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

[mogodon]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

How difficult is it to say, "we were spying on everything you did while you were online, and we're selling that private information to other companies"

What i don't understand is, if the ICO has let them off with the trials because it would be "difficult" to explain to their customers; how do they intend on explaining it to their entire customer base if it ever goes live?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

Can I post this over on Bt forums R Jones?

I hereby grant permission for any (future) post of mine here, to be quoted on Beta forums by a forum member from C/F. And you can quote that one too.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Originally Posted by mogodon

What i don't understand is, if the ICO has let them off with the trials because it would be "difficult" to explain to their customers; how do they intend on explaining it to their entire customer base if it ever goes live?

Well - they have a good read of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (came into force in May) and then they think very hard and write a very very long Webwise invitation page, which fairly and fully describes the ups and downs of the product, so consumers can make in informed choice, then they work out how to deliver that page to customers, without illegally intercepting browsing and only when they can properly IDENTIFY that it is the account holder they are communicating with by displaying the interstitial page (displaying it only when their customers are logged in to either bt.com or their BTYahoo home pages, with their unique account username and password - and NOT while anyone on their home network using the same external IP address is casually browsing the internet) - so McCavity the cat doesn't get involved - probably also asking for an extra password confirmation like they do with every other change to someone's account Terms and conditions or personal information.

Then they develop an opting-in solution that means that the NOT-OPTED-IN customers do not have their traffic intercepted, mirrored, profiled, copied or in any way, and that their traffic, their data packets coming along their broadband line do not contact any of the Phorm supplied DPI kit.

Then they work out a way of SEEKING (not inferring) the active informed consent of the entire world wide web's webmasters (several million) for the copying and exploitation of their intellectual content and the creation of forged cookies. Only those webmasters who actively GIVE that consent may have their sites profiled, copied, exploited or their domain names used in forged cookies, so that their competitors can pinch their traffic.

Then they get the all clear from guys and gals down at BT Retail legal department - absolutely rock solid - no possible problems with PECR, DPA, Fraud Act, MCA, criminal and civil copyright law etc. Because a big corporation like BT can't be seen to be breaking the law - oh no sir.

Then they make full disclosure to the ICO, and also make sure they have done due diligence by making sure the final PIA has been fully published and is available to the relevant authorities, not least the general public.

Then they launch their trials and publish the full results (Premium Browsing Mark II:Research Findings) along with their original research findings (Premium Browsing:Research Findings).

I reckon they can get all that done easily - maybe in shall we say "a couple of weeks"?

Gavin Patterson will no doubt have had all that clearly in his head at the AGM on July 16th, when he predicted the trials would be starting in that time frame.
After all - if he didn't - it was a very unwise thing to announce wasn't it?

[madslug]

This may be a dumb question: how does anyone post on the BT forum. I tried and each time I move from one page to the next I have to log in again - anything to do with blocking 2o7.net from tracking me or the cookies in .bt.com domain when I am at beta.bt.com? For a major business, they have very poor internet security and I don't see why I should need to drop my security settings just because someone can't write scripts well.

Means that I was not able to post the following (maybe someone who can post there can ask the following for me):

I came to the forum because I heard that there was a thread relating to the copyright issues relating to Webwise. I see the thread is closed without being answered.

Looking back over internet time, other systems similar to the adware which Phorm are promoting have had successful copyright claims made against them.

Can BT confirm whether they want individual copyright claims made or do they have an agency through whom all claims can be made?

Do BT have a form where copyright owners can enter licence fees before the Webwise trial begins? - so much easier to agree these issues in advance. Infringement costs so much more if it needs to go to arbitration and court.

These questions have been asked so many times that they should be included within the official FAQ.

While on the subject, do the VM management have a system in place for making copyright claims?

A few months back I was given a phone number for TalkTalk to ask the same question - tried to phone many times but never had the number answered.

[BTW - after setting up a login, I did not have to put in account details for the login account to work]

[mark777]

Make of this what you will. I have no evidence of any authenticity.

Yesterday evening whilst posting a few flyers under car wipers in the
local Tesco's, a chap came up to me with the flyer in his hand.

He claimed to know many BT managers and hinted that he was one himself.

From what he said he clearly knew about webwise and did not like it, telling me the following :-

1) The trial is likely to launch during the early stages of the Olympics, in an attempt to avoid the News "Silly Season".

2) It is likely that if the trial starts, at least 2 very damaging BT documents will leak. One of which will be from a BT group company outside BT Retail.

As I say, no evidence, but the next few days will tell.

[3x2]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Well - they have a good read <snip..>

Or ... they can just rely on spin and take the inactivity by regulatory bodies and the Police as a sign that they can go ahead anyway.

They could leave the sign-up page as it is and hope that a sufficient number of customers see it as a brand new free fraud busting service from their ISP and don't look too closely at how exactly the "more relevant experience" is achieved.

After a few months you can quote the xx % sign up rate as proof positive that customers like interception and expand your system.

They could just ignore the T&C's on websites and create derivative works from your content with the added bonus that unless you sign up to OIX your audience will be sent to member sites at the first opportunity.

You could congratulate yourself on getting PeopleOnPage II running and head off to the bank wondering how you ever got away with it.

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by mark777

Yesterday evening whilst posting a few flyers under car wipers in the local Tesco's, a chap came up to me with the flyer in his hand.

TBH I wouldn't think a BT Manager would be posting the Flyers.... but you never know. What were the Flyers for? BT Services? Anti-Phorm?

Originally Posted by mark777

1) The trial is likely to launch during the early stages of the Olympics, in an attempt to avoid the News "Silly Season".

This makes sense, with the increased Internet traffic the Olympics will generate, and the attention of the Press elsewhere!!! Perfect time to try to bury a trial....

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

TBH I wouldn't think a BT Manager would be posting the Flyers...

I was putting the flyers under the wipers. I assume the chap had found it on his car.

Sorry, my original post was not clear.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by mark777

Make of this what you will. I have no evidence of any authenticity.

Yesterday evening whilst posting a few flyers under car wipers in the
local Tesco's, a chap came up to me with the flyer in his hand.

He claimed to know many BT managers and hinted that he was one himself.

From what he said he clearly knew about webwise and did not like it, telling me the following :-

1) The trial is likely to launch during the early stages of the Olympics, in an attempt to avoid the News "Silly Season".

2) It is likely that if the trial starts, at least 2 very damaging BT documents will leak. One of which will be from a BT group company outside BT Retail.

As I say, no evidence, but the next few days will tell.

Well - we will wait with interest. Forewarned is forearmed.

Watching them watching us.
I've rather been hoping for some leaks.
I have also found the non-response of some of the BT people I have emailed (that I expect are furious about Phorm, and at least one of whom has left BT since) rather significant.
I don't mean the non-response of Emma Sanderson or Adam Liversage or the CEO Ian Livingstone, or Gavin (trials in 2 weeks) Patterson - I mean the non response of more interesting people who AREN'T responsible for Phorm.

Do the Register know about that?

Obviously we need an Olympian theme.

[tarka]

Originally Posted by mark777

Make of this what you will. I have no evidence of any authenticity.

Yesterday evening whilst posting a few flyers under car wipers in the
local Tesco's, a chap came up to me with the flyer in his hand.

He claimed to know many BT managers and hinted that he was one himself.

From what he said he clearly knew about webwise and did not like it, telling me the following :-

1) The trial is likely to launch during the early stages of the Olympics, in an attempt to avoid the News "Silly Season".

2) It is likely that if the trial starts, at least 2 very damaging BT documents will leak. One of which will be from a BT group company outside BT Retail.

As I say, no evidence, but the next few days will tell.

If this is true it's yet another example of being 'open and transparent' (BT's definition)! It reminds me of the time the government tried to "bury" bad news (and the resulting scandle!).

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by mark777

I was putting the flyers under the wipers. I assume the chap had found it on his car.

Sorry, my original post was not clear.

lol no worries makes more sense now

[rryles]

Originally Posted by mark777

Make of this what you will. I have no evidence of any authenticity.

Yesterday evening whilst posting a few flyers under car wipers in the
local Tesco's, a chap came up to me with the flyer in his hand.

He claimed to know many BT managers and hinted that he was one himself.

From what he said he clearly knew about webwise and did not like it, telling me the following :-

1) The trial is likely to launch during the early stages of the Olympics, in an attempt to avoid the News "Silly Season".

2) It is likely that if the trial starts, at least 2 very damaging BT documents will leak. One of which will be from a BT group company outside BT Retail.

As I say, no evidence, but the next few days will tell.

Very interesting. Seems unlikely he was making it all up. He obviously had knowledge of the system and if he was pro phorm I can't see this being a good tactic for him. Like others have said "wait and see" but it certainly sounds plausible.

Well done Mark!

[Fluffykins]

"But the Information Commission ruled in May that no action would be taken against the telco due to the difficult nature of explaining to consumers what it was doing."

So................. Would it be OK not to pay my phone bill and expect just to carry on, on the basis that explaining why I haven't paid is just toooooooo complicated for their patronisedly tiny minds?

[Florence]

I wonder if when they invented how to make the data flow they ever realised somone would come along to intercept the flow of data t spy on civilians using the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7541123.stm

[philj]

Does this read ok?

http://www.phillyn.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

my website

thanks
Phil

[madslug]

Interesting reading - helps to explain why pop-ups started to disappear.

http://news.cnet.com/Pop-up%20purvey...j=news.1024.20

I know that it is a fine line when one uses semantics but what is the difference between showing a pop-up for the competition when visiting a site and waiting for the visitor to view the next site before offering the advertisement? In both cases the content of a site has been used to present ads for the competition to visitors at the earliest opportunity.