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

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by ilago

"Fifty-four percent said they delete their cookies at least twice monthly."

Using the reference contained within your quote, it would mean that using the current known implementation of WebWise a single broadband connection could be opting back in to WebWise over twice times the number of users of the connection per month. (If the opt out mechanism is not done at account level.).

This cookie method of opt-in / opt-out is obviously flawed IMHO.

[ilago]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Using the reference contained within your quote, it would mean that using the current known implementation of WebWise a single broadband connection could be opting back in to WebWise over twice times the number of users of the connection per month. (If the opt out mechanism is not done at account level.).

This cookie method of opt-in / opt-out is obviously flawed IMHO.

It would, but remember that the ISP in the USA using NebuAd (WOW) didn't even advise their customers it was happening and simply changed their terms and conditions to allow it to happen anyway.

The NAI and eTrust pdfs I linked to are quite disturbing to me. Briefly the NAI really seem to think that behavioural targetting is OK, it's quite safe, the consumers have control, the "market" should be self-regulated and that "educating the consumer" (whatever that means when they say it) is all they have to worry about. They are completely ignoring the consumers who don't like it.

Where on earth did BT-Phorm get the idea that most people would prefer personally targetted advertising when the eTrust report pdf is quite clear that 57% of their survey in the USA didn't like the idea of it?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Speaking of security gurus - you may have heard of Bruce Schneier. He's a bit of a heavyweight in the IT security world. He releases and monthly newsletter on security.

His website can be found here:

http://www.schneier.com/

I was surprised to find out that he is 'Chief Security Technology Officer' of BT. I wrote him an email, before I knew this fact and asked why he hadn't written any articles about Phorm. He replied that the technology was 'not particularly interesting'.

Technically, this may be true. However, he also writes about all sorts of stuff relating to the intersection of technology and privacy and social issues - which is why I was all the more surprised at the time.

In light of the new information, I wouldn't be surprised if his reticence has anything to do with his position. Though this is mere speculation on my part.

I also wrote to him and have received no reply whatsoever. But to be honest I didn't expect one.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Is the 80/20 pia finsihed yet thats well over a month behind now isnt it ?.

Simon hasnt shown his face in oo quite a while now.

People really need to keep up I am getting a bit fed up with repeating this every 4-7 days.

Simon Davies is out of the country on UN business and has been for several weeks and will be for several more weeks. Then he is back for a short time before being out of the country for another month.

He has assured me he will try and complete the PIA during his very limited time back in the UK.

However, as I have said several times now, it doesn't really matter when the PIA is completed it is very unlikely Phorm will be publishing it for public release.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

For anyone wanting the source of the "we can see the entire internet" quote - its here

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/bu...in&oref=slogin

and dates from 20th March or thereabouts. It was said by Virasb Vahidi, Chief Operating Officer of Phorm, in a US press conference.

It took a while to find, as all the quotes of the quote were about "we can see the WHOLE internet" which is a misquote.

Worth resurrecting that quote, as I don't think it is the sort of thing Phorm want us to remember (unless they are trying to sell OIX spaces).

You could have just asked me, my dissertation has 3 pages of references and that is one of them In fact the references section of my dissertation might be very useful for people who have just joined the debate or others who want to go back over some of the earlier info which appeared on the web, anyone is still welcome to download the dissertation it is available from the NoDPI web site.

Alexander Hanff

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

cut...
People really need to keep up I am getting a bit fed up with repeating this every 4-7 days.
...cut

That is the very reason I moan from time to time about allowing the content on this thread to be diluted. People like Alex state something that everyone should read, but it sometimes gets lost very quickly pages back in time. If we allow off-topic debate to drag on by people who may be deliberately encouraging this to happen, interested members returning to the forum after a small gap in time can find they have thirty pages to read through and not everyone can put in that time.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Is the 80/20 pia finsihed yet thats well over a month behind now isnt it ?.

Simon hasnt shown his face in oo quite a while now.

It was my view a fair few posts ago that the PIA would never see the light of day. It's a document that belongs to the clent and whatever it contains it is of no value now; the debate has moved much further on. I suspect that Simon, for whom many on this forum have great personal respect, would prefer that the completed document could disappear into the ether rather than be subject to any public scrutiny; his Company have already taken quite a bit of collateral damage in this Phorm debacle.

Simon was paid to do a job; business is business. It is a choice that most here regret as Simon is a natural ally but he did spend quite some time here explaining his position and I respect him for that.

Maybe it's time to let the PIA aspect go?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by warescouse

You maybe could have pointed out the article also finished with the quote by Virasb Vahidi “Because we feel very comfortable that our claims are true.”

So they cannot deny it either.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------


In view of the great work done by Simon in the past I for one would sincerely like to think this was the case. But this is slightly off topic.

i like the bit

Although companies like Google employ users’ I.P. addresses to store their search queries, Phorm says that its technology blocks the company from finding out personal information, like people’s names, I.P. addresses that identify their computers, or information about health, for example.

my bold

peter

[jelv]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

People really need to keep up I am getting a bit fed up with repeating this every 4-7 days.

Simon Davies is out of the country on UN business and has been for several weeks and will be for several more weeks. Then he is back for a short time before being out of the country for another month.

He has assured me he will try and complete the PIA during his very limited time back in the UK.

However, as I have said several times now, it doesn't really matter when the PIA is completed it is very unlikely Phorm will be publishing it for public release.

The fact that the PIA has not been completed/published causes to me speculate on several possibilities.

I'm quite sure that Phorm originally intended to publish before the BT trials began. That it appears Phorm are not pressurising him to complete the full PIA could indicate that the trials are still some way off.

Given how Phorm selectively quoted from the interim PIA, if they've seen a draft and there was any scrap of comfort in it I'm sure they'd be pushing for completion so that they could selectively quote again (even if the full PIA never appeared publicly).

It could be that Simon has imposed a condition that if Phorm are to quote from it the full text must be published. If that's the case I'd bet any money that the PIA will never see the light of day.

It could be Simon has actually completed the PIA, but that it was so unfavourable the the client (Phorm) has instructed Simon to not reveal that it has been completed.

All in all, I cannot see any way in which the non-completion and publication of the full PIA is a good thing for Phorm. To that end I think we should keep reminding people that a full PIA was promised and it hasn't appeared. It is Phorm that should be asked where it is, not Simon - the business relationship between Simon and Phorm is a private matter for them alone.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

i like the bit

my bold

this was ment to highlight the fact that phorm are looking at PII and collecting it, in total contrast to the public statements where ther say they don't

there is no way it was ment as a pro phorm statement

but i missed the i bit have now underlined, DOH!!!!!

sorry for any misunderstanding must have been reading to many HW posts

Peter

i shall just go and stand in the corner for a while

peter

[jelv]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

Although companies like Google employ users’ I.P. addresses to store their search queries, Phorm says that its technology blocks the company from finding out personal information, like people’s names, I.P. addresses that identify their computers, or information about health, for example.

My bold.

Do we trust them?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by jelv

My bold.

Do we trust them?

i will trust them when pigs fly (and i don't mean old bill in a helicopter )

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by jelv

The fact that the PIA has not been completed/published causes to me speculate on several possibilities.

I'm quite sure that Phorm originally intended to publish before the BT trials began. That it appears Phorm are not pressurising him to complete the full PIA could indicate that the trials are still some way off.

Given how Phorm selectively quoted from the interim PIA, if they've seen a draft and there was any scrap of comfort in it I'm sure they'd be pushing for completion so that they could selectively quote again (even if the full PIA never appeared publicly).

It could be that Simon has imposed a condition that if Phorm are to quote from it the full text must be published. If that's the case I'd bet any money that the PIA will never see the light of day.

It could be Simon has actually completed the PIA, but that it was so unfavourable the the client (Phorm) has instructed Simon to not reveal that it has been completed.

All in all, I cannot see any way in which the non-completion and publication of the full PIA is a good thing for Phorm. To that end I think we should keep reminding people that a full PIA was promised and it hasn't appeared. It is Phorm that should be asked where it is, not Simon - the business relationship between Simon and Phorm is a private matter for them alone.

The PIA has not yet been completed and it is one of the conditions that if it is quoted the entire document has to be made publicly available.

I communicate with Simon on a regular basis even though he is out of the country so I keep up to date on the PIA issue. The second anything changes I will make sure to let everyone know.

Alexander Hanff

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

You could have just asked me, my dissertation has 3 pages of references and that is one of them In fact the references section of my dissertation might be very useful for people who have just joined the debate or others who want to go back over some of the earlier info which appeared on the web, anyone is still welcome to download the dissertation it is available from the NoDPI web site.

Alexander Hanff

Thanks Alex - but I didn't have the time to search the pdf's on my hard disk and it wasn't in any of the text files. I do have your research and greatly appreciate it. Somone else actually asked me if I knew where it was and thankfully I was able to find it.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by ilago

It would, but remember that the ISP in the USA using NebuAd (WOW) didn't even advise their customers it was happening and simply changed their terms and conditions to allow it to happen anyway.

The NAI and eTrust pdfs I linked to are quite disturbing to me. Briefly the NAI really seem to think that behavioural targetting is OK, it's quite safe, the consumers have control, the "market" should be self-regulated and that "educating the consumer" (whatever that means when they say it) is all they have to worry about. They are completely ignoring the consumers who don't like it.

Where on earth did BT-Phorm get the idea that most people would prefer personally targetted advertising when the eTrust report pdf is quite clear that 57% of their survey in the USA didn't like the idea of it?

Having now fully read the documents you mentioned I see your point and I don't disagree. It is very interesting that targeted advertising is not as popular as what BT advertises when they are attempting to justify their WebWise adoption.

The problem as I see it is that to all intents and purposes the behavioural targeting areas they discuss and mention in those documents are not addressing the differing deeper privacy issues and worries that Deep Packet Inspection presents and that is what really concerns me more right now. DPI used in the manner it would be used in the Phorm/WebWise system, in my opinion, is a possibly far more dangerous beast than standard cookie tracking.

How can a market self regulate itself when the system like DPI is too complicated for all but the very technically minded to fully understand. How can average consumers regulate what they don't fully or can even begin to understand? When a systems operation is very complicated, the legal rules to how that system operates must be decided by independents who have at least the ability to understand the systems operation and its possible flaws. DPI brings a new level of complexity to the table when coupled with advert targeting.

Phorm, for instance claim that their WebWise system somehow enhances privacy.

The source code that lift, mirrors and profiles data from the web pages and performs the magic to meet their claims is hidden from inspection. It is not open source and subject to independent security checks. My worry is how can this code ever be trusted to not have flaws. How is this regulated? Even if all was rosy in the Phorm's 'coding' garden and ignoring any possible illegalities, people have flaws also. By giving an unpoliced unaccountable commercial system the ability to inspect everything a user sees and types on the internet, human nature over time in the Phorm/WebWise system also becomes an extra privacy worry for me.

Apart also from all the 3rd party cookie shenanigans that has already worried security experts, I personally cannot see how a complicated arrangement such as WebWise, added to an existing system, could possible enhance security and privacy over what is already available for free already. I can block standard cookie tracking but I currently could not stop a Phorm/WebWise system intercepting my data, opt-in or opt-out. (Unless the claims are really centred towards the (IMHO) Red Herring? anti-phishing component).

It is systems such as this that should be fully investigated by the regulatory powers that be and where necessary they should call on independent experts with the required levels of understanding to help them make any rules and decisions. Certain systems cannot self-regulate.

Originally Posted by warescouse

Phorm, for instance claim that their WebWise system somehow enhances privacy.

My favourite Phormism. Even if we took Phorm's word for it that it is less intrusive than Google etc, it would not do anything to remove or prevent those applications from doing what they already do.

The best that you could possibly say about Webwise is that it will add yet another way of trawling data on top of the existing ones.

The whole concept is as ridiculous as offering to give me my virginity back by doing exactly that same that I was doing when I lost it but with someone wearing a blindfold.

[Wildie]

I see phorm.webwise as a get around our ad blocking as they know we do it and the money is just not in it for them to be on outside been blocked, now they want the inside track to make sure they get lots of dosh and make dam sure our screens are full of it, the most unwanted thing on the web ADVERTS on every screen with no way to block em.