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

[WHISTLED]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7545766.stm

[Wildie]

yes maybe so but cannot see the dpi kit been used on phones to serve you ads while you chat with other people as that would be very very naughty, but they do have the power to break in a call if the need arisies which is different but no adverts.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by philj

Hi all,
got this reply from VirginMedia today regarding DPA notice. Mr. Woodham makes a couple of points I thought you should see.

Phil

http://www.phillyn.pwp.blueyonder.co.../virgindpa.jpg

That's much better than the rubbish I got when I served mine on them. The response I got was similar to a general complaint.

I am sitting on mine waiting to see if they do move backwards and take up Phorm/webwise. If they do and I am alerted in any way that I possibly have to do something (when I already have), the 'fan will have some sticky muck on on it'.

I will be leaving VM but not before I do a little bit of legal retribution.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by philj

Hi all,
got this reply from VirginMedia today regarding DPA notice. Mr. Woodham makes a couple of points I thought you should see.

Phil

http://www.phillyn.pwp.blueyonder.co.../virgindpa.jpg

Not sure I agree with his belief that he is not a "Data Controller" in the terms of the DPA;

“data controller” means, subject to subsection (4), a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed

... but he can call himself whatever he likes.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by philj

Hi all,
got this reply from VirginMedia today regarding DPA notice. Mr. Woodham makes a couple of points I thought you should see.

Phil

http://www.phillyn.pwp.blueyonder.co.../virgindpa.jpg

I always feel that it is worrying, whenever DPA is mentioned, no one seems to see beyond the direct marketing packages offered which needs your name and address data to send to you.

Since adware was first invented, 'no personal information' has been the selling point.

The DPA needs to be improved. There is no way whereby anonymous data should be able to be used to send me direct marketing which is based on 'something' which I have done.

If the marketing response is personalised, the underlying data used MUST be personal and not anonymous, even if the elements making up that data have not been explicitly mentioned by the DPA as personal data.

I recall reading a document on the ICO site which suggested that this type of amendment needed to be made.

The problem is that even if tracking cookies like the UID are classed as personal data under the DPA, all the business using the data has to do is register with the ICO and use the data as per their registration and privacy policy and no one is any better off.

About as efficient as eTrust certifying some of the sites that have been certified - it has reached the stage now that when I see an eTrust certificate, I avoid the site like the plague. Rather like the spammers success in promoting the latest anti-spamming legislation.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I did wonder if the person who posted that analysis might have been a trial victim, who got confused by the injection of Javascript code into his pages (which in itself demonstrates what a stupid idea modifying anyones private communications is, for the telco not just the recipient).

But that post I linked to dates from April 2006, supposedly well before the BT trials in Q3/Q4 2006.

If you look at the thread on badphorm when people were searching for the remains of the 2006/7 trials, early 2006 did show some traces. And, once they started to identify the ISP in the javascript, there were a few different ISPs indicated. Would it have been as few as the 10 ISPs mentioned in the 121Media report? - now, why does it only appear to have been BT that did not run a mile after the trials? Perhaps the rest got tired of waiting and joined up with Adzilla, NebuAd, Barefruit and FrontPorch, etc.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I've been asked for an English explanation of that post, happy to oblige.

My interpretation is this;

The poster seems to have received spam concerning various 'controversial' topics.

When he followed links in the spam, he was taken to a site called 4everdns.com.

On the pages of 4everdns.com he found Javascript from sysip.net embedded in the pages. The script was grabbing IP addresses from visitors.

When he followed the name server details for sysip.net, he found 121 Media were responsible.

121 Media is the previous trading name of Phorm.

So to conclude...

Either
- the 'controversial' spam messages/host sites may have been linked to 121 Media
or
- there was possibly a trial of PageSense running in April 2006

Pete

archive.orgs cache of netboy0002.l202.4everdns.com/ shows a "60 second mortgage quote page".


http://web.archive.org/web/200605072....4everdns.com/


Perhaps the poster recieved various spam promoting services hosted on 4everdns.com, googled for 4everdns.com and found a post in the planet forums spamming the above link that also contained a sysip.net javascript - ie the spammer the poster refers to was a "participant" in one of the pagesence trials.

EDIT: Hmm, re-reading that post I realised he mentions seeing sysip.net in the page source, so the poster was probably the victim of a pagesence trial.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

archive.orgs cache of netboy0002.l202.4everdns.com/ shows a "60 second mortgage quote page".


http://web.archive.org/web/200605072....4everdns.com/


Perhaps the poster recieved various spam promoting services hosted on 4everdns.com, googled for 4everdns.com and found a post in the planet forums spamming the above link that also contained a sysip.net javascript - ie the spammer the poster refers to was a "participant" in one of the pagesence trials.

The thing that looks most likely to me from reading early 2006 posts on this in various forums is that there was indeed trialling going on before the dates we have seen that BT admitted to. The early 2006 posts seem to be describing the same phenomenon of browser hijack - redirection.

So was this another secret trial with BT or with another ISP?
In the UK or another country?

Some of the forums discussing this have the starting date of posts noticing browser hijack, well back in 2006 before June.

The leaked BT report refers to a trial between 23rd September and 6th October. So what are people doing seeing this exact phenomenon prior to those dates - in April and May the same year?

I've made an attempt to contact the poster of the above and find out who his ISP were at that time.

snip - incorrect date reference.

Phorm PR care to comment?
In the interests of transparency and openness and as part of the online privacy revolution?

Originally Posted by R Jones

There is one post here that seems to end in a confirmation that a user suffering dns.sysip.net problems prior to 24th June 2006 was NOT a BT customer. But from the context it seems to have been a UK situation.

Phorm PR care to comment?
In the interests of transparency and openness and as part of the online privacy revolution?

That's 24th June 2007, not 2006. Still not a BT customer though.

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

That's 24th June 2007, not 2006. Still not a BT customer though.

This one is from May 2006.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

That's 24th June 2007, not 2006. Still not a BT customer though.

Just maybe what if the trials caught a few other ISP customers just maybe BT retail and BT wholesale are not as far apart as we are lead to believe. With ISPs using managed while others manage their own what if BT retail do the managed side for BT wholesale putting customers for other ISPs into the pot Possibly ( just a thought) Could explain it then again he coudl be a VM customer and this would prove VM did try this on customers around the same time.... Not that I am saying they did just a possibliity...

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Peter N

This one is from May 2006.

It "may" be possible to get the original ISP from the original poster using the contact info, but I'm already signed up with more forums than I can cope with.

[philj]

Originally Posted by warescouse

Let's face it Pete, as I am sure you are aware, one of the reasons we are so aghast with this whole Phorm - WebWise - BT scenario is how did it it ever get this far? ..............

If there is anything underhand and untoward apart from the obvious illegalities or running the trials without permission, I hope heads will severely roll.

We are finding this stuff,but are we getting it out ? This is not a criticism of anyone here. Cross my heart and hope to die in a cellar full of rats.
Are we getting through that we know that they know, or if they didnt know they should have known and they do now cos we've told them.

Philj

[JackSon]

If by 'they' you mean the parties involved, such as Phorm and BT I think they are very aware of what is happening on the anti-DPI side of the camp - a good example of this was the FOI bunff Dephormation Pete ( I think it was) and perhaps several others received; within which was an e-mail from BT suggesting a delay (one of many) in the trials and linked an article on nodpi.org as the reason. The article in question was the one Alexander later partly retracted upon receipt of further information.

[phormwatch]

You can rest assured the Phorm and BT PR henchmen are reading this forum.

[Dephormation]

Just informational, not sure its significant, 121Media (UK) are listed as a non trading company in any case;

121MEDIA (UK) LIMITED
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off

Accounts are very overdue.

121MEDIA (EUROPE) LIMITED is still listed as active, but again showing accounts overdue.

Previous trading name ADINTELLIGENCE EUROPE LIMITED

From www.companieshouse.gov.uk (Webcheck).