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

[mark777]

I second that. Well said Alexander.

[AlexanderHanff]

Y'all making me blush

Alexander Hanff

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

You best start singing for your supper mate because at this rate Phorm won't have any money to pay your wages. You have failed, epically.

{snip}

ISPs don't need to become Criminals under RIPA to make money, they simply need to offer their consumers services they want and lets get one thing straight here, consumers do NOT WANT PHORM.

You have lost the battle, your share price is at an all time low and you are starting to lose partners. Your product is a brand killer as clearly stated by the Guardian today. I hope you end up in the dole queue and I know I am not alone in my sentiments.

Alexander Hanff

Hear hear!!!

[manxminx]

Alexander for Prime Minister!

Seriously, your posts, both here and elsewhere are excellent. Thanks for all your hard work on this.

Ali ((huggss))

[OF1975]

Another article on phorm showed up on google news:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3...to-values.html

[mark777]

A very good question from The Register (Apologies if i'm crossing any etiquette boundary)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...turn/comments/

webmasters do you know what you're signing up to?
By Anonymous Coward

"Does anyone have any clue on why a webmaster would sign up to this service for his site, as if the visitor is interested in the sites content, then surely phorm will roll out a load of competitors ads, to distract the visitor. Maybe I'm just not fully tuned in with what is going on here."

On a light aside, 'The Apprentice' has just started on the box (getting used to freeview), I think you can see Team Phorm in all their glory!

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------

I read on a financial site that Phorm will be placing their 1.6M shares from the 27th March onwards. I know nothing about the stock market apart from the fact that watching Phorm shares drop is fun, just and inspiring.

Could anybody with any financial nous explain what we should look out for? In my simple world, they are 'placing' them at 2000p, but I know where I can buy them cheaper (the open market!!) so where are these shares going to go?

Am I right in thinking that a merchant bank underrights all this, so that if the shares are not sold, the bank buys them for 2000p? If so, what will the bank do with a tenner that will be worth a fiver in a week or so?

What should I look out for on channel PHRM tomorrow?

[popper]

just a recap of what we already know but this time it's on the
Digital Civil Rights in Europe website.

so you can be sure MANY EU wide govt personel and others are now being made aware of Phorm and its partner ISPs.
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.6/phorm-uk-ifpr

they dont reference the register though, and thats a crying shame, given chris's massive and continuing contribution to the subject, and starting this all off.

[Florence]

Well said Alexander

[lucevans]

Thank you Alexander - we need to keep this issue on the boil.

I'm beginning to wonder if the deafening silence from Phorm since before Easter is the latest strategy from the company: lock-down, say nothing and wait for everyone to drift away before going live with the system....after all, "engaging" with the customers didn't go too well, did it?

(It might have gone a bit better if they'd been open and honest about exactly how the system works, but the fact that they didn't want to do that speaks volumes...)

[mark777]

Originally Posted by lucevans

Thank you Alexander - we need to keep this issue on the boil.

I'm beginning to wonder if the deafening silence from Phorm since before Easter is the latest strategy from the company: lock-down, say nothing and wait for everyone to drift away before going live with the system....after all, "engaging" with the customers didn't go too well, did it?

To give them credit, they are doing better than VM.

[dav]

Originally Posted by lucevans

I'm beginning to wonder if the deafening silence from Phorm since before Easter is the latest strategy from the company: lock-down, say nothing and wait for everyone to drift away before going live with the system....after all, "engaging" with the customers didn't go too well, did it?

I don't think that is the right word...maybe "marks"?
I think that is the term used by con-artists, isn't it?

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by mark777

To give them credit, they are doing better than VM.

I wouldn't consider a talkative mugger to be any better than a silent one, if he was stealing my wallet at the time. What these two companies are planning to do with my data is nothing short of robbery.

As Sir Tim Berners-Lee says, "It's mine - you can't have it. If you want to use it for something then you have to negotiate with me, I have to agree; I have to understand what I'm getting in return."

---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by dav

I don't think that is the right word...maybe "marks"?
I think that is the term used by con-artists, isn't it?

...Sheep, maybe? Lambs to the slaughter?

---------- Post added at 22:51 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by PhormUKPRteam

Hi all
Hope you all had a good Easter? With reference to the above discussion, the Register article in the Guardian neatly highlights the two central issues here: protecting online privacy and needing ad funding to pay for Internet services. Of course people are concerned about the trade off they think they have to make between getting a personalised service on the one hand and giving up personal data on the other - we agree that they shouldn't have to make that pay off. So are you happy to be served targeted ads by companies that use your personal data and store it for more than 12 months before it is even anonymised? Surely it is better to have a system that stores absolutely no personal information, no IP addresses and no browsing histories - like us or not, that's a better privacy environment than you currently get.

Online ad targeting is not going away; something the Guardian confirms in its statement. The reason that we've had such an enthusiastic response from the companies that we meet is that the Phorm system can earn ISPs and publishers - big and small - more money to plough back into the services you receive today - most of them for free. If not ad funding, then what other way is the Internet going to be paid for? Most Internet publishers have abandoned subscriptions because not enough people are actually prepared to pay when it comes down to it.

As always, if you have any queries or want any more information, visit www.webwise.com or www.phorm.com

Once again, you've completely missed the point.

You can't use the "need" to pay for the internet as a reason to infringe people's right not to be placed under surveillance. The data that you are so keen to get your hands on does not belong to you, and many of the people that it does belong to do not want you to have it.

If, as you claim, the internet cannot survive in it's current form because of a lack of funding, then so be it: let it change to something that is sustainable. I'd rather have a smaller internet than know (or suspect) that my every action online is being watched and "digested" for somebody else's profit.

Am I happier to be spied upon by Google than by you? Damn right I am. For one thing, they give me something useful, and for another I can choose to have nothing to do with them if that is my wish. Your offering fulfills neither of these criteria. Would I have a problem if Google wanted to hardwire a surveillance system into my internet connection? Hell yes. But they are not proposing that, and you are. So your comparison is meaningless.

And please don't make out that I'm currently getting something for nothing: I already pay for the internet. It's called an ISP subscription, and it's not an insignificant sum. If Virgin Media can't make ends meet with their customer fees and other existing revenue streams, then I'd rather they put my subscription costs up than install Phorm. (In other words: I'd rather pay the true cost of the service than have it subsidized by being spied upon)

Finally, I'm afraid I can't visit your websites for further information: they're already blocked by my router. Any information you are obliged to give me regarding my internet connection you will kindly do through the official channels of my ISP.

[mark777]

Originally Posted by lucevans

I wouldn't consider a talkative mugger to be any better than a silent one, if he was stealing my wallet at the time. What these two companies are planning to do with my data is nothing short of robbery.

I quite agree, but we have on the one hand Kent Wossisname and on the other, Richard Branson, as the public face of the muggers.

Quite apart from the damage this is doing to Virgin Media, what about the other Virgin brands?

There is a precedent for what could happen if a business sector cannot be trusted to act with responsibility. How would it be if Virgin Media was regulated as tightly as Virgin Atlantic?

If a business model is 'just to stay this side of the law, hopefully', rather than to pay even lip-service to ethics, it ought to be regulated to the hilt, as airlines are.

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------


And I'm b******d if I would want to fly in one of Kent's "Rusty Migs".

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by mark777

I quite agree, but we have on the one hand Kent Wossisname and on the other, Richard Branson, as the public face of the muggers.

Quite apart from the damage this is doing to Virgin Media, what about the other Virgin brands?

Now there's an interesting point... has the bearded one (if he's connected at all with VM) said anything about Phorm? Does he know that "his" brand is getting dirtier and dirtier by the day through its association with Phorm?

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by mark777

And I'm b******d if I would want to fly in one of Kent's "Rusty Migs".