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

[AlexanderHanff]

One thing which occurred to me overnight was whether or not Webwise is likely to cause content owners to breach DPA. Anyone who keeps personal data is obliged to register with ICO and follow DPA which includes protecting their users data. If Webwise is able to track what people are buying, how much and when - could this be construed as the content owner breaching DPA by failing to properly protect their customer's data?

Just a thought...

Alexander Hanff

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by thebarron

See may post above : The sensative parts of my websites can only be viewed once logged on. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on and therefore cannot know the data has implied consent or not. I do not need meta tags or robots.txt to prevent Google from seeing this data as Google (other search engines) cannot see them. If I have to use meta tags or robots.txt then I am being asked to Opt-Out which is not legal!

Exactly. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on.

---------- Post added at 06:54 ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.

They haven't explained how it will work because it cannot work. Phorm have indicated that they will password authentication, which can be taken to mean Basic Authentication (RFCs 1945 & 2616) and Digest (RFCs 2069 & 2617).

But so many websites now use bespoke cookie-based authentication mechanisms that it will be a challenge to say the least to work out and ignore each of these.

---------- Post added at 07:00 ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

I agree that the real issue is the legality of the interception in the first place, and the need for explicit, informed, rather than implied consent, but I am trying to challenging the way even their "implied" consent model works.

The "implied" consent applies only to the website owner. Not the user. The user must still give informed consent. And even this model falls apart because of protected content. This is leads to a very powerful argument against Phorm.

---------- Post added at 07:08 ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 ----------

Originally Posted by SMHarman

No it is not. This is a small cap, thinly traded stock with high volitility. When you buy or sell you are likely to be doing it through a market maker that needs to hold inventory to be able to make that market. Market makers don't like holding inventory that costs them money, a cost to carry and a cost or risk of price falling to less than you paid. To mitigate this latter risk the spread, the difference between buying and selling prices widens.

It's also a small cap with a volatile history and lots of people watching it, making it relatively easy to influence the price. I really don't think anyone involved with Phorm would be silly enought to cross the line into market abuse knowing so many of you guys were watching the stock. More likely speculation growing that they're closing in a deal with an American ISP. AT&T have been touted as a potential partner during roadshows.

---------- Post added at 07:14 ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Cumulus

Can I suggest a clear distinction is made between the 2006 and 2007 trials as the technology did differ considerably e.g. PageSense parsing pages with Javascript, and ProxySense being server-based (and therefore more like Webwise).

IANAL and I don't know whether this is significant legally but perhaps it is?

It is believed that JavaScript can get around intercept laws e.g. Googlemail (even though gmail servers are based abroad so not covered by UK intercept laws). The script reads the page after it has been "opened" by the user therefore is not intercept but a consent for someone to come to your house and watch you opening your mail.

HOWEVER because the JavaScript was most likely injected at the ISP level then there would then still be some level of intercept involved to achieve that.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

One thing which occurred to me overnight was whether or not Webwise is likely to cause content owners to breach DPA. Anyone who keeps personal data is obliged to register with ICO and follow DPA which includes protecting their users data. If Webwise is able to track what people are buying, how much and when - could this be construed as the content owner breaching DPA by failing to properly protect their customer's data?

Just a though...

Alexander Hanff

If Phorm is 'legal', then content owners must assume that all ISPs are untrustworthy and protect their pages accordingly.

If I had any money to speak of, it would be in SSL certificate authority shares at the moment.

Even so a copyright claim would leave them sitting in smouldering ruins too. Did you see the thread on badphorm?

The Phorm process violates the rights of the copyright holder because

* An unlicenced copy of the work is created for commercial exploitation ('profiler copy')
* An unlicenced derivative work is created for commercial exploitation ('user profile')
* The copying may be aggravated by fraud, deception, and concealment (creating fake cookies, stripping UID usage data)
* Content creators don't get paid a royalty

Fortunatly there is a solution, about to go public. And you're going to love the name too.

Pete

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Incidentally, in that 'heated battle' did you notice that the principle of Oblonsky's suggestion was a bit of 80/20 thinking?

...


Perhaps that is what Oblonsky was getting at?

Yes it is. Whilst forum discussion can cover 100% of the potential flaws when taking the battle forward and to mainstream media, to parliament and potentially to court it may be better to focus on a few solid arguments. The net result will still be the same, but the message will be stronger through its clarity and brevity.

[Bonglet]

Thing is oblonsky it shouldnt even have to get to court phorms model is already breaking basic rights amongst others, just have to ball watch untill something gets done, if not we leave said isp let them deal with the few users left because it will be my goal to tell everyone who i know and recommended in the past to desert too.

The way you post and the mention that you had to take a back seat to events had me wondering if you had any input on the phorm system somewhere?

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Fortunatly there is a solution, about to go public. And you're going to love the name too.

Pete

Whenwhenwhenwhenwhen?

[OF1975]

Alexander, sorry to ask this as I know you are very busy with stuff you have to get done for Uni etc but have you heard anything back from that person you spoke to at the FT about the jump in the Phorm share price?

[vicz]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Yes it is. Whilst forum discussion can cover 100% of the potential flaws when taking the battle forward and to mainstream media, to parliament and potentially to court it may be better to focus on a few solid arguments. The net result will still be the same, but the message will be stronger through its clarity and brevity.

Totally agree (I am sure I made this point somewhere earlier in this monster thread too). It is far easier to win an argument with a few watertight points rather than dozens of good but arguable ones, even if they are ultimately valid. Also, presenting any weaker point gives the opponent an opening to attack. I consider opt-in not out, RIPA as our crucial strong points, the law seems clear and the majority of people will understand and will be effected by them. Website owner (lack of) implied consent, web content copyright, interesting but much weaker points.

Focusing on a few strong points is the key to winning, rather than prolonging and enjoying, an argument. As is continuous repetition of your strongest points.

[pangpang]

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

Yes there are several VPN services like 'Relakks' but it comes down to trust. How do you know you can trust Relakks? I've read their site and all the T&C and all the nods to privacy laws, but what guarantees do we have? Where are the testimonials and who vetted them in the first place.

There are some VPN service providers that sound really great and they offer good deals but then they go and spoit it by having just a PO Box office address in some far away country and no contact with a real person that can be held to account.

Sorry I don't want to throw cold ice water on your new discovery, and I hope you get what you think you will get which is a privacy solution for $5 per month. That is the value you have put on your privacy.

I actually think that you can trust Relakks. I'm from Sweden and the man how started up Relakks is wellknown here in Sweden for his view to people secracy.
For everyone that wonders what Relakks is, or just want to know more... :

I saw a great interview with the swedish owner and founder of Relakks, Jonas Birgersson. He is interviewed by Thomas Crampton and many interesting questions are answered.

Here is a link to the short interview: http://light.vpod.tv/?s=0.0.201364

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Fortunatly there is a solution, about to go public. And you're going to love the name too.

Pete

Press release to The Register? The Guardian, BBC and C4 can pick it up from there.

pangpang and thanks for the input.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

The "implied" consent applies only to the website owner. Not the user. The user must still give informed consent. And even this model falls apart because of protected content. This is leads to a very powerful argument against Phorm.

Yes, I knew this. I "think" we're in agreement?

The ISP's are claiming that webwise fulfils explicit informed consent on the part of the surfer/ISP customer. (We are challenging that on the basis that they will need to give us a heck of a lot of inphormation for it to be phully inphormed consent - a lot more than "anti-phishing and relevant adverts"

They are "assuming" implied consent on the part of the website operator.
(We are challenging that on the basis that allowing search engines is NOT the same as allowing Webwise, and anyway there are a shedload of problems - such as websites who specifically say they don't allow Webwise, such as webmail sites not on the blacklist, such as protected parts of sites and whether Phorm/Webwise can detect/distinguish them - etc etc - list is quite long including Dephormation's copyright arguments)

And anyway - before we get into that there are fundamental reasons (Alex Hanff etc) why the whole thing is illegal in the first place, on the grounds of the fundamental interception required and the level at which that interception occurs.

Am I summing this up right?

[James_Firth]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Alexander, sorry to ask this as I know you are very busy with stuff you have to get done for Uni etc but have you heard anything back from that person you spoke to at the FT about the jump in the Phorm share price?

From Saturday's Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...xmktrep110.xml

"Online advertising technology group Phorm soared 425p to £17.62½ on speculation that it was close to sealing a large new contract. For breaking news, changing views and trading floor chatter, check out Ben Bland's Market Forces."

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Cumulus

All the content of the http pages will be scanned, so in theory the contents of a number of shopping baskets (for example) could be analysed to calculate this information. However, from what we know about the Webwise/OIX system (see Richard Clayton's analysis), the software does not appear to record information at the level of detail to do this consistently and accurately, and as far as I know there is no intention to do this anyway.

What it would pick up are the items bought not the prices but then you have just bought these items so the adverts targeted at you from that list would not be relevent as you already had them.

Originally Posted by Cumulus

This is an important point you raise as most of the discussion about Webwise/OIX so far has centered on the privacy concerns of the internet user rather than the websites and the individuals, companies and other organisations that are running these websites. My feeling is that there is currently a low level of awareness about Webwise/OIX amongst website owners - I certainly have concerns but until we know more details including which pages are going to be scanned, I can't advise clients as to what actions to take. My feeling is that website owners shouldn't have to take any action - it should be opt-in for website owners as well as for web users.

This is one point I did raise and a reason I contacted Amazon, It would seem the ISPs idea is to blacklist sites that dont wish to have visitors that are phormed. If I remember correctly from an earlier post they asked for domain names to add to the blacklist. I feel this isn't the answer since their customers browsing habits will be forcable changed if the site blacklisted is one their customers visit.
On a personal note I have taken my personal website down for now domain name is there pointing to my hosting but the site is down until I decide what is the best way to fight this. After 10years I no longer have my website up just due to ISP greed.

Originally Posted by Cumulus

As a example of how Webwise/OIX can affect a company's business consider an ecommerce site as you described. A company is likely to have spent a lot of time and money attracting people to the site through providing good, relevant content, pay-per-click advertising etc. Any prospective customers and the content they view will get picked up by Webwise, and on visiting an OIX partner site, that prospective customer may be delivered an advert for a product related to that content. Retailers will not be pleased that their hard work is effectively being used to deliver adverts for a competitor!

I have to agree if phorm takes the route they are many smaller companies could face closing down due to loss of potentual customers. I also feel that with many people it is a known fact that some can't ressist buying if they are targeted with adverts. Many people over the years have ended up in financial difficulties by people becoming compulsive shoppers. Phorm is anopther case where they could push them over the edge with targeted adds. I quote Kent's words on click whan hit with 100s of adds a few pony ones would be missed. So he plans to hit us with 100s of adds?
As without targeted adverts I am lucky if I see 10 in a month or is that unlucky. I block them all I have more blocked content than websites in fav's

Originally Posted by Cumulus

Another area that is likely to be important to website owners concerns protected content. There is no indication that Webwise can accurately determine whether a user is authenticated (there are a large number of ways that a user may be authenticated) so it looks likely that protected content will be scanned in many cases - this information may be commercially sensitive so this is clearly a concern for the website owner.

many forums I visit on a regular basis I am set to auto login so teir is no login screen. On a few I have admin rights so access to members data had I stayed with VM I would have felt I was failing in my obligation to the websites to help protect their members from interception.

Originally Posted by Cumulus

I could go on but these are some of the issues that website owners will be interested in, and Phorm's proposed opt-out for websites using a file originally designed to tell search engines which pages cannot be indexed (robots.txt) does not adequately address the issues. And this totally ignores any legal issues there may be with the Webwise/OIX system in the first place.

I personally feel that if webwise goes ahead they need to contact all websites from the contact us page and get informed consent to phorm the pages if this is refused and they block the sites so the ISPs customers cannot get to them then the ISPs become guilty by association to blackmail of wither website owners or customers by blocking sites they visit in a phree (sorry free) world.

Originally Posted by R Jones

The ISP's are claiming that webwise fulfils explicit informed consent on the part of the surfer/ISP customer. (We are challenging that on the basis that they will need to give us a heck of a lot of inphormation for it to be phully inphormed consent - a lot more than "anti-phishing and relevant adverts"

They also need to stop the CS staff from giving out incorrect information saying it is for their protection as to some this very phrase will panic them, when they most likely have enough already. Kent implies that 90% of the web users are idiots and unable to switch on anti phishing in IE7 this browser will warn you the site might be dangerous and do you want to switch on anti phishing now it takes ONE CLICK to switch it on so no need for a degree in computer science.

Originally Posted by R Jones

They are "assuming" implied consent on the part of the website operator.
(We are challenging that on the basis that allowing search engines is NOT the same as allowing Webwise, and anyway there are a shedload of problems - such as websites who specifically say they don't allow Webwise, such as webmail sites not on the blacklist, such as protected parts of sites and whether Phorm/Webwise can detect/distinguish them - etc etc - list is quite long including Dephormation's copyright arguments)

And anyway - before we get into that there are fundamental reasons (Alex Hanff etc) why the whole thing is illegal in the first place, on the grounds of the fundamental interception required and the level at which that interception occurs.

Am I summing this up right?

Totally correct The only way to make this not work for ISPs is for all to refuse to opt-in, refuse to be phormed, refuse to have you privacy radid.

To win Phorm the public at large needs to stand and say no to webwise.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by James_Firth

From Saturday's Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...xmktrep110.xml

"Online advertising technology group Phorm soared 425p to £17.62½ on speculation that it was close to sealing a large new contract. For breaking news, changing views and trading floor chatter, check out Ben Bland's Market Forces."

Thanks James. I already knew of that speculation but I was wondering if there is any more information on this new contract ie whether it is to do with ISPs here or in the US, new OIX partners etc. I was hoping Alexander may have gotten more information in the mean time but guess I will have to try to learn some patience which is not my strong point LOL

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

New article on ISPreview. Apologies if its already been posted and I missed it.

http://www.freepressreleases.co.uk/P...2008051219174/

[Dephormation]

Now here's curious.

Not that I'm contemplating setting a business or anything like that. But I was looking at the UK Intellectual Property Office at trademarks (as you do).

I thought I'd see if Webwise was a trademark. And indeed it is.

Xara Ltd of Hemel Hempstead
Hewlett-Packard Development Company
BBC

These all overlap on purpose "09 Computer software, computer hardware, computer peripheral devices; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods" including the currently 'examined' but not 'registered' trademark application by Phorm:

Phorm UK

Presumeably this means, if its still being examined, there could be objections which force Phorm to seek a new trademark?

Trademark obviously doesn't matter, its still Phorm.

Interestingly they haven't registered the Phorm logo as a trademark, only this rather shabby effort.