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

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

BT business broadband is a product of BT retail, AFAIK. It's an end-user ISP product sold to a business as an end user (B2B), and differs only from a residential service in the terms, download/upload speeds and limits etc offered.

BT wholesale, on the other hand, sell connectivity to other ISPs, who then sell to other customers. The end customer could be business or residential, but the key thing is that BTs customer is another ISP, who will resell connectivity in some form or another.

Have BT made a clear and unambiguous statement regarding BT Business Broadband?

It is clear from the leaked documents that ISPs who use BT wholesale product will not be Phormed by default, as Phorm's equipment sits in the BT retail ISP kit.

But if this DID involve Small Business Customers, such as Solicitors, Insurance Brokers it would become a very serious matter as the Data Profiled would involve the Personal Data of many of their online Clients!

[davews]

Just a couple of corrections on Frank Rizzo's list of differences between business and retail:

As of this spring, calls to support on retail are now free.
Payment can be either monthly or quarterly, but is charged to your phone bill. You decide.

[phpscott]

The part that gets me in the latest BBC article is this quote

The Home Office told the BBC that it was unaware of BT's early trials, in which thousands of BT customers had their web habits monitored without consent.

Now I am sure that many people conatcted the HO complaing about the trails. Or is it that the higher ups, or the PR people weren't told about it.
A few straight, plain english answers from govt, BT, any number of govt agencies, Phorm would go along way to clearing things up.

[Frank Rizzo]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

But if this DID involve Small Business Customers, such as Solicitors, Insurance Brokers it would become a very serious matter as the Data Profiled would involve the Personal Data of many of their online Clients!

The ICO would see different. If the solicitors or brokers were LTD or LLP then the IP address assigned to the business would not be for a living individual and they would not investigate.

I would really like to see Struan Robertson's view on this

[rryles]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

Some people would prefer facts about when the trials are going to begin (if ever), and they can only come from BT.

If we take the last statement from BT about when the next set of trials will begin then they should have already started. So I don't think we can rely on "facts" from BT.

Also, have you tried asking BT any questions lately? Got a reply? Did it answer your question?

[phormwatch]

See last post by dave:

http://btb.lithium.com/btb/board/mes...ge.id=279#M279

Anyone have an answer?

[tarka]

One thing I just noticed after reading Struan Robertsons article again was this quote.

There might be even more legal issues that Dr Clayton didn't mention. For example, our copyright laws allow temporary copies of a page – but not where there's an "independent economic significance" to the copying. Phorm copies web pages and examines the words. That's possibly an infringement – but once again, the breach is trivial.

This appears to make reference to the section (s28.a wasn't it?) that BT said they were relying on. The paragraph doesn't really make sense though as he says "the breach is trivial" but the section he refers to is something that "allows" for the making of a temporary copy under certain circumstances. If their use does not fall under that specific exclusion then it's not the exclusion they are in breach of but the act itself. Hardly trivial!

[phormwatch]

Looks like they've deleted the 'BTs corporate values again' thread. Again.

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by rryles

If we take the last statement from BT about when the next set of trials will begin then they should have already started. So I don't think we can rely on "facts" from BT.

I agree with you entirely on that point, but that does not mean that anyone should resort to conjecture, which is neither helpful nor productive.

Also, have you tried asking BT any questions lately? Got a reply? Did it answer your question?

Yes, I have asked, and been met with a complete blank, as I think most people have, but that does not tempt me to second-guess what their intentions or future activities might be. I would rather have no information than mis-information, and that applies to the anti-phorm lobby as well as BT.

D_A

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Looks like they've deleted the 'BTs corporate values again' thread. Again.

Someone Spotted that it had been deleted & not locked & there appears to be a third thread?

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

I agree with you entirely on that point, but that does not mean that anyone should resort to conjecture, which is neither helpful or productive.



Yes, I have asked, and been met with a complete blank, as I think most people have, but that does not tempt to second-guess what their intentions or future activities might be. I would rather have no information than mis-information.

D_A

Time will tell whether it was good information or just conjecture.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

I agree with you entirely on that point, but that does not mean that anyone should resort to conjecture, which is neither helpful nor productive.

Without conjecture we would not have mathematics or science and would not be having this conversation. Conjecture can be helpful and productive, so long as it is seen for what it is. The original poster of the 'information' was very clear that it could not be verified in any way.

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

I would rather have no information than mis-information, and that applies to the anti-phorm lobby as well as BT.

Absolute certainty is very rarely achievable. If you constrain yourself to it then you will get your wish of having no information at all.

[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Time will tell whether it was good information or just conjecture.

Indeed, but time is on the side of those that are pulling the strings, not those who are dangling on them

D_A

[phormwatch]

Now that Phorm gaining a higher profile amongst the business community, it would be a really good time to finish this:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

We could refer business users to the blog.

...but it needs to be finished. If anyone is willing to do so, please email/pm me with the text.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Now that Phorm gaining a higher profile amongst the business community, it would be a really good time to finish this:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

We could refer business users to the blog.

...but it needs to be finished. If anyone is willing to do so, please email/pm me with the text.

What more were you wanting to add? Apart from the "details to follow" about webmaster tools (see Dephormation.org.uk) it looks very good to me.

I'd like to see links to the inphormationdesk site and also the Alternative Webwise FAQ site because I think they are great for newcomers.

The key message for the webmasters is

Google sends traffic and customers to your site
Webwise steals data and customers from your site

The value of putting it like that is it sweeps the legs out from under Kent Ertugruls constant complaints about google being "much worse" than Phorm/Webwise, and also sweeps the legs out from under BT's claim that all they need to do to infer informed consent from webmasters is see whether they allow Google to crawl their site.

Of course that's their line. They know that very few webmasters interested in visitors will ever ban google. So they get access for Webwise.

It doesn't include all the complicated copyright arguments, because although I agree with those, and want them highlighted, explaining them takes AGES (or would if I understood them myself - I leave that to dephormation.org.uk - who is doing a great job on them).

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by D_Advocate

Indeed, but time is on the side of those that are pulling the strings, not those who are dangling on them

D_A

You don't do any fishing then?