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

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Are these the right points? Are they expressed in the right way? Have I missed any arguments or are any superfluous? Have I been too technical? (probably - I'll be working on this as well) and so on.

One area missed is the exploitation of web content; the thing that makes the web so valuable in the first place is the range of information you can access.

Phorm steal that information, copy it, and use it to sell advertising. That includes stealing information from the personal websites, the niche web sites, the eCommerce web sites, the information sites.

Compared to illicit DVD copying, this is major crime... its mass copyright theft. Like walking into a library and photocopying every page of every book anyone reads, but on a nationwide scale.

[mark777]

I'm not sure if this has been covered.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ne...ckets-368.html

Hugo Drayton, Phorm's UK CEO believes the technology will give ISPs a much needed opportunity to take part in the revenue-generating opportunities offered by the growth of broadband through a system which does not, he claims, identify someone in a way that can be linked back to their real identity.

"The ISPs are the Internet and they're being expected to roll out ever better networks to support functions that they do not gain from," he says.

Has not Kent told us elsewhere that the internet is 3 companies and a bunch of amateurs, or words to that effect?

I'm sure he did not mean BT, VM and CPW! Another case of different sound bites for different audiences?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I like that a lot. Very good communication aimed at the non-technical. I understood it!
The killer comment though is "But the ICO say it's legal, so what you say must be rubbish" - and that is when the answers have to get technical and we see that glazed look coming over their eyes.

No Simon said maybe legal remember the "maybe"

[Cobbydaler]

If this re Google & privacy legislation can make the BBC home page under science & nature, why on Earth can't the Phorm issue?

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by popper

you know, it would be so much easyer if we could get the make and model of the DPI kit they are using, alongside the full PDF spec documents, so we could then give him the real deal on what this DPI kit CAN DO with a mear "set <intercept option> ON" at the remote CLI/shell.

According to the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...orm_documents/

""ACE" is a piece of Cisco hardware - its Application Control Engine. Details on the kit are here. F5 hardware performs similar functions, more here."

[Florence]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

According to the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...orm_documents/

""ACE" is a piece of Cisco hardware - its Application Control Engine. Details on the kit are here. F5 hardware performs similar functions, more here."

Expected to list from around £22,500, ACE is designed to front-end browser-based applications running on a server-farm. It includes capabilities such as SSL offload, web proxy, load balancing and security - for example, it can scrub incoming requests to remove buffer overflows and deliberately malformed queries so they never reach the servers.

After reading this the thought of how many they might need and costs when the company shares are spirrelling down again. Most likely some old slow PCs plugged into BTs network using linux to do the job.

[phormwatch]

I have complained numerous times to the APWG (Anti-Phishing Workgroup):

http://www.antiphishing.org/

and have been in email contact with one of its members. I explained how the FIPR and Richard Clayton believe the system is illegal, and how the EU now believes it may also fall foul of EU regulations.

The person I was in contact with said that he brought up the issue at the AGM, and they have decided that Phorm can continue to be a sponsor, though not on the Steering Committee (was this ever a possibility!?)

My latest reply again explains why many people believe Phorm to be illegal and how the issue may end up in court.

Interestingly, in the last email from the APWG, he said that Phorm was working with several anti-Phishing and 'Brand protection companies' to 'improve their service'.

So it seems Phorms latest scheme is to try to gain legitimacy by working with anti-phishing groups.

You can contact the APWG here:

pressrequest@antiphishing.org

info@antiphishing.org

reportphishing@antiphishing.org

Tell them what you think about Phorm being an APWG sponsor.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I have complained numerous times to the APWG (Anti-Phishing Workgroup):

http://www.antiphishing.org/

and have been in email contact with one of its members. I explained how the FIPR and Richard Clayton believe the system is illegal, and how the EU now believes it may also fall foul of EU regulations.

The person I was in contact with said that he brought up the issue at the AGM, and they have decided that Phorm can continue to be a sponsor, though not on the Steering Committee (was this ever a possibility!?)

You can contact the APWG here:

pressrequest@antiphishing.org

info@antiphishing.org

reportphishing@antiphishing.org

Tell them what you think about Phorm being an APWG sponsor.

I have e-mailed the APWG several times and they haven't even given me the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone a response!

As long as Phorm are feeding them cash APWG will continue to accept it.

[phormwatch]

Alex-

You stated a while back that Google was aware of the Phorm situation and was working on 'something'. Any further news about this?

If you can't say what they are, exactly, can you at least confirm that something is in the works for the near future?

[Rchivist]

I've had confirmation from BT that Phorm were running their BT Webwise sites and also the BT Webwise contact form- they were forwarding the details to BT for processing. I'll post the replies later. They also say that although this was legal they have stopped phorm handling the contact page.

[popper]

heres something to have lots fun with if you cant be bothered to shoot and upload some *video for the Phorm petition/Protest.


go to it and make sure to fill in the latest anotate and links and comments on the BT/Phorm emailing server locations.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...arch-game.html

http://re.search.wikia.com/search.html#phorm

you might also want to add comments and interrelated serch links for the
http://re.search.wikia.com/search.html#noDPI entry too alexander/others...

* http://nodpi.org/?page_id=5/on-topic...e-1/post-7/#p7

I have had a reply to my request for a response from the Home Office about the interception of communications. I don't see anything new in this but for the record...

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concern about targeted online advertising and the use of that technology by internet service providers.

The Home Office has considered the issue of Targeted Online Advertising in general without specific regard to any particular application. The Home Office came to the conclusion that it might be possible for Targeted Online Advertising services to be lawful under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It might also be the case that Targeted Online Advertising is delivered in a way that is not considered as interception as defined by RIPA. It does rather depend on how those services are offered and how they work. I should point out that we are, of course, unable to provide a definitive statement of the law, which only a court could give.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal investigates complaints about the use of interception when conducted by state bodies such as the Police and Security Service, but does not investigate commercial companies. Any investigation of a complaint against a company for breaching RIPA legislation would need to be taken up by the Police who would determine whether to submit a file for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has provided a view that Targeted Online Advertising could operate in a way that is in compliance with the Data Protection Act, but that he is keeping the targeted online advertising products under review and will be strongly influenced by the experience of those users who choose to participate in any trials and the way in which they are able to make that decision to participate.

Any questions about statements that private companies, such as Phorm, have issued should be directed to the company concerned.

Yours sincerely

Hank

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Florence

Expected to list from around £22,500, ACE is designed to front-end browser-based applications running on a server-farm. It includes capabilities such as SSL offload, web proxy, load balancing and security - for example, it can scrub incoming requests to remove buffer overflows and deliberately malformed queries so they never reach the servers.

After reading this the thought of how many they might need and costs when the company shares are spirrelling down again. Most likely some old slow PCs plugged into BTs network using linux to do the job.

Sorry chaps but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. An ACE module *does* have some dpi functionality, but that doesn't make it dpi kit in of itself, it's primarily a load-balancer. You could also count the number of techies at BT with the requisite level of knowledge on ACE modules (to use them to their full extent) on the back of frogs penis.

ACE modules are also not the most configuration friendly kit in the world

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

Sorry chaps but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. An ACE module *does* have some dpi functionality, but that doesn't make it dpi kit in of itself, it's primarily a load-balancer. You could also count the number of techies at BT with the requisite level of knowledge on ACE modules (to use them to their full extent) on the back of frogs penis.

ACE modules are also not the most configuration friendly kit in the world

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_rep.../a.webwise.net

...returns...

Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server Last changed
Phorm IPv4 Assignment 89.145.112.40 F5 Big-IP Apache 3-Jun-2008

Update; the BT docs mention both ACE and F5

Which then begs the question, if BT do not have the skills to install and operate ACE kit, who does?

"Alongside the CIO, successfully tested 121Media’s product in a BT datacenter for a one month trial period on 10,000 users" in an online CV.

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_rep.../a.webwise.net

...returns...

Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server Last changed
Phorm IPv4 Assignment 89.145.112.40 F5 Big-IP Apache 3-Jun-2008

Update; the BT docs mention both ACE and F5

WHICH THEN BEGS THE QUESTION - if BT do not have the skills to install and operate ACE kit, who does?

Contractors I would expect.

Also, re-aquainting myself with the diagrams shows that the ACE module simply hands off the http requests to the F5 L7 switches which seem to be doing the donkey work.

Something else has just occured to me. BT Retail are planning to phase out PSTN in favour of VoIP. What would you like to bet that this traffic will also end up being 'profiled'? Then it really will be *exactly* like tapping your phone connection.