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

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Please, everyone, take a minute to consider what I posted before replying:

"It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content."

the ISPs...

I don't care if you don't agree with my statement but please don't misrepresent me.

We can simply and effectively avoid the strongest part of the ISPs defence by steering the debate away from the areas covered by implied consent (published material) and focussing instead on the private messaging services and webmail.

It is all data being effectively intercepted & manipulated by ISP's that needs dealing with, narrowing this to fewer services as you suggest would weaken the overall case, not strengthen it!

The Very Act of narrowing the debate would imply to some extent legally that you accept the other parts of the interception & data manipulation!

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

It is all data being effectively intercepted & manipulated by ISP's that needs dealing with, narrowing this to fewer services as you suggest would weaken the overall case, not strengthen it!

The Very Act of narrowing the debate would imply to some extent legally that you accept the other parts of the interception & data manipulation!

But, and this again is opinion, you can't legally intercept one and avoid the other, so the net effect is the same - all interception is outlawed, all just from the argument that email and private messages should not be touched.

That is because it is (i) a technical challenge bordering on impossible to distinguish protected HTTP content from open (published) HTTP content and (ii) if it was possible, without using opt-in (whitelists) then it would involve looking at the stream, i.e. intercepting content, in order to classify content as content that must not be intercepted - catch 22.

I'm not actually saying one should be allowed without the other. I'm saying that, in carefully picking the battles fought we can get a clear message to MPs and the like.

[popper]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Please, everyone, take a minute to consider what I posted before replying:

"It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content."

the ISPs...

I don't care if you don't agree with my statement but please don't misrepresent me.

We can simply and effectively avoid the strongest part of the ISPs defence by steering the debate away from the areas covered by implied consent (published material) and focussing instead on the private messaging services and webmail.

you didnt OC mean me with that "don't misrepresent me"

now that you have seen that Simon said explicit consent and not infact Implied consent, then is there a real problem for any IPS's defence of implied consent, .......

personally i think it's good we have someone willing to play devils advocate, after all we do have currently 38 minus one person (that officially stated they changed sides after they learned more about how this effected them and the estimated 70%+ ISP customers) that i assume are willing to advocate this model on some level due to their vote cast (have YOU voted yet, join the thread comments and cast YOUR vote please).

are you one of the shareholders that have been advocating the Phorm model over on iii by any chance oblonsky?, perhaps your infact that brettypoos chap , no matter, its all good as long as it stays polite and informative.


"You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the protection of their personal data.

Explicit consent should be informed consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do. "

Courtesy of the BT forum - interesting indication of Phorm's long-term intentions:-

http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

[OldBear]

Thanks to Peter N over at the BT forums for this link: http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

Most interesting part is:

One comment which may be of particular interest to information professionals is a final thought which Drayton left with the audience: if the Phorm models works for driving targeted and behavioural advertising on the internet, then it is perfectly possible that you can do the same for content. Drayton, an ex-newspaper man said he stood by the need for the editorial process (i.e. the editor making a judgement on what his or her readers want to see). But there may also be room for content sent to people determined by their previous search behaviour. The world of content and information may never be the same again.

Didn't someone previously mention 'function creep'?

OB

Edit, you just beat me John.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

And I've reworked the home page of http://www.inphormationdesk.org/ to include a summary and Kursk's excellent list. Any comments to the usual places - the site is for everyone to contribute to.

Cracking work PG

[Florence]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Thanks to Peter N over at the BT forums for this link: http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

Most interesting part is:

Didn't someone previously mention 'function creep'?

OB

Edit, you just beat me John.

Wasn't so much function creep but more that the phorm system could be scripted to harvest anything from your name/address bank anything that you have on your pc or visit it is just a change in the get command...

Originally Posted by OldBear

Thanks to Peter N over at the BT forums for this link: http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

Most interesting part is:

Didn't someone previously mention 'function creep'?

OB

Edit, you just beat me John.

"Think of it, says Drayton, as a search engine for people. "

I'd rather not think of it at all. For obvious reasons, Phorm's spin to their (potential) customers is somewhat different to their spin to the end users.

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Courtesy of the BT forum - interesting indication of Phorm's long-term intentions:-

http://blog.iwr.co.uk/2008/05/behaviour-model.html

It is an interesting thought and I don't have any issues in principal with most of what he writes. I do however feel Hugo Drayton conveniently papers over the issue of the intra-ISP snooping with a pretty picture of the benefits of personalised content.

Front of my mind is an interesting exchange (of the pleasant variety) between myself and Simon Davies a few tens of pages back about browsers and the lengths companies like Phorm have to go just to get an overview of how a visitor exhanges information with several different websites.

I believe it is fundamentally wrong to do this in the ISP. The intra-ISP angle is just a way of forcing users to adopt something they clearly don't want, otherwise by now all browsers would have a unique UID or at the very least cookies would be accessible accross domains (given user consent). There isn't such an option even for users to opt-in with cookies and modern browsers.

[virginmedia]

Phorms website say they are working with Virgin Media.

http://www.phorm.com/

John

[number6]

One comment which may be of particular interest to information professionals is a final thought which Drayton left with the audience: if the Phorm models works for driving targeted and behavioural advertising on the internet, then it is perfectly possible that you can do the same for content. Drayton, an ex-newspaper man said he stood by the need for the editorial process (i.e. the editor making a judgement on what his or her readers want to see). But there may also be room for content sent to people determined by their previous search behaviour. The world of content and information may never be the same again.

Just what we need... junk mail by web browser!

The author seems to have left his critical facilities at home though.

[Bonglet]

Exactly florence and this is why phorm/webwise should just stop the silliness now imo.

The next model will just be as bad as the last maybe have a scripted front end with vv small font about t&c's and usage but will still hit the profiler on the way and i dont want any phorm supplied kit between me and the internet.

Its like buying goods off known criminals you just dont do it.

All phorms tall tales are just that tall tales, they have not provided any proof or attempted to get real independantly verifed proof from a government (related) specialist (They could say Dr Richard Clayton but he like us knows it's illegal phorm of wiretapping).

Would you take the word of this company, i certainly wont especially given there previous phorm and the isp's defening silence over the matter is the same as phorms but they dont have a clue whats in this wonder kit do they, just phorm's word yet again of advertising revenue lining there pockets while they syphon off the customers history and whatever else they wish to dephorm pharm on end users.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

"Think of it, says Drayton, as a search engine for people. "

That would be the same system they are telling us is anonymous, that delivers a revolution in privacy would it?

For Gods sake when is this going to stop.

When are the regulators, ISP business, Government, or Europe going to wake up and pull the plug on these twits.

ICO hope you're reading this.
You are a complete waste of tax payers money.

Pete.

[vicz]

....But there may also be room for content sent to people determined by their previous search behaviour....

K*nt must be fuming - while he is trying to pour his soothing spin on the ICO and UK media his board are blabbering off in the US about how powerful phorm is and all the wonderfully intrusive things it can do. "See the whole Internet" indeed!

---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Dig it up here http://digg.com/tech_news/Privacy_is...e_you_see_them

[Florence]

done vicz need some more to digg it..