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

[SimonHickling]

The office manager for my MP has suggested my MP write to "Gareth Thomas MP, the Minister with responsibility for OFCOM and for consumer affairs generally. He will reply or instruct someone at OFCOM to reply - that's one thing
you can be sure of, even if you don't much like the reply, you always get one!"

Fingers crossed that I like the reply.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Originally Posted by OldBear

Obviously I can't post the url publicly as i can't afford to have BT threatening me.

Don't forget to block it in your robots.txt or BT will find it by deep packet inspection

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

"might damage" = has damaged

If Phorm goes ahead and it installed into the ISPs I have a feeling Simon may step down at Privacy International for personal reasons.

He who sups with the devil..

Can I just ask the people in this thread who are sticking up for him (presumably from his past, I know him not), if he's that good, how come he took the proverbial thirty pieces of silver from a creature who has a history that might be politely be described as "interesting"?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If that's true, it's another strike against democracy by "the land of the free"..

Something Simon with his Privacy international hat on would have fought.. but with his 80/20 hat on will this mean surrender the freedom.


I do feel for him but as it says in the bible sell you soul to the devil and all is lost.

Copied this from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7283333.stm

Q: What fees (or other gifts/gratuities) were paid to Simon Davies and Gus Hosein when they were "invited" to assess Phorm's privacy protection measures? Does Phorm, or any of its directors, agents or employees have any interests in 80/20 Thinking

A: Phorm, its directors, agents or employees have no interests whatsoever in 80/20 Thinking. 80/20 Thinking is a consulting business founded and run by Managing Director Simon Davies, who is also a director of Privacy International, one of the leading privacy advocacy bodies. Phorm has retained 80/20 Thinking to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment on its technologies, systems and policies and we will work with them on an ongoing basis throughout the year. We chose 80/20 Thinking because Simon Davies has spent the best part of thirty years championing consumer privacy and railing against infringements. We wanted our systems and policies to be open to the kind of unforgiving scrutiny Simon brings.

And yes, 80/20 Thinking does charge for its services, as conducting audits takes time and resources.

I read this and it comes over as more we know Kent has no reputation and what he did here was go for Simon to gain reputation but a lepoard never changes his spots just his hunting habits.

From how Simon seems to have been manipoulated through this whole affair I feel for him it must be torture to see 30yrs of reputation being discredited by someone who has shown contempt for ISP customers with an opinion, failure to do what was promised(video of public meeting) and genrally failed to answer questions with straight answers. Instead you get what is practised sales talk then finally MPO inaccuracies in what VM and he says added to the illegal trials.

Simon is now in a position where he can either save his reputaion or watch his lifes work crumple I certainly woudn't want to be in his shoes.

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by OldBear

Thought you would all like to know what goes on over at the BT forum where a lot of us guys here came from.

A thread made by a fellow called Andrew (one of us here, I think) complaining about BT censoring their forums and removing any threads/posts mentioning Phorm and/or Webwise has just been removed from the forum.

I'm utterly disgusted at this and will be making a written complaint to BT about this.

Anyway, before they removed the thread, I grabbed a copy (it was in my cache) which I am going to up to my webspace somewhere; as soon as I do so, I will be inviting you all to PM me for the url to the thread. Obviously I can't post the url publicly as i can't afford to have BT threatening me.

OB

or the paid Russian hackers placing maliticious iframes on it.

Sad we have to be like this due to a company that is illegal in all its works I think that unless people are willing to match their distrust for Phorm with moving from the 3 Big ISPs then phorm has won.

[davews]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Thought you would all like to know what goes on over at the BT forum where a lot of us guys here came from.

A thread made by a fellow called Andrew (one of us here, I think) complaining about BT censoring their forums and removing any threads/posts mentioning Phorm and/or Webwise has just been removed from the forum.

I'm utterly disgusted at this and will be making a written complaint to BT about this.

Anyway, before they removed the thread, I grabbed a copy (it was in my cache) which I am going to up to my webspace somewhere; as soon as I do so, I will be inviting you all to PM me for the url to the thread. Obviously I can't post the url publicly as i can't afford to have BT threatening me.

OB

Yes I noticed that. It was there earlier this afternoon but when I looked just now it had gone without trace. I see the BT moderator Mark is around this afternoon and replied to a few posts, but just deleting a post like that is not on. Decent moderators would at least have replaced it with a comment stating why it had been deleted. Sort of sets the scene doesn't it...

Dave

[thebarron]

Found this on an investor site:
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp...310&sort=whole

From my own perspective though:

1. Phorm has about £1.50 of cash per share (warning fag packet calculation).

2. It's business model looks so full of holes that if it were codenamed "Emmental" then I doubt anyone would be surprised.

3. The public outcry against the business model and the legal questions add significant risk well beyond what any sensible investor should ever consider.

4. The Virgin denouncement that they don't have an "Exclusive Agreement" suggests that Phorm's previous claims to the contrary verge on the level of "actionable".

Common sense screams that Phorm is a complete raging short and that if it were 90% lower then it may just be the right price. Can I enter this in the CQ competition as a short? I'd type on the CQ board but there's a reason why I'm posting this at this point in time - I'm rushed off my feet.

[James_Firth]

I had a thread killed off too, a few weeks ago after the second Webspies thread was locked and before a new one was opened. I was pointing out that I thought the use of a cookie-based opt-out was fundamentally incompatible with DPA Section 11 opt-out rights, and referencing a detailed letter I had written to the Director of Regulatory Compliance about the subject.

For some reason BT are trying to keep all Webspies discussion contained. Eventually after nagging I got the text of my original post quoted in the new thread but even that was bizarre, as I posted a complaint, then the censored post got re-instated in the complaint, then the censored post appeared wholesale ealier up the thread. What the hell are they playing at and WHY!?

Anyway I have already decided I will publish all my correspondance with BT so watch this space. OB I suggest you just stick the link to the censored thread in this thread, being careful if you have any BT logos to link to the logo from the BT site to work around copyright.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Okay here is my letter, now open letter, to BTs director of regulatory compliance:

http://www.daltonfirth.co.uk/docs/ph...080403_web.pdf

I've already published on Badphorm Don Foster's opinion that Phorm's plans do protect privacy, which I tend to agree with him in this specific case, however my concern is not about Phorm but about the principal of allowing intra-ISP profiling and the implications of allowing such a market to open:

http://www.daltonfirth.co.uk/docs/ph...r_20080501.pdf

[AndrewJ]

Thanks shall enjoy a read later with a brew

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

I had a thread killed off too, a few weeks ago after the second Webspies thread was locked

"Webspies"? please tell me you got that from me, I'm trying to contribute...

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

"Webspies"? please tell me you got that from me, I'm trying to contribute...

When did you first coin the phrase and how does it relate to whois on webspies.org.uk? - I've genuinely no idea where it came from but I registered it thus:

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

Domain name:
webspies.org.uk

Registrant:
JD Firth

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrar:
GX Networks Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 04-Apr-2008
Renewal date: 04-Apr-2010

[OldBear]

RE: the BT removed thread.

Ok, folks, as advised I have removed the BT branding and I have upped it to one of my domains.

I know it may not be too big a deal to post the link here, but I would rather anyone who wants to see the original thread PM me for the link.

What really annoys me about this sort of censorship is, you can post on that forum that BT are crap, their system is crap, their CS is crap, or their equipment is crap and you get a reply from a Mod offering ways to sort your problem out, but mention Phorm/Webwise anywhere other than where they want you to post (i.e in a thread they won't reply to) and it gets censored or, more likely, removed. Disgusting!!!

OB

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Thought you would all like to know what goes on over at the BT forum where a lot of us guys here came from.

A thread made by a fellow called Andrew (one of us here, I think) complaining about BT censoring their forums and removing any threads/posts mentioning Phorm and/or Webwise has just been removed from the forum.

I'm utterly disgusted at this and will be making a written complaint to BT about this.

Anyway, before they removed the thread, I grabbed a copy (it was in my cache) which I am going to up to my webspace somewhere; as soon as I do so, I will be inviting you all to PM me for the url to the thread. Obviously I can't post the url publicly as i can't afford to have BT threatening me.

OB

How ironic. The poster had just commented about how he was surprised that the mods hadn't already deleted it and they just went and proved the point by going ahead and removing it without explanation. Hey ho.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by OldBear

RE: the BT removed thread.

Ok, folks, as advised I have removed the BT branding and I have upped it to one of my domains.

I know it may not be too big a deal to post the link here, but I would rather anyone who wants to see the original thread PM me for the link.

What really annoys me about this sort of censorship is, you can post on that forum that BT are crap, their system is crap, their CS is crap, or their equipment is crap and you get a reply from a Mod offering ways to sort your problem out, but mention Phorm/Webwise anywhere other than where they want you to post (i.e in a thread they won't reply to) and it gets censored or, more likely, removed. Disgusting!!!

OB

You can always email the BT Beta forum moderators direct asking about this, using the forum moderation team email address. Maybe lots of people emailing with the same question? They won't tolerate you calling them out in the forum itself.

If anyone wants to pm me I can give a bit more info about other threads in the BT Beta forums.

[Cogster]

was ist das?

BT actively censoring their own Broadband forums but only on webvise topic..??

One for El Reg me thinks...

Well - 'Andrew' tried starting another thread 'over there' - which lasted approx. 2 minutes!

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Not to mention the fact that if you (as either a consumer or website owner) don't want Google to "profile" you, then they do seem to respect your wishes, and even you don't believe they are respecting your wishes, their methods are easy to block.

The Bottom Line as the Phorm /Webwise system stands at the moment.

If you are unfortunate like me to still be on a Phorm/Webwise ISP then:-

If you are prepared to block the Webwise Sites at the IPSEC/Good Software Firewall/Router level then you choke the Webwise Browser re-route system & this makes the Advertisement System they are relying on very difficult to implement!

Use of the Hosts file is problematic, as the Browser Cookie or Code can be told to re-route via the true Webwise IP address (not just the URL Name).

This doesn't stop the Wire-tap as it stands at the moment, but what use is the Wire-tap to BT/Phorm under these conditions.

I would rather block these Domains in such a fashion than feed their System & take the hit of Site Time-outs & having to refresh when their system is forced into a temporary loop at the ISP!

Keep your Javascript, Java software up to date to minimize the danger from Javascript, Java injection Exploits!