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

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Do a search for my name on here cable forum someone have a look at some of my comments and others from last year especialy note comments of since the name change was a great deal of similar to me posts in the time i came to cable forum to look for answers of how this happened overnight to most people.
<snip>

Just looking at the traceroutes in the posts in the http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34425758 thread.

Do you always get bounced around so many ntl nodes before your traffic gets out? How do those old traces compare with what you are seeing today? With my broadband supplier I go through 2 of their nodes (the one that picks me up and the one that does the DNS to route me to the destination) and then straight to the host of the site I am tracing to. My LAN and the destination host bounce me around more than my ISP.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

So - another acronym to add to the glossary.
BERR- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Anyone been in touch with them? Letters, references, statements from ministers etc.?

The first response I received from my MP included the BERR response that is dated 10 June 2008 - they (BERR) now have a database of who contacted their MP and sent an identical letter to everyone.

The gist of the letter is that the ICO has everything in hand and that there is no consideration for anything other than DPA and monitoring (not interception?) for advert delivery. The interception of all the other browsing done by the ISP customer is excluded from discussion.

To quote from a later paragraph from that quoted above:
"... Both the ICO and I [Shriti Vadera] have discussed with BT their plans to run a trial involving around 10,000 broadband users, and the company has confirmed their decision that customers' web browsing will only be monitored for subsequent delivery of advertisements if they decide to opt-in to the trial. BT have also told us that the system will not store personally identifiable information, URLs, or IP addresses nor retain browsing histories, and that search information will be deleted almost immediately and will not be retrievable later. The ICO will maintain close contact with Phorm and BT throughout the trial. Similarly any ISP putting Phorm into commercial use is going to need to deploy similar safeguards to satisfy the ICO."

Not the careful wording - browsing is only being monitored so there is no interception taking place, move along please.

I am waiting for a reply to the response I sent to my MP - mainly asking about RIPA and Copyright Designs and Patents Act. All of which had been in earlier correspondence but completely ignored by the responses received.

[Wildie]

one thinks some people are confusing dpi with p2p monitoring, they really need to understand that one is done outside of the isp using the p2p networks with spies on it the other is dpi which spies on every one using the isp for nothing more than data pimping and stupid adverts that everyone blocks stops and ignores.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by madslug

Just looking at the traceroutes in the posts in the http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34425758 thread.

Do you always get bounced around so many ntl nodes before your traffic gets out? How do those old traces compare with what you are seeing today? With my broadband supplier I go through 2 of their nodes (the one that picks me up and the one that does the DNS to route me to the destination) and then straight to the host of the site I am tracing to. My LAN and the destination host bounce me around more than my ISP.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------



The first response I received from my MP included the BERR response that is dated 10 June 2008 - they (BERR) now have a database of who contacted their MP and sent an identical letter to everyone.

The gist of the letter is that the ICO has everything in hand and that there is no consideration for anything other than DPA and monitoring (not interception?) for advert delivery. The interception of all the other browsing done by the ISP customer is excluded from discussion.

To quote from a later paragraph from that quoted above:
"... Both the ICO and I [Shriti Vadera] have discussed with BT their plans to run a trial involving around 10,000 broadband users, and the company has confirmed their decision that customers' web browsing will only be monitored for subsequent delivery of advertisements if they decide to opt-in to the trial. BT have also told us that the system will not store personally identifiable information, URLs, or IP addresses nor retain browsing histories, and that search information will be deleted almost immediately and will not be retrievable later. The ICO will maintain close contact with Phorm and BT throughout the trial. Similarly any ISP putting Phorm into commercial use is going to need to deploy similar safeguards to satisfy the ICO."

Not the careful wording - browsing is only being monitored so there is no interception taking place, move along please.

I am waiting for a reply to the response I sent to my MP - mainly asking about RIPA and Copyright Designs and Patents Act. All of which had been in earlier correspondence but completely ignored by the responses received.

Well done! So the BERR are DEphormed but need REphorming. The flow-chart is:

UNinphormed - DEphormed - INphormed- REphormed.

They have taken the Phorm spin on board, and don't have the info they need to make it clear that Phorm are misleading them.

A cup of Clayton, a bottle of Bohm and a handful of Hanff should help the medicine go down. And maybe a magnum of Miller might help too.

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by madslug

Just looking at the traceroutes in the posts in the http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post34425758 thread.

Do you always get bounced around so many ntl nodes before your traffic gets out? How do those old traces compare with what you are seeing today? With my broadband supplier I go through 2 of their nodes (the one that picks me up and the one that does the DNS to route me to the destination) and then straight to the host of the site I am tracing to. My LAN and the destination host bounce me around more than my ISP.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------



The first response I received from my MP included the BERR response that is dated 10 June 2008 - they (BERR) now have a database of who contacted their MP and sent an identical letter to everyone.

The gist of the letter is that the ICO has everything in hand and that there is no consideration for anything other than DPA and monitoring (not interception?) for advert delivery. The interception of all the other browsing done by the ISP customer is excluded from discussion.

To quote from a later paragraph from that quoted above:
"... Both the ICO and I [Shriti Vadera] have discussed with BT their plans to run a trial involving around 10,000 broadband users, and the company has confirmed their decision that customers' web browsing will only be monitored for subsequent delivery of advertisements if they decide to opt-in to the trial. BT have also told us that the system will not store personally identifiable information, URLs, or IP addresses nor retain browsing histories, and that search information will be deleted almost immediately and will not be retrievable later. The ICO will maintain close contact with Phorm and BT throughout the trial. Similarly any ISP putting Phorm into commercial use is going to need to deploy similar safeguards to satisfy the ICO."

Not the careful wording - browsing is only being monitored so there is no interception taking place, move along please.

I am waiting for a reply to the response I sent to my MP - mainly asking about RIPA and Copyright Designs and Patents Act. All of which had been in earlier correspondence but completely ignored by the responses received.

I read that as if you dont opt in they they only monitor your browsing so those not opt`in are still going through the dpi kit, that`s how i read it.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Wildie

I read that as if you dont opt in they they only monitor your browsing so those not opt`in are still going through the dpi kit, that`s how i read it.

Exactly - as always- the key is in recognising what they DONT say. And in your quote: -

They DONT say that they don't intercept the non-opted in customer.
They DONT say that they don't look at the data stream of the non-opted in customer.
They DONT say that they don't divert/redirect (at all) the data stream of the non opted-in customer.

If they could say that, they would. But they don't say it. Conclusion obvious. And the network diagrams published so far, with BT's name on them, back this up.

[davethejag]

"Lord Roberts of Llandudno was also given air time this morning as part of the short sound extract. His mention of "and the use of this technology, especially by Virgin Media, to write to 800 customers warning them about this downloading" - does anyone know what he is talking about? I suspect it is to do with the video and music file sharing. If so, it does show that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the 2 different methods of detecting."

Madslug, yes you are correct, these letters are ref. the downloading of "illegal" music. I mentioned in a post a long time ago about a case that is still ongoing about people that downloaded a game called "Pinball" or something like that. Some ISP's have given the names and addresses of these people and they are being threatened by a law firm called Davenport Lyons to cough up several hundred pounds or be taken to court.

Just seen this, ZDNet pictures and article of the Phorm protest at the Barbican.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9448963,00.htm

Dave.

[Wildie]

Well i for one dont give a hoot about illegal file shares and their issues with the law they break, it has nothing to do with dpi.
so the trials are going to be opt in but those that do not opt in are still in cos we have not real choice as they still pass through the dpi kit which is still wrong wrong and err wrong.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Wildie

I read that as if you dont opt in they they only monitor your browsing so those not opt`in are still going through the dpi kit, that`s how i read it.

How do you monitor something without intercepting it?

[davethejag]

Hi, here is an interview with Phorm's Nick Barnett -

http://www.netimperative.com/news/20...arnett-phorm-1

Dave.

Not sure if this has been posted before -

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkEyklEyuZDnrsvyex.html

Linked from here -

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3...onnection.html

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

How do you monitor something without intercepting it?

same thing just different wording and more indirect that direct I had thought

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Originally Posted by davethejag

Hi, here is an interview with Phorm's Nick Barnett -

http://www.netimperative.com/news/20...arnett-phorm-1

Dave.

like the way he says you can switch it off as well as on, that to me means on by default and opt`ed in in the first instance, once again they fail to see it must be off by default first. or am i not understanding that in its contexts?

[SMHarman]

You can intercept without monitoring (you intercept something and do nothing with it - say tape a phone conversation but never listen to it) but you cannot monitor without interception.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

How do you monitor something without intercepting it?

From RIPA with my bold:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he—

(a) so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,

(b) so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or

(c) so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,

as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.

I think I can see one way around this definition but I don't want to help the opposition and I'm not a lawyer either.

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Pretty good article on ZDNet:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm

Note there are 6 pages of text - 1 with each photo.

Edit: I see DaveTheJag beat me to that one.

[Deko]

oops.

in the status bar in the bottom-left-hand corner of my screen," said Mainwaring. "I phoned BT and said: 'Why am I connecting to sisip.net?' They told me I must have a virus."

wasn't it sysip.net not sisip.net, a correction may be in order.

[AlexanderHanff]

OK with regards the opt-in thing. The BT information which was sent out directly by BT regarding the upcoming trials made it very clear that if you block the webwise domain during the trials you will not be able to use the web. So it would seem even those not opted in will still go through the DPI kit if they are on an exchange where the trial is taking place. Note that the information stated specifically that if you have been invited to take part in the trial (not if you accept that invite) you will need to make sure webwise is NOT blocked for your surfing to continue to work. This supports the theory that the entire exchange will be Phormed irrespective of opt-in/opt-out - in other words the model hasn't changed even remotely from the model Richard Clayton analysed some months ago.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:01 ----------

Tom actually did a great job with his article, nice to see 6 pages about the protest. Shame he got the sysip name wrong but I am sure people have contacted him about that already?

Round of applause for Tom for doing such a good job and for paying a very genuine interest in the debate on the day.

Alexander Hanff

[Deko]

Found this on ADVFN

This month, AOP are hosting a forum on behavioural targeting. Netimperative caught up with one of the event’s speakers, Nick Barnett, commercial director at Phorm, to discuss the ethics of behavioural targeting.

http://www.netimperative.com/news/20...arnett-phorm-1

Nick will be speaking at the AOP Behavioural Targeting Forum on Wednesday 30th July 2008

Event details below. not sure if its free to attend.

http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.p...07;type_uid=43