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

[AlexanderHanff]

I just had an email back from a contact at Yahoo! regarding the threat this technology poses towards search engine business models (as outlined here).

Whereas the reply explained they are perhaps not the correct person to contact on this, they have stated they will explore the issue.

I have also responded respectfully asking them to pass my concerns on to the relevant person(s) within Yahoo!.

Alexander Hanff

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking
There are more covert agreements between governments than you could ever imagine, backed by IT deals that go to the heart of personal privacy at the deepest levels.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

It seems to me and many others, that the government are not acting appropriately or in accordance with the laws of the land on this issue (see PM web team blocking petitions, Home Office refusing to take action, ICO releasing a seriously erroneous Public Statement which it had to amend several days later, lack of answers to questions issued by politicians and lords; to name just a few).

Sorry, just joining the dots . . .

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I apologise for going off topic, being new I get a bit chatty beyond what is needed.

Don't apologise, it's nice to get to know folks a little better besides all the Phorm issues, must say, your art is excellent

I had an idea for a comic like strip about Phorm pop into my head (i get silly stuff appear in there often) it's just a shame that i have the artistic ability of a dead mouse :P

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._on_phorm.html

Thank you for the link to Smon's essay. 80/20's standing remains a mystery though. The pertinent known fact at the moment would appear to be that they are paid by Phorm and the 2 Companies appear therefore as independent as siamese twins.

Originally Posted by lucevans

I know that that it was established by a founder and a senior research fellow of Privacy International, an organisation with a considerable body of work, which I have been following since 1997.
Unless these individuals have suddenly had a change of heart and gone over to the "dark side" I am reasonably confident that I understand their values and what they stand for.

Yourself?

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------

What do I know of their values? Nothing. I do know that everything has a price.

And talking of the "dark side", it seems appropriate to quote from Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" : "Money, its a hit, don't give me that do goody-good BS. Noone wants to die a principled pauper

[AlexanderHanff]

Simon, I have another question for you. I can't remember whether it was here or in the meeting thread, but you have stated that if any client were seeking your services for matters which were clearly illegal; 80/20 Thinking would immediately severe the relationship.

May I ask then, why you have not severed your relationship with Phorm? Given that there is existing case law.

Phorm claim that if a website publishes content on the Internet then Phorm assume consent to access and use that content for commercial purposes. The argument goes against case law such as Ebay vs Bidder's Edge not to mention cases involving Google Images and Archive.org.

Or do you justify your decision to continue working with Phorm purely on the fact that no court has issued judgement? If that is the case, I would like to point out that the only reason why courts have not issued judgement is because in every single case I have found, the defendant has eventually settled with the plaintiff in order to avoid a judgement being passed.

Let us not forget UK case law on this issue. I ask you to cast your mind back to the Cliff Stanford RIPA case, where Stanford pleaded guilty to a breach of RIPA and was then denied the right to appeal. A clear judgement on interception under British case law.

Do you not have any ethical dilemmas with this?

Alexander Hanff

[Kursk]

From the 80/20 website: "We adhere strictly to the law, whether we believe that law to be just or not. If in our view, or in the judgement of the courts, a client is found to be intentionally acting unlawfully within the spectrum of our involvement, we will terminate the relationship. This applies equally if the client has received senior legal advice that an action or service is likely to be unlawful".

[Julian Smart]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Now that IS worrying.

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=392

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burson-Marsteller

and from 80/20's web site

80/20's UK strategic partner is the global PR firm Burson-Marsteller. B-M and 80/20 will be working closely together to build networks and create projects and events that address key privacy and security issues.

I'm just boggled by this. 80/20 claims there is no conflict of interest, and yet their 'strategic partner' is a notorious PR company that happens also to be employed by Phorm?? Huh? I'm not a conspiracy theorist - normally they're just fun diversions - but this is extraordinary. Why would a privacy consultancy need to team up with a huge spin-meister anyway? There's got to be more to this than meets the eye.

This article is fascinating:

http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/20...ayingdirty.php

"Burson-Marsteller does not publish a list of its clients, but it has purportedly worked for some of the most infamous governments of the twentieth century, including the military junta in Argentina in the 1970s, Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship in Romania, the government of Indonesia (following the massacre in East Timor) and the Nigerian government (to discredit reports of genocide)...

One of the most effective PR tools is the “third party” technique, where a firm will hire an “expert” to speak on behalf of a company. People don’t generally trust corporate executives who say a product is harmless (say cigarettes, Teflon cookware or household insecticides), but are more likely to believe the same words from a scientist. And sometimes even more effective than hiring experts is getting average citizens to do the same. PR firms have time and again managed to create the illusion of public support for corporate causes through front groups, such as the CCRES."

Sound familiar?

[wecpc]

This is my first post on this forum, which I have been reading for the past several weeks and I am amazed by the amount of dedication that users are putting into this subject, particularly the huge amount of effort that Alexander has put into it.

I myself am a BT Broadband user who has become tired of the lack of information and answers on the BT Forums plus the editing and closure of threads that do not appease them along with the suspension of several members for the same reason.

I was one of those BT members that was used in the 2007 BT/Phorm trial without my prior knowledge or consent and I still have the proof with the cookie which I still have as evidence should it be required in the future. In the cookie string it has a date of 1-Jul-2007 17:33:06.

I have signed the E-Petition, written to my local MP twice and have written to the BT Chairman, to which he has failed to respond, surprise surprise.

I await the outcome of this PR stunt on Tuesday before deciding about jumping ship to a NON phorm ISP.

Colin

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by wecpc

This is my first post on this forum, which I have been reading for the past several weeks and I am amazed by the amount of dedication that users are putting into this subject, particularly the huge amount of effort that Alexander has put into it.

I myself am a BT Broadband user who has become tired of the lack of information and answers on the BT Forums plus the editing and closure of threads that do not appease them along with the suspension of several members for the same reason.

I was one of those BT members that was used in the 2007 BT/Phorm trial without my prior knowledge or consent and I still have the proof with the cookie which I still have as evidence should it be required in the future. In the cookie string it has a date of 1-Jul-2007 17:33:06.

I have signed the E-Petition, written to my local MP twice and have written to the BT Chairman, to which he has failed to respond, surprise surprise.

I await the outcome of this PR stunt on Tuesday before deciding about jumping ship to a NON phorm ISP.

Colin

To be honest, I would recommend you jump now anyway. You have sufficient grounds for breach of contract given that you were illegally included in the covert trials and have evidence to that effect. As a result you should be able void the contract without penalty.

Alexander Hanff

[dav]

Originally Posted by Julian Smart

I'm just boggled by this. 80/20 claims there is no conflict of interest, and yet their 'strategic partner' is a notorious PR company that happens also to be employed by Phorm?? Huh? I'm not a conspiracy theorist - normally they're just fun diversions - but this is extraordinary. Why would a privacy consultancy need to team up with a huge spin-meister anyway? There's got to be more to this than meets the eye.

This article is fascinating:

http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/20...ayingdirty.php

"Burson-Marsteller does not publish a list of its clients, but it has purportedly worked for some of the most infamous governments of the twentieth century, including the military junta in Argentina in the 1970s, Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship in Romania, the government of Indonesia (following the massacre in East Timor) and the Nigerian government (to discredit reports of genocide)...

One of the most effective PR tools is the “third party” technique, where a firm will hire an “expert” to speak on behalf of a company. People don’t generally trust corporate executives who say a product is harmless (say cigarettes, Teflon cookware or household insecticides), but are more likely to believe the same words from a scientist. And sometimes even more effective than hiring experts is getting average citizens to do the same. PR firms have time and again managed to create the illusion of public support for corporate causes through front groups, such as the CCRES."

Sound familiar?

"Boggled" is an understatement. I was unaware of this until today. Questions must be asked and clarification sought. B-M don't appear to be too choosy with the company they keep. I wonder what the going rate for "ethics" is these days? The trail from 80/20 to B-M to Phorm is a real concern.
This has certainly got me thinking...

[Woodgar]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Do you think the best person to send it to would be the Chief Information Officer at my bank who is "responsible for overseeing technology capabilities across the Group" or should I go right to the Chief Executive?

Having the bank's on our side would put another nail into the Phorm coffin.

It might be best to contact the customer services/retentions/marketing type of departments with this sort of information, as well as sending copies to the technical departments.

The technical departments will need to know and will of course bring it to the attention of those they deem important, but it is the sales and marketing people who will shout the loudest if they think the introduction of phorm will cost them customers and market share.

[amateria]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

An excellent letter Amateria, do you think the best person to send it to would be the Chief Information Officer at my bank who is "responsible for overseeing technology capabilities across the Group" or should I go right to the Chief Executive?
...

I've amended the letter slightly to reflect his input, I hope you don't mind Amateria, as I also feel that letting the banks know that it could affect a huge number of online customers is a better option.

I'll upload the amended letter and I'll link to it shortly.

Keep up the great work folks, I feel that I'm not doing enough but the legal side of things has me stumped.

Thanks, Ravenheart. Please do feel free to make changes. Perhaps the Chief Exec- I imagine he would pass it to the legal and technology people.

Another tack to take will be to write to an insurance broker and ask for a quote for insurance against the risk of theft of data by someone who has access to our ISPs. I am still pondering this would be grateful for thoughts/ideas.

[Woodgar]

Originally Posted by dav

"Boggled" is an understatement. I was unaware of this until today. Questions must be asked and clarification sought. B-M don't appear to be too choosy with the company they keep. I wonder what the going rate for "ethics" is these days? The trail from 80/20 to B-M to Phorm is a real concern.
This has certainly got me thinking...

It was said way back in the early days of this thread that "in business, perception is reality".

Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing as there's little chance of me actually finding the original posting, but that was the gist of it.

80/20 have only been going for a few months and they are already being seen as little more than apologists for spyware makers and others who would take our privacy away. That may not be the case in reality, but if that becomes the public perception then it may as well be true.

[dav]

Amateria:

How about sending such a letter to the British Bankers Association?
That way, all banks and financial institutions will get to be informed as they look out for the interests of their members.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=103

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by dav

Amateria:

How about sending such a letter to the British Bankers Association?
That way, all banks and financial institutions will get to be informed as they look out for the interests of their members.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=103

I had the same thought earlier Dav, as they were always on telly at the hight of the bank penalty charge cases, maybe we could use them to our benefit this time.

I'll get my letter off to my bank, and I'll also send one to the BBA.