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

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by vicz

Yes today about 7000 shares sold, about 1000 bought, yet price goes up 10% ?

Not a good indication of what's really going on methinks.

I believe this is because Phorm stock is traded in part using the LSE SETS orderbook system.

In essence as a buyer I can input the maximum price I am prepared to buy at - my buy order could be input as "buy 1000 shares at between 1000p and 1100p"

If a seller is prepared to sell to me at that price, the SETS system automatically matches the trade without any negotiation between buyer and seller. A possible methodology for the Phorm stock price to be manipulated. To be clear I have no evidence to suggest if this is happening or not.

[r1ch]

I've been wondering about the myriad of small purchases way above the spread too.

I don't know much about stock market rules, so maybe someone here can help. How does the market prevent stock price manipulation by two traders simply passing small amounts of stock back and forth at above market rates?

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Actually no I can't afford to which part of I have no money do you fail to understand? However, if I do see one more libelous statement from you about me (as the one I have quoted above illustrates) I will be forced to ask the CableForum owner to ban you from the site on the grounds that you are being libelous.

My deepest apologies Mr Hanff. I didn't mean to upset you

D_A

[rryles]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

The data is made available to potentially an unlimited number of people as it is made available to Phorm and OIX partners, I would suggest you read the notes that go with the Act too rather than just the Act itself.

I have looked at the RIPA explanatory notes and I'm afraid I still see a problem. I think phorm will argue the following:

The data is not made available to any person.
The data is processed by an automated system which produces some other data.
This other data is made available to another automated system and potentially certain people.
This other data does not represent any part of the communication.

I really would love to be shown the error of my thinking. I want phorm and BT to be held legally accountable for the trials and I want the whole idea of dpi for advertising to be litigated into oblivion.

[fidbod]

Originally Posted by r1ch

I've been wondering about the myriad of small purchases way above the spread too.

I don't know much about stock market rules, so maybe someone here can help. How does the market prevent stock price manipulation by two traders simply passing small amounts of stock back and forth at above market rates?

Broadly that is done through the FSA conduct of business rules and market abuse rules. The policy can be summed up as "if we think what you did was dodgy we can prosecute you"

For the more legally minded amongst you market abuse is subject to the burden of proof required in civil proceedings. Insider trading requires a criminal burden of proof which is why there are almost no successful prsecutions of insider trading.

On an operational level this kind of activity is tracked through datamining and human surveillance performed by both the LSE and FSA.

[Raistlin]

The data in question is that relating to the exchange of information between you and another person (or a web site) with who you intended to have that data exchange, Phorm intercept it and send it to their 'automated system'.

The automated system has an Administrator. He now has access to the data relating to your information exchange.

Ergo: they have made the data available to at least one other person who you had not intended to be part of the exchange.

It's really quite simple.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

In a word: non-conPhormation.

D_A

Well you do seem to be targeting individuals when you'd rather avoid a question.

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Well you do seem to be targeting individuals when you'd rather avoid a question.

Sorry SelfProtection - what was the 'question' in question ? I must have missed it.

D_A

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Rob M

The data in question is that relating to the exchange of information between you and another person (or a web site) with who you intended to have that data exchange, Phorm intercept it and send it to their 'automated system'.

The automated system has an Administrator. He now has access to the data relating to your information exchange.

Ergo: they have made the data available to at least one other person who you had not intended to be part of the exchange.

It's really quite simple.

The administrator only has access to the communications data if either:

a) the automated system keeps records of the raw unprocessed data
b) he alters the system so that it keeps records of the raw unprocessed data or forwards them in real time.

Unless and until one of these is true, I don't see it being an interception under the technical definition of RIPA.

(On a side note, I doubt phorm where that careful when they designed the system they used for the trials, but that could be hard to prove either way now)

Originally Posted by fidbod

@ Devils Advocate.

One of your previous posts stated you would be concerned if it could be shown that the Phorm system made personally identifiable information (PII) available. I would argue that Phorm also increases your security risk significantly. I am interested in your thoughts on the following thought experiment.

1. The cookie that Phorm set on your PC contains a unique identifier (UID)

2. Your PC's IP address can be read from the HTML requests generated when browsing.

3. Malicous Javascript code on a website can "read" the Phorm UID from your machine.

As a malicous person I now have two pieces of information unique to your PC. That I can use to target you.

You could argue for a long time whether these two bits of information are PII and I will not offer judgement on that. However it is now much easier for me to target your PC to extract further infomation.

thoughts?

I believe self protection refers to this one

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by rryles

The administrator only has access to the communications data if either:

a) the automated system keeps records of the raw unprocessed data
b) he alters the system so that it keeps records of the raw unprocessed data or forwards them in real time.

Think 'Administrator' as in 'someone who has authorised access to the system, its infrastructure, and its mechanisms' rather than 'someone that has an Admin account'.

There are more methods than I care to recount here that will enable someone to read data passing into and out of a system, there is no requirement for the system to actually store that data for it to be made available to a third party

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by fidbod

I believe this is because Phorm stock is traded in part using the LSE SETS orderbook system.

In essence as a buyer I can input the maximum price I am prepared to buy at - my buy order could be input as "buy 1000 shares at between 1000p and 1100p"

Yes, of course, I should have realised that it's an orderbook process and not one based on market makers. So I assume that deals may happen outside spread when liquidity is low (inevitable in somewhere like AIM) and the share price is moving fast.

I suppose the question I would ask is whether the share price was moving fast enough to justify a premium of 25p/share over the Ask Price on a block of 500 shares (so £125). Or similarly on other Buys above the Ask Price. Do other AIM-listed companies' share prices exhibit similar behaviour?

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Rob M

Think 'Administrator' as in 'someone who has authorised access to the system, its infrastructure, and its mechanisms' rather than 'someone that has an Admin account'.

There are more methods than I care to recount here that will enable someone to read data passing into and out of a system, there is no requirement for the system to actually store that data for it to be made available to a third party

Yes, but in order to read the data passing into and out of the system will require an alteration to the system (such as installing a sniffer device or software). Until that alteration is performed, the data has not been made available.

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by alt3rn1ty

I believe self protection refers to this one

Ah .. that one alt3rn1ty - many thanks

I'll get around to that one, and some others I've missed, once I've eaten and maybe had a little snooze.

It's tough being so popular.

D_A

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by rryles

Yes, but in order to read the data passing into and out of the system will require an alteration to the system (such as installing a sniffer device or software). Until that alteration is performed, the data has not been made available.

I disagree, you are entitled to your interpretation of the Act but in this case I lean towards the analysis of experts and people who actually were involved in putting the Act into statute. All the experts who have spoken about the system have claimed this is interception, including legal experts, technical experts, Peers in the House of Lords and Commissioners of Europe. I don't for one minute think they would make comments "on the record" without making very certain that they were intrepeting the law accurately.

Alexander Hanff