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

Originally Posted by warescouse

[COLOR="Red"]I think the post Rob Jones referenced this evening on BT beta Here #12828 definitely throws up some very interesting points that are very much in-line with some of my thoughts (and perhaps yours) and excellently put across in the comment referenced.

I've been saying it for a long time. I posted this way back on 17th April on the BT forum:

The government wants to force ISP's to police their own networks - something which the ISP's don't want to do. The ISP's claim that they are "mere conduits" and are not able to monitor network traffic. If the government penalises the ISP's for interception without consent or warrant as a result of the trials then the ISP's would be in a stronger position to continue to refuse.

The time that it has taken to make this decision and the "hands-off" approach taken by No 10 suggests to me that the governement and BT have settled this over drinks in some London club. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Patricia Hewitt - former Trade and Industry minister - has recently been appointed as a non-voting Director at BT with a salary of £60,000 p.a. for which she has to attend 9 meetings a year.

I've posted several times on the subject of the government's involvment with Phorm including this from 12th June:

Our government doesn't want ISPs to remain as "mere conduits". They have been pressuring the ISPs to allow interception for surveillance purposes related - at least according to the government - to security and serious crime.

The ISP have repeatedly refused claiming that they are both unwilling and unable to do this due to their position as "mere conduits". This is not entirely altruistic - big surprise - but relates to the fact that if an ISP is aware of the content being carried then they could be held legally responsible for it. Taken to it's extreme, it would mean that ISPs could be convicted of distributing illegal material.

If the government legislates to outlaw DPI and any other type on interception by ISPs then they will effectively have closed the door on their own scheme. In fact, by encouraging the use of systems like Webwise, the government are allowing the ISPs to paint themselves into a corner.

I would not be in the least bit surprised to discover that this government has already done a deal with BT guaranteeing them immunity from prosecution over the 2006/2007 trials in return for access to the data available to BT through the use of Webwise.

and this from the 18th June:

If the UK authorities don't act soon and do so in a open manner then there are going to be some very difficult questions for them to answer in the near future. At the very least, we need to know how it came about that the Home Ofifce held a meeting with Phorm in the first place.

What possibe reason would there be for the Home Office to be involved at any level with an internet advertising company? The Home Office themselves have stated that the business of Webwise falls outside of its remit. Is there some connection to homeland security - the Home Office's area of business?

The only obvious connection between the Home Office and Phorm is via BT as the Home Office is the body that has been trying to get ISPs to monitor web-traffic for their own purposes, something that ISPs have repeatedly refused to do stating that they are "mere conduits" and even claiming that such technology didn't exist.

It looks to me as though this government cut a deal with BT and that is why there has been no action taken over the illegal trials.

The whole thing stinks and anyone who still thinks that this is just about targetted advertising is deluded.

---------- Post added at 02:16 ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 ----------

Originally Posted by madslug

Nowhere has the opt out ever been an opt out of the DPI route. It has only ever been an opt out of the phorm/webwise/oix controlled advert system.

BT have stated in their revised FAQs that opted out customers are completely removed from the profiling system.

I only include for the sake of accuracy and make no comment on the validity of the statement.

53. What happens when I switch off BT Webwise?

When BT Webwise is off you won't receive warnings before reaching fraudulent websites. BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit to see if there are better adverts to show you; no data, in fact, will be analysed, stored or passed to Phorm or any other partner if you are switched off. You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.

[Wildie]

got a question on this
You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.
Seams to me you still going through the system but not getting direct ads but indirect from the same ad serving system is that right?

A website owner creates a webpage with a space for an advert and then signs up to allow Phorm to provide adverts on their website. This space normally shows a normal untargetted from one of Phorm's customers. Targetted ads are only displayed if an opted-in customer with an existing profile visits that website in which case a specific ad in shown instead. (In theory at least as it's not clear what advert you'll see if Phorm don't have a contract with a source that suits your internet usage - how many antique dealers or dog grooming parlours will sign up, for example)

Basically non-opted in customers see the website in exactly the same way as customers from non-Phorm using ISPs. No profiling is used or required.

It helps to separate the profiling and the ad-serving in your mind then you'll see that the webpages will have to work for all internet users regardless of whether or not they are profiled by Phorm.

The profiling and ad-serving systems are totally separate. In fact they are physically separate as the profiling is done by equipment within the ISPs hardware while the ad-serving is dealt with externally.

[Wildie]

so say adblocker plus will block the ad if not in

Adblock will prevent an advert from being displayed whether you opt in or out though it's worth pointing out that advertisers are always looking for ways around such tools.

It makes no difference to any such application whether or not the advertisment is targetted. As far as the browser and therefore any such tools are concerned the advert is the same as any other and all tools will be unaffected. (This assumes that Phorm are being honest about their system and that they don't use any trick Java code to "pull" the ads)

---------- Post added at 03:33 ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 ----------

A fantastic story in the Register that is relevent to Phorm because of what it doesn't say.

BT commisioned and are about to publish a report called 21st Century Life Index which is a very detailed examination of the relationship between people in the UK and the development of the internet into the 21st century.

The report is based on interviews with 2,000 people and includes reams of figures based on an analysis of those peoples preferences and requirments for the future use of the internet. It is then compared with the last such report which was produced exactly 10 years ago.

How does this relate to the Phorm discussions?

"Fewer irrelevent adverts" is not mentioned anywhere in the report.

Not one of the 2,000 persons interviewed stated at any point that they were even remotely concerned about untargetted advertising.

In other words a huge, flagship report produced specifically to find out what people really want from the internet and their ISP proves that BT are either lying or stupid when they claim to be implementing Webwise in response to customer requests.

If BT still refuse to provide the earlier referenced data then we are justified in using the only available official BT report which appears to prove that they lied.

You can link directly to the BT Study website though none of the links to the original document are working at the moment.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by madslug

The Home Office advice does not say that you can imply consent of ALL web site operators for interception. ...

Read para.7 (a closed system - not a DPI provided data stream) and consider the conclusion in para.8

Hi Madslug, I just can't read it the same way I've tried, very hard.

The HO document deals with at least two scenarios.

Para 6 talks about interception in general.

Para 10 talks about use of a proxy.

Para 11 deals with a specific scenario whereby a script is downloaded near simultaneously. How that would work without intercepting the page to insert the Javascript is a different question.. PageSense injected Javascript into the page by interception.

Dealing with the proxy scenario in para 10...

Where the proxy scenario completely falls apart is para 13. To determine if interception is lawful, it quotes section 3(1) of RIPA saying "person has reasonable grounds for believing is both a) a communication sent by a person who has consented to the interception; and b) a communication the intended recipient of which has so consented".

When you consider how damaging interception of communication is versus simply making unauthorised copies of content... And how the content is used by an advertiser to market competitive services without Copyright licence... HO couldn't seriously assume a web site owner would consent.

Yet para 15 goes on to state a "It made be argued that section 3(1)(b) is satisfied in such a case because the host or publisher who makes a page available for download from a server impliedly consents to those pages being downloaded".

Making content available to people who request it is not the same as authorising interception. Phorm doesn't request content, it copies it on the fly, before it has reached its intended recipient.

Para 21 concludes the insanity by suggesting "The implied consent of a web page host (as indicated in para 15 above) may stand in the absence of any specific express consent".

That's a complete inversion of RIPA and Copyright. If you accept the differentiation between making content available (where available would necessitate an identifiable request), and tolerating interception of communication... Para 21 of the HO document licences interception simply because you publish a document online.

I reckon they have got that completely wrong. And they should withdraw that advice immediately. Because I'm certain the HO won't like the consequences that will necessarily follow.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Peter N

BT have stated in their revised FAQs that opted out customers are completely removed from the profiling system.

I only include for the sake of accuracy and make no comment on the validity of the statement.

53. What happens when I switch off BT Webwise?

When BT Webwise is off you won't receive warnings before reaching fraudulent websites. BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit to see if there are better adverts to show you; no data, in fact, will be analysed, stored or passed to Phorm or any other partner if you are switched off. You'll still see adverts in the normal course of visiting any participating website.

as you say peter it is what they don't say.

they do say "BT Webwise will not scan or collect any data from the web pages that you visit", but they do not say "your traffic will take a route to the net direct without passing through the profiler", leaving it open to them to amend the service or FAQ later to say "agregated search terms and other information may be harvested to be sold off at a premium to help us make money by increasing the price of more often searched for keywords"

peter

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Here is the reply I got today from BT Retail Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer) - they gave permission to publish - they are on my BT Openworld webspace.

Page 1 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5bwerh
Page 2 of letter http://tinyurl.com/6lsjgg
Page 3 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5tta4t

You should note the 'pp' before the signature - this letter has been compiled by a member of the Admin Staff, and NOT Greg Hughes. This is a practice commonly used by Admin Teams to act as signatory for their Department Heads.

Bottom Line is, this letter may have been drafted, with no understanding whatsoever, by a Temp who had walked into the Office 20 minutes earlier, in his/her first ever role within an Office Environment. Obviously this is a cut and paste, with a few ammendments, from a script.

IMHO, you should maybe write to them again, and ask for a response from an individual with knowledge about the Law.

[Dephormation]

Well supposedly, today's the day we will be told.

If Gavin Patterson isn't misleading his Chairman, shareholders and customers... then 'a couple of weeks' from the AGM is tomorrow... And what little notice BT are prepared to give is expected today.

Or could this be yet another date when Ian, Gavin, Emma and Kent fail to deliver?

Or perhaps BT will get it right first time, do something good for the UK, good for customers, also good for shareholders.

Stop Phorm.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Here is the reply I got today from BT Retail Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer) - they gave permission to publish - they are on my BT Openworld webspace.

Page 1 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5bwerh
Page 2 of letter http://tinyurl.com/6lsjgg
Page 3 of letter http://tinyurl.com/5tta4t

Here is a copy of my original letter to BT Retail counsel, to go with the reply.
http://tinyurl.com/6yzh5b

[rryles]

Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was added in 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2498 as follows:

Making of temporary copies
28A Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable—
(a)
a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b)
a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

From here: http://tinyurl.com/58cwyw

I leave the interpretation to the reader

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by rryles

Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was added in 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2498 as follows:



From here: http://tinyurl.com/58cwyw

I leave the interpretation to the reader

Is that the one they quoted in the letter

[BetBlowWhistler]

So what they are really saying then is that for Webwise to comply with that section that it has no economic signifance. Why then are they spending money on it?

Jeez, if they were any more stupid they'd have to be put away to stop them from hurting themselves.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Wildie

Is that the one they quoted in the letter

It would appear so.

I see two pertinent parts:

Making of temporary copies
28A Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable—
(a)
a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b)
a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

It doesn't apply if the copyrighted work in question is a computer program. How many web pages do you think contain computer programs? <cough>javascript<cough>

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by rryles

Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was added in 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2498 as follows:

Can't fault any of the other excellent deconstructions on this section of the Copyright... but here's another one glaring at BT.

The sole purpose of which is to enable transmission between third parties.

If a purpose of taking a copy is to allow offline filtering for keywords, that's not the sole purpose of the copy.

So then it remains to answer, is it a lawful use of the work to intercept and copy it? It would be lawful if they had a copyright licence, or a warrant. Otherwise it obviously isn't lawful.

If that's the best they can do... BT are going to pour their coffers into the pockets of web site creators if this is switched on.

To the point where investment in next generation infrastructure is going to be the very least of their problems.

Pete.