Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 916

madslug · 11-08-2008, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florence

Could bring it up in the appeal that sine the homeoffice does understand privacy with the reasons for withholding the information. So could they explain why we have no rights to privacy from companies like phorm.

Right argument, wrong target. It is not Phorm who are invading our privacy, it is the ISPs.

Whether you take Phorm, NebuAd or Adzilla, they only write the extra software which allows the ISP to take the DPI data and convert it into a form which can be used by the ad networks to deliver targeted adverts. The ISP buys the DPI kit - and each box will be costing thousands. If the ISP was not already wanting to make our personal data available do you think the ad networks would have been able to get a foot into the door, getting them to agree to such a large capital outlay with only the promise of an income in return?

On the other side of the coin is the DPA - websites are businesses and as such do not have any protection under the DPA, not even when staff or minors use the business ISP connection for personal surfing.

There are only 2 sides to attack.
The first is the need for ISPs to respect their customers and not try to make an additional revenue stream out of something over which they have no rights as per the original agreement with their customers. If they try to do otherwise, they are in breach of contract. The amount of money involved is small enough for a small claims court action to decide who has rights under any change to the relationship between ISPs and customers.
The second is for the rights of websites to have communications between themselves and customers treated as confidential and not be intercepted or copied for any purpose by a 3rd party. Copyright and SSL - both are rights which no one can take away from the websites.

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

OK, updated Open Letter:

I feel that the most important concept in the letter is "BT and Phorm are, in effect, using your content to create demographic profiles of your customers. Phorm have no legal right to snoop on it, intercept it, redirect it or profit from it." and that this sentiment should also be mentioned near the top of the article. Preferably within the first paragraph as not everyone will read more than the first 3 or 4 sentences.

Otherwise, I spotted a Security 'expoert' .

Another point to consider adding is that even though BT and Phorm are currently only operating these interceptions in the UK, customers will be visiting sites anywhere in the world so no one is able to escape from this exploitation.

phormwatch · 11-08-2008, 23:26

OK! proto-final draft of the Open Letter To Business is complete.

Please check for inaccuracies, or potentially libelous statements. Also, if you have any other suggestions for 'What business can do', then please share them.

madslug · 11-08-2008, 23:33

Don't forget that UK businesses also need to know about the #10 petition.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/

16,900

phormwatch · 11-08-2008, 23:37

I'm not sure businesses would be interested in signing the petition...

Dunno... not sure it's appropriate.

What do other people think? Remember, we don't want to come across as hacktivists.

Dephormation · 11-08-2008, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I'm not sure businesses would be interested in signing the petition...

Dunno... not sure it's appropriate.

What do other people think? Remember, we don't want to come across as hacktivists.

I'm sure, for most small businesses, the distinction between the commercial and personal traffic carried over broadband is non-existant. So for many there will be a personal interest as well as commercial interest.

I don't think it does any harm to add it.

Rchivist · 11-08-2008, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I'm not sure businesses would be interested in signing the petition...

Dunno... not sure it's appropriate.

What do other people think? Remember, we don't want to come across as hacktivists.

As I've said it will be unusual for business readers to be interested in joining a campaign. But convince them that their business will lose money and they will ring their legal department and get drafting letters to BT. If we point them to anything it would need to be an article in a reputable trade/business journal and I don't have a clue where that might be. I don't think it is necessary.

They might contact their MP but they ain't going to join campaigns. Their contribution will be a very different one, couched in language that BT may just understand.
"I represent Global Widgets plc and my clients have instructed me to inform you that if ....."

Now that WILL get someone's attention at BT.

warescouse · 11-08-2008, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I'm not sure businesses would be interested in signing the petition...

Dunno... not sure it's appropriate.

What do other people think? Remember, we don't want to come across as hacktivists.

The DPI advert issues and the profiling greatly affect businesses in many ways.

Without dwelling on the issue within the letter, in the interests of transparency, I see no harm in mentioning it if it could be done in a subtle way.

Many smaller business owners may wish to sign it on a personal basis.

phormwatch · 12-08-2008, 00:06

OK, I added both - write to your MP, and sign the petition...

I preceded 'Sign the petition' with: 'Sign the 10 Downing Street Petition as a private individual:'

I guess that's acceptable.

12-08-2008, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

OK! proto-final draft of the Open Letter To Business is complete.

Please check for inaccuracies, or potentially libelous statements. Also, if you have any other suggestions for 'What business can do', then please share them.

Erm... some grammatical corrections?

which is run by a person called Kent Ertugrul
could be better phrased
which is run by a person named Kent Ertugrul
or
which is run by a person whose name is Kent Ertugrul

121Media was responsible for writing
could be better phrased
121Media were responsible for writing

Richard Clayton, Security expert and Cambridge professor has said this,
should be
Richard Clayton, Security expert and Cambridge professor said this,

Internet starts with a capital "i"

letter to the British government asking it to clarify whether Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.
should be
letter to the British government asking it to clarify whether or not Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.
or
letter to the British government asking it to clarify that Phorm complies with EU privacy laws.

sorry...

Apart from that it's a brilliant letter

phormwatch · 12-08-2008, 00:23

Don't apologise. Thank you for the corrections. I'll do those immediately.

3x2 · 12-08-2008, 00:49

Can't understand the HO "commercial in confidence" stance unless they have seen a different system/patent from the one published. More likely to be some kind of Civil Service embarrassment clause in the FOIA.

I still can't find any change to the EU patenting system (despite many attempts at change recently) that would allow Phorm's patent anyway. My understanding is that you still cannot patent software or a business process in Europe (inc. UK) and Phorm's patent is both and nothing else.

As for BT's view on copyright I have just a few lines to quote ...

<Directory "/web" >

Order allow,deny
Allow from all
ErrorDocument 403 "/error/noscumware.jpg"

Deny from every.BT.address.I.can.find

</Directory>

madslug · 12-08-2008, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3x2

As for BT's view on copyright I have just a few lines to quote ...

Has anyone had any feedback from VirginMedia or Carphone Warehouse about how they are handling the copyright issue?

More lines covering....

Deny from all.phorming.ISP.IPs

AlexanderHanff · 12-08-2008, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rryles

First up the usual IANAL disclaimer.

The problem with the CMA is that it is old. It was written before the internet came of age and so is often not very relevant anymore. A rewrite is well overdue. Having said that it can still be used effectively for many nefarious activities. The crux of the matter may well be the "without authorization" clause. It could be argued that by running a web browser that accepts cookies you are giving permission for cookies to be placed on your computer. It is common to imply consent for data to be changed on a computer. However that may fall down when the cookies are forged to look like they come from a domain they have nothing to do with.

I know there are people on here who are for more knowledgeable on the CMA than myself though so I look forward to reading their opinions.

The rewrite has already happened and is currently enacted within Scottish Law, England & Wales version of the Act are due to be fully updated with the additions to Scottish Law this October afaik.

I wrote about both the English and Scottish versions of the Act in my dissertation and explained how both versions of the Act were relevant to the Phorm trials (even the usually more difficult English version).

Alexander Hanff

phormwatch · 12-08-2008, 02:25

Hey Alex. Would appreciate your input re: the 'open letter'...

Everything appear to be factually correct? Do you see anything there which is potentially libellous?

AlexanderHanff · 12-08-2008, 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Hey Alex. Would appreciate your input re: the 'open letter'...

Everything appear to be factually correct? Do you see anything there which is potentially libellous?

I can't get to it at the moment my ADSL is being very flakey (which is why I didn't post over the weekend) and keeps dropping. I presume it is BT upgrading the exchange to 21CN (due for completion on the 18th) so I just have to grin and bare it at the moment. If you can email it to me it would be easier as it would download with the email when my connection is active even if I am not at the machine.

My connection is so bad it just took me about 12 attempts to post this reply.

Alexander Hanff