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

[3x2]

"Does Webwise runs its own Javascript software on the users' machines? (relates to a Phorm patent where it claims it can do this)

No, we learn and adapt. We have inserted our malware beyond the reach of your virus checker in this incarnation.

[Kellargh]

Shocking...I've been searching up that code that appears while browsing and it was also causing my internet to run slow and increasing the cpu. I'm disgusted, I absolutely loathe BT with a passion and as soon as someone files a lawsuit I will be getting effin' BLOTTO.

[labougie]

Apologies if this is a repost, but when I asked VM exactly where in their small print I had authorised them to use my usage data as part of their revenue stream, they pointed me to:

Section 'G: Your details and how we look after them' of your terms and conditions which states:

"By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in
the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions."

Doesn't it seem from this that they've covered themselves and that we've all signed up to be Phormed?

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by 3x2

No, we learn and adapt. We have inserted our malware beyond the reach of your virus checker in this incarnation.

Spot on. Phorm/121Media discovered that the marks were actually able to remove the last piece of scumware they tried to foist on them, and decided to use some people who could make it nigh impossible for victims to entirely get rid of it.

Shame people don't just want to accept the phinger of Phorm shoved phirmly up their phudge tunnel, isn't it PR Team? Wouldn't it be so much nicer if we all just didn't worry our pretty little heads about it and played the good little consumer and just coughed up money to the nice man who wasn't involved in nasty malware at all, no, it was for showing pictures of fluffy bunnies and kittens and nice things that you might like to buy and everyone who was infected with it was so pleased that they couldn't remove it even if they tried?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by labougie

Apologies if this is a repost, but when I asked VM exactly where in their small print I had authorised them to use my usage data as part of their revenue stream, they pointed me to:

Section 'G: Your details and how we look after them' of your terms and conditions which states:

"By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in
the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions."

Doesn't it seem from this that they've covered themselves and that we've all signed up to be Phormed?

No because they are not permitted to violate criminal law in order to do any of that stuff, irrespective of whether they put them in the terms or not.

If your ISP included terms that they could come into your house and smash the place up (criminal damage) it does not mean they can do it, as it effects your statutory rights in an adverse way. And as we keep saying consent is required from -all parties- not just you.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by labougie

Apologies if this is a repost, but when I asked VM exactly where in their small print I had authorised them to use my usage data as part of their revenue stream, they pointed me to:

Section 'G: Your details and how we look after them' of your terms and conditions which states:

"By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in
the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions."

Doesn't it seem from this that they've covered themselves and that we've all signed up to be Phormed?

It doesn't say anything about being allowed to contravene the data protection act though.

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by labougie

Apologies if this is a repost, but when I asked VM exactly where in their small print I had authorised them to use my usage data as part of their revenue stream, they pointed me to:

Section 'G: Your details and how we look after them' of your terms and conditions which states:

"By having the services we provide installed in your home and/or by using them you are giving us your consent to use your personal information together with other information for the purposes of providing you with our services, service information and updates, administration, credit scoring, customer services, training, tracking use of our services (including processing call, usage, billing, viewing and interactive data), profiling your usage and purchasing preferences for so long as you are a customer and for as long as is necessary for these specified purposes after you terminate your services. We may occasionally use third parties to process your personal information in
the ways outlined above. These third parties are permitted to use the data only in accordance with our instructions."

Doesn't it seem from this that they've covered themselves and that we've all signed up to be Phormed?

On the face of it, possibly, although I'm not so sure.

It says they can use your personal information "for the purpose of... profiling your usage and purchasing prefences".

Where's the "in order to subsequently provide advertising"? I don't see it there. There's no mention of what purposes the "usage and purchasing preferences" are to be put to. From the wording, the profiling is an end in and of itself. If they want to then utilise this profiling for something i.e. giving us adverts, then I'd say that would require a further change.

If they try to cover it under "to provide our services", then I'd argue that I never signed up for Phorm as a "service". I signed up for internet access, cable TV and phone services. Had Phorm been part of the package when I signed my contract, I would not have signed the contract.

I don't see how they can claim it's a "service update" either, it's the addition of a completely new layer of malware alongside the services we all signed up for.

However, the above would need to be argued about by lawyers, and my interpretation even to me is a bit nitpicky. Remember though, that you can refuse the right to all kinds of processing and collection under DPA, and that this refusal _overrides_ their Terms and Conditions. At worst, it means everyone has to actually issue a DPA notice nullifying their right to use this information in this way: I think Captain Jamie (?) had a pretty good letter on that one, although I haven't gone back to look at it.

I'd also be interested to know how long this exact wording was inserted in the Ts&Cs.

[amateria]

I agree with previous posters that routine inspection of communications is the thin end of a wedge that makes even more malign forms of surveillance easier - both technically, because the systems are sitting there in the ISPs, and because there is a risk that people become desensitised to the violation of their privacy. It seems to me that here are no "safeguards" against this, other than to uphold our right to privacy as a matter of principle.

[manxminx]

Now this is more like it! http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4786614&EDATE=

a new venture will shortly launch which is designed to protect the privacy of net surfers by targeting advertisements only at web users who have signed up to receive them.

The incentive for subscribers is that they earn points, which can be exchanged for shopping vouchers every time they view a new ad which will appear on their personal Mi Info page,

Our members will only receive advertisements relevant to their circumstances, lifestyle and interests, based on profiling data they have completed themselves. The essential difference is that the audience we are creating for advertisers have actively given their consent to receive the ads.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Phorm PR arent showing as viewing the thread anymore. Did we frighten them off?

I think they're doing daily recon of all the fora, tech and news sites that are actively following/discussing their master's plans, probably to compile a daily "sitrep" for Kent Ertugrul and his cronies. I wouldn't be surprised if their strategy planning sessions were beginning to revolve more and more around what's being said about them on the web and in the media.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Originally Posted by manxminx

Now this is more like it! http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4786614&EDATE=

Looks like an online version of the Nectar Card scheme. Whilst I am opposed to customer profiling on principle and refuse to participate in it personally, if other individuals want to submit to it I respect their right to choose. The most important point of the above scheme is that it is opt-in only, and I assume that as such, the data of people who don't opt-in doesn't have any contact with the profiling process whatsoever.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

Remember though, that you can refuse the right to all kinds of processing and collection under DPA, and that this refusal _overrides_ their Terms and Conditions. At worst, it means everyone has to actually issue a DPA notice nullifying their right to use this information in this way: I think Captain Jamie (?) had a pretty good letter on that one, although I haven't gone back to look at it.

I thought my ears were burning Slightly tweaked versions of the letter have gone off to the following:

Non Labour members of the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:

John Whittingdale MP: jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25239

Nigel Evans MP: ribblevalley@tory.org (nigel@nigelmp.com bounced)
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25719

Mr Evans is a member of a number of Parliamentary committees which may be very interested in this issue. Definitely worth contacting.

Phil Willis MP: willisp@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25250

Adam Price MP: pricea@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25332

Philip Davies: daviesp@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=35440

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee appears to have a lot of experience and potential interest in this issue.

hlscience@parliament.uk

The Earl of Northesk: northeskdjm@parliament.uk
Profile at: http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=26583

Useful hints and tips for addressing peers of the realm (I love using old fashioned language. No, not *that* kind!!)
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/m...ct/address.cfm

[Itshim]

Think someone mention "ironkey " here. Any way while I could get one at my local shop I am not really looking for a USB device. So the question I am asking is, can I get the software & put it on my PC?

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I have finished my analysis of RIPA you can read the updated PDF at http://www.paladine.org.uk/phorm_paper.pdf

It is gonna be a long article by time it is finished, currently over 4000 words and I still haven't completed even 20% of the final article.

I would appreciate some feedback on the article so far if possible please.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

I thought my ears were burning Slightly tweaked versions of the letter have gone off to the following:

Non Labour members of the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:

John Whittingdale MP: jwhittingdale.mp@tory.org.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25239

Nigel Evans MP: ribblevalley@tory.org (nigel@nigelmp.com bounced)
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25719

Mr Evans is a member of a number of Parliamentary committees which may be very interested in this issue. Definitely worth contacting.

Phil Willis MP: willisp@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25250

Adam Price MP: pricea@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=25332

Philip Davies: daviesp@parliament.uk
Profile at http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=35440

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee appears to have a lot of experience and potential interest in this issue.

hlscience@parliament.uk

The Earl of Northesk: northeskdjm@parliament.uk
Profile at: http://biographies.parliament.uk/par...t.asp?id=26583

Useful hints and tips for addressing peers of the realm (I love using old fashioned language. No, not *that* kind!!)
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/m...ct/address.cfm

Good work. I myself used the writetothem website to contact the Earl of Northesk myself a few days ago to enquire whether he had yet had a response from the question he asked HMG regarding Phorm in the House of Lords on the 17th March. I have yet to hear back but I do recall from reading his question that he was due to receive an answer by the 31st March so I hope to hear something in due course. If I get a response I will of course let you all know.

Sadly, as of yet, I have yet to receive any response from either my MP, 5 out of the 7 MEPs I wrote to or even from Liberty.

[jakebarry]

Originally Posted by amateria

I agree with previous posters that routine inspection of communications is the thin end of a wedge that makes even more malign forms of surveillance easier - both technically, because the systems are sitting there in the ISPs, and because there is a risk that people become desensitised to the violation of their privacy. It seems to me that here are no "safeguards" against this, other than to uphold our right to privacy as a matter of principle.

Dam right the DPA is in place to protect our civil rights, something that phorm the BMI and government seem to happy to trample on. Protecting copyright and enforcing fair use, has to be achieved reasonably, otherwise the internet and everthing it stands for is lost to us forever.