analysis. I reiterated, as I am bound professionally to do, that the company would have no control over this process and that 80/20 may find it a violation of privacy. His view was along the lines of "publish and be damned".

Phorm knew the risk it was taking, even before there was any controversy. They knew that they were getting into a potential minefield, but seemed hellbent on showing that they were engaging a process that no-one in government or elsewhere had asked them to undertake.

Just for the record.

Simon

[amateria]

Originally Posted by dav

Amateria:

How about sending such a letter to the British Bankers Association?
That way, all banks and financial institutions will get to be informed as they look out for the interests of their members.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=103

Good idea, thanks Dav. I will ponder on a draft.

[Ravenheart]

Here's the postal address so you don't have to use the online option they offer,

British Bankers' Association
Pinners Hall
105-108 Old Broad Street
London EC2N 1EX
United Kingdom

[amateria]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Back to Phorm. Let me state unequivocally that Phorm did not "buy" a PIA. Here's a scoop for you. Phorm came to us before there was even the slightest controversy about its plans. At the executive meeting that preceded our work I gave a warning along the lines of "you realise that once you take this road there's no turning back". Kent Ertugrul, the CEO of Phorm, responded by saying that the chips should fall as they will, and that the company wanted an independent analysis. I reiterated, as I am bound professionally to do, that the company would have no control over this process and that 80/20 may find it a violation of privacy. His view was along the lines of "publish and be damned".

Phorm knew the risk it was taking, even before there was any controversy. They knew that they were getting into a potential minefield, but seemed hellbent on showing that they were engaging a process that no-one in government or elsewhere had asked them to undertake.

Just for the record.

Simon

Did your client consent to you making this disclosure about your private meetings with them? If so, it looks like spin. If not, then this is quite an extraordinary breach of the confidence reposed in you by your client.

I don't doubt you are a dedicated, unpaid advocate, but do you understand the professional obligations of a consultant? Do you understand the distinction between audit and consultancy?

[AlexanderHanff]

Simon,

They may have come to you before there was controversy over their current plans, but what about the illegal trials? There was controversy over them a long time before Phorm came to you and even before 80/20 existed.

Furthermore, what is your opinion on Phorm Inc. refusing to divulge what user-agent they intend to use so people can add explicit rules in robot.txt to block them? I suspect they won't be using any special user agent and in fact they will masquerade as the same user agent the user's web request is using.

Another important point is that the system is closed and proprietary so we only have Phorm's word that it will not be used in a way other than described (putting aside for a moment that even their public statements on intended use are horrific). The reality is this technology can be used to do many illegal things and would be pretty much impossible to detect when it does. Why should we trust a company borne out of Spyware not to use the capabilities of their technology as described by themselves in their ICO register entry and their patent application? In fact I will go even further and say why should we trust -any- company irrespective of their reputation, to not use their technology to commit illegal acts that can't be detected, in the name of profit?

How do you feel the possible uses of Phorm's technology (with very trivial changes that would take an experienced sys admin literally minutes to implement) stands in the light of Net Neutrality?

Do you for example deny that Phorm's technology could be reconfigured with ease to block access to ISP's competitors, or competitors to OIX ad platform?

Do you deny that the technology can be used to add noise/latency to competing VOIP products in order to encourage people to use their ISP's own VOIP services (or the services of an OIX advertising partner)?

Alexander Hanff

[80/20Thinking]

Originally Posted by amateria

Did your client consent to you making this disclosure about your private meetings with them? If so, it looks like spin. If not, then this is quite an extraordinary breach of the confidence reposed in you by your client.

I don't doubt you are a dedicated, unpaid advocate, but do you understand the professional obligations of a consultant? Do you understand the distinction between audit and consultancy?

This is not an audit, it's an assessment. And yes, I know full well the rules of the game. We are not under an NDA, nor has Phorm asked us to sign an NDA. I'm not disclosing privileged information, I'm merely setting the record straight. Attack Phorm to whatever extent you feel is justified, just do so on a foundation of fact.

[amateria]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Simon,

Another important point is that the system is closed and proprietary so we only have Phorm's word that it will not be used in a way other than described (putting aside for a moment that even their public statements on intended use are horrific). The reality is this technology can be used to do many illegal things and would be pretty much impossible to detect when it does. Why should we trust a company borne out of Spyware not to use the capabilities of their technology as described by themselves in their ICO register entry and their patent application?

Alexander Hanff

I agree the spyware makes it worse, but why should anyone have to "trust" any company with technology and proposed governance arrangements that are seemingly so capable of abuse. If you balance the extremely slender social utility against the risks, what is the security case for using such technology?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by amateria

I agree the spyware makes it worse, but why should anyone have to "trust" any company with technology and proposed governance arrangements that are seemingly so capable of abuse. If you balance the extremely slender social utility against the risks, what is the security case for using such technology?

Hehehe see my amendments I have a mouth full of power steering fluid so I am a little slow on the ball this evening

Alexander Hanff

[amateria]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

This is not an audit, it's an assessment. And yes, I know full well the rules of the game. We are not under an NDA, nor has Phorm asked us to sign an NDA. I'm not disclosing privileged information, I'm merely setting the record straight. Attack Phorm to whatever extent you feel is justified, just do so on a foundation of fact.

You don't have to be under an express NDA for the obligations of confidentiality to arise! The information is not privileged, but confidential! I am not attacking Phorm on any basis, but I am asking you about your professional standards.

What is an "assessment"? Are you managing a process or performing an evaluation? If you are evaluating (whatever it is you are evaluating) then in what sense do you think you are independent - given that you are being paid by one side in a controversy?

[Pasanonic]

I shall have to leave it here for the day.

I was expecting a little more than that to be honest Simon. I did not mean to question your integrity but to merely point out that in your current position as sub-contracted employee of Phorm Inc I'd find it less than credible that you could issue any kind of statement of findings that would be harmful to the client.

Once again. It matters not that you are a director of PI. The two positions are clearly separate and opposed and you have to address this issue from the standpoint of Phorm employee.

You have reiterated your claims to neutrality and I shall accept that.
However you've not touched on many of the issues raised today ( even though they number somewhat less than 50 ) and it smacks of the usual
"if we can't put a positive spin on the answer then don't answer" tactic.

You probably don't deserve to be embroiled in this farce but as it stands you formed a company purely to service the Phorm contract ( in my opinion based on what I have read here ) and I don't doubt that it was lucrative both in retainers and any future earnings from what could grow to be the largest global business model on the planet if not halted now.
It's just incredible that you would sully your reputation with these people given what you know in this area. I hope you can come through it without further harm.

I'd still like your opinion as to us getting OIX partner information released so that we might ensure we can create a blocklist.

kindest regards

Craig.

[amateria]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Hehehe see my amendments I have a mouth full of power steering fluid so I am a little slow on the ball this evening

Alexander Hanff

couldn't have said it better!

[Bonglet]

@80/20 quick couple more questions if you dont mind

1. do you catergorically deny that you have such a strategic plan or partnership with Burson Marsteller related to phorm atm and have never been in touch with them or the pr people working for phorm?.

2. What exactly is the bonus in having a strategic partnership with this company apart from having the odd coffee morning a user already posted this as part of B-M known tactics

Originally Posted by Julian Smart

One of the most effective PR tools is the “third party” technique, where a firm will hire an “expert” to speak on behalf of a company. People don’t generally trust corporate executives who say a product is harmless (say cigarettes, Teflon cookware or household insecticides), but are more likely to believe the same words from a scientist. And sometimes even more effective than hiring experts is getting average citizens to do the same. PR firms have time and again managed to create the illusion of public support for corporate causes through front groups, such as the CCRES."

Sound familiar?

dont get me wrong but how does it look when you and your strategic partners *cough* are both working for the same company at the same time for the same issue coincidence? smells like a phorm phish shop.

3. what did your conscious say to you by dealing with a company well known in the past for being active in the field of ad/spyware for someone with a great deal of knowledge about internet security did you not think about how many illegal data gathering and internet/machine killing experiences these guys gave to people?
I do because i was one of the people fixing them after there mess had infected normal users systems.

[AlexanderHanff]

Another point here Simon, with regards to you not being the responsible party with regards PI association. You are right, -your client- started that association by claiming their system had the approval of Privacy International.

Alexander Hanff

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

You probably don't deserve to be embroiled in this farce but as it stands you formed a company purely to service the Phorm contract ( in my opinion based on what I have read here ) and I don't doubt that it was lucrative both in retainers and any future earnings from what could grow to be the largest global business model on the planet if not halted now.

Craig.

Well spotted. I guess the strategic partner made the referral. What else are strategic partners for!

[AlexanderHanff]

Another point I have Simon, is regarding your apparent bitterness over the lack of donations by the British public to PI. I should remind you that the vast majority of the UK have very little disposable income and in fact most of us are in debt. Just because I can't afford to donate money to Privacy International (I am a student with a mortgage, a 2 yr old child and a partner on long term disability) it doesn't mean I don't support them.

The problem you have in acquiring donations is twofold. Firstly Privacy International is unknown to the "general public" the vast majority of the population are unlikely to recognise the name or what they do. Secondly, the people who do have disposable income to the point where they could make a substantial donation, are more often than not the same people who head up or work in senior management/executive roles for companies who want to profit from abuses of privacy (or are shareholders of such companies); so they are unlikely to fund an organisation which campaigns to protect rights and thus close potential avenues for profit.

Alexander Hanff