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

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

You most likely are correct Alexander but considering the fundamental issues here are matters of privacy (notwithstanding the interception angle too) I feel its important to keep the moral high ground and not leave myself open to accusations of hypocrisy by posting without asking permission first.

What I generally do when writing to MPs is include in the correspondence that I will be publishing their response online. But it doesn't really matter as a politician should always assume that anything they say to a member of the public in an official capacity may or will be used in the public domain. In fact I would go further and say that anything a politician does not want to say on the record, should not be said at all under any circumstances, given the Freedom of Information Act it is likely that at some point in the future it will come back to haunt them.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

What I generally do when writing to MPs is include in the correspondence that I will be publishing their response online. But it doesn't really matter as a politician should always assume that anything they say to a member of the public in an official capacity may or will be used in the public domain. In fact I would go further and say that anything a politician does not want to say on the record, should not be said at all under any circumstances, given the Freedom of Information Act it is likely that at some point in the future it will come back to haunt them.

Alexander Hanff

All good points. I really should have thought to include in the letter that I would be publishing the response. This is the first time I have felt strongly enough about an issue that I contacted an MP/MEP. In the heat of the moment didnt think of it.

Will ensure I include a similar phrase in all future correspondence, such as to Liberty (I just managed to fix my printer so a letter will be winging its way to them to follow on from my email last week) and then am good to publish the response if there are no objections.

[manxminx]

speaking as a website forum owner, I was wondering if anyone had found a short but acceptable sentence to put on each webpage denying Phorm the right to mirror, scan etc.

What I have so far (can't remember where I got it from, so apologies to the author):

Notice under the ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000’ to: NebuAd Inc, all subsidiary companies of NebuAd Inc, Phorm Inc, all subsidiary companies of Phorm Inc, OIX Network, and Internet Service Providers using the technologies provided by the former mentioned companies: The owner of this website specifically denies permission for the former mentioned companies and ISP’s to intercept, mirror, profile or collect browsing information for the purposes of classifying the user for targeted advertising services, or scan for relevant keywords or otherwise, any communication between a remote user accessing content on this website and that person's Internet Web Browser, or any other Interface that such a remote user may use to obtain, update or contribute to this websites data

That's a bit much to put on every webpage! (notice I've updated some of the wording as well as adding NebuAD for good measure!)

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by manxminx

That's a bit much to put on every webpage! (notice I've updated some of the wording as well as adding NebuAD for good measure!)

I thought that for web sites Phorm were hoping to get away with 'implied consent', so how about a simple:

"Intercepting, scanning or profiling of this page contents for the purposes of behavioural advertising is prohibited."

[OF1975]

Great Spoof report on phorm just in case people havent seen it:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s5i32484

[popper]

i find it very odd that theres been no Phorm copy after the holiday, and so far nothing on the wires other than that distastful spoof and a re-link of an old Guardian post, very odd indeed?.

on a general note this blog has some interesting legal points.
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/
taken from a users v ISP/Phorm POV rather than this ISP being forced to give up Safe harbor and monitor under court order, the loss of the safe harbor


given that the Phorm signed ISPs, have freely entering into this contract and are (or propose to)collecting, selecting, and modifying information to pass onto Phorm for/to comercially profit, are they infact giving up their Safe Harbor protection rights.

any lawyers reading want to finally give their personal comments on this matter?

also has anyone (i assume BT users first, as they already had the Phorm trial) considered the injunction options open to you from the small claims courts?

Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sabam v. Tiscali (Scarlet) - English translation now available

entry looks interesting

"Scarlet wrongfully considers that this injunction would result in its loss of the safe harbor from liability contained in Article 12 of Directive 2000/31 ... that benefits a provider of mere conduit or access to the internet conditioned upon it neither selecting nor modifying the information being transmitted;

That in accordance with “whereas” clause 45 of Directive 2000/31, “the limitations of the liability of intermediary service providers established in this Directive do not affect the possibility of injunctions of different kinds; such injunctions can in particular consist of orders by court . . .

requiring the termination or prevention of any infringement, including the removal of illegal information or the disabling of access to it.”

---------- Post added at 04:54 ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 ----------

i wonder if Virgin Media's new STB will have something like comcasts box.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...y-wants-spy-tv
Comcast denies it wants to spy on TV viewers

Computer users also not targeted
By Egan Orion: Tuesday, 25 March 2008, 5:22 PM

"
CABLE GIANT Comcast is backpedalling furiously away from the unguarded revelation by its Senior Vice President of User Experience, Gerald Kunkel....

The bombshell was dropped by Chris Albrecht at newteevee.com a week ago after interviewing Comcast's Kunkel at the Digital Living Room conference in San Francisco. There, he said Comcast is "experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who's in your living room."
...
"

[OF1975]

New link stateside which mentions Phorm in addition to some of their competitors:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ivacy-battles/

[Barkotron]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...n_phorm_uturn/

Nice, the Guardian have decided they don't want to be a part of this. It's about time.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...n_phorm_uturn/

Nice, the Guardian have decided they don't want to be a part of this. It's about time.

One down, many to go. Wise move by the guardian and yet more bad coverage/PR for Phorm. Great news.

[ceedee]

Great news!

I smell blood....

[Ravenheart]

http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/v...px?ciid=836361

LOLPhorms are go!

[kt88man]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...n_phorm_uturn/

Nice, the Guardian have decided they don't want to be a part of this. It's about time.

Very good news...

One or two investors may have caught the news...

Phorm's share price seems to have started on the downward trend.

edit:

I imagine Phorm's PR team(s) are at this moment using the powers of the Great Spin Generator...

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by kt88man

Very good news...

One or two investors may have caught the news...

Phorm's share price seems to have started on the downward trend.

edit:

I imagine Phorm's PR team(s) are at this moment using the powers of the Great Spin Generator...

This is indeed excellent news.

Well they've tried to spin it on the Register's report. However, whatever spin they try to offer they can't get round, under or over the fact that the Guardian advertising manager has said:

It is true that we have had conversations with them [Phorm] regarding their services but we have concluded at this time that we do not want to be part of the network. Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company.

I hope you appreciate that the quality of the Guardian's editorial is funded by our advertising sales operation and it is our duty to keep abreast of all developments in this sector. In this instance, however, I agree with you that this is not something that we should be partnering.

Anyone reading from a company interested in dealing with Phorm note the point about how this product sits with the values of our company.

The recent commentisfree blog by Zoe Margolis and the majority of sensible comments there (apart from the Phorm PR squad and one truly sad person obsessed with masturbation) may also have served to educate people.

[PhormUKPRteam]

Hi all
Hope you all had a good Easter? With reference to the above discussion, the Register article in the Guardian neatly highlights the two central issues here: protecting online privacy and needing ad funding to pay for Internet services. Of course people are concerned about the trade off they think they have to make between getting a personalised service on the one hand and giving up personal data on the other - we agree that they shouldn't have to make that pay off. So are you happy to be served targeted ads by companies that use your personal data and store it for more than 12 months before it is even anonymised? Surely it is better to have a system that stores absolutely no personal information, no IP addresses and no browsing histories - like us or not, that's a better privacy environment than you currently get.

Online ad targeting is not going away; something the Guardian confirms in its statement. The reason that we've had such an enthusiastic response from the companies that we meet is that the Phorm system can earn ISPs and publishers - big and small - more money to plough back into the services you receive today - most of them for free. If not ad funding, then what other way is the Internet going to be paid for? Most Internet publishers have abandoned subscriptions because not enough people are actually prepared to pay when it comes down to it.

As always, if you have any queries or want any more information, visit www.webwise.com or www.phorm.com

[Julian Smart]

Originally Posted by PhormUKPRteam

Hi all
Online ad targeting is not going away; something the Guardian confirms in its statement. The reason that we've had such an enthusiastic response from the companies that we meet is that the Phorm system can earn ISPs and publishers - big and small - more money to plough back into the services you receive today - most of them for free. If not ad funding, then what other way is the Internet going to be paid for? Most Internet publishers have abandoned subscriptions because not enough people are actually prepared to pay when it comes down to it.

The thing you're missing here is that many people would rather have fewer free services than compromise their privacy - and I know you say you won't, but (a) we don't believe you and never will, and (b) you can never guarantee that no-one will hack into the systems or otherwise abuse it.

We all deserve the peace of mind that our ISP doesn't compromise our privacy for the sake of a smaller bill. Phorm and its ilk are just wrong in principle, never mind your economic argument. Somehow the internet has surivived without you, and it will continue to do so.