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

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by philj

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

Human Nature is to avoid a confrontation if there is a way around it. I think the best advice at the moment is to continue to relay the information to everyone you can.

If BT do trial this system then at least they will have a much better idea of what to do about it.


Nothing new but plenty of info in one place.
http://www.wayneporter.com/2008/06/10/phorm/

[Dephormation]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme.

CA describe People on Page as a hijacker.

"Hijacker: Any software that resets your browser's settings to point to other sites. Hijacks may reroute your info and address requests through an unseen site, capturing that info. In such hijacks, your browser may behave normally, but be slower."

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

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

Thank you for this link. Since Baroness Miller's single (but singularly significant) post to this forum, she has been good to her word to raise the debate of online data security.

Baroness Miller's assurance that the Liberal Democrats in both Houses will work hard to ensure the better regulation of data protection both off- and on-line will have made those who want to sell the personal data of net users as a commodity, sit up and take notice.

Baroness Miller is the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson and no doubt follows the continuing debate here when her schedule permits.

I don't think it is presumptious to express the thanks again of all contributors here for her engaging in an issue that thousands of the British electorate consider very important.

Thank you Baroness Sue Miller!

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Thank you for this link. Since Baroness Miller's single (but singularly significant) post to this forum, she has been good to her word to raise the debate of online data security.

Baroness Miller's assurance that the Liberal Democrats in both Houses will work hard to ensure the better regulation of data protection both off- and on-line will have made those who want to sell the personal data of net users as a commodity, sit up and take notice.

Baroness Miller is the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson and no doubt follows the continuing debate here when her schedule permits.

I don't think it is presumptious to express the thanks again of all contributors here for engaging in an issue that thousands of the British electorate consider very important.

Thank you Baroness Sue Miller!

Seconded, and if your MP is an LD, make sure they are aware of the Baroness' efforts. The campaign in the Commons is a little on the cool side since Don Foster's Early Day Motion and Phorm's PR offensive.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Seconded, and if your MP is an LD, make sure they are aware of the Baroness' efforts. The campaign in the Commons is a little on the cool side since Don Foster's Early Day Motion and Phorm's PR offensive.

My MP is a Lib Dem. I emailed him a while ago now asking if he would sign the EDM (started by one of his fellow Lib Dems, & signed by various "high profile" fellow Lib Dems). The only reply I ever got was a standard one from one of his staff, & AFAIK he has never signed the EDM.

[Dephormation]

Found another Phorm/Kent domain...

LucasDylan.com

Registrant:
Kent Ertugrul
Kent Ertugrul
6 Cite Varenne
Paris, FR 75007
FR
Email: kentert@compuserve.com

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Woah. Now this is weird. I've been following a complex trail of domains that typically vanish into oblivion.

But looking at LucasDylan.com (registered by Kent) has revealed an interesting link;

www.LucasDylan.com = 207.44.142.4 = yeshua.kristos.org

Now, have a look at www.kristos.org. Christian Internet Marketing??

As I look through these domains, the name "David Crawford" keeps cropping up. He is also the owner of kristos.org.

Not sure what it means, but it is more data, if not more info.

"Our mission is to place believers in the top spots in the natural search engine results pages so that they get the business, instead of non-believers, success causing them to become tithers and givers in their own circles."

"The Kristos Group - Handing the Internet World to Believers"

Which begs a question in the context of targeted advertising.

Don't get me wrong, but I'm sure I remember a more generous marketing pitch in our local church. "Love your neighbour as yourself" etc.

Blimey.

Politics. Crime. Commerce. Now Religion in the mix.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Found another Phorm/Kent domain...

LucasDylan.com

Registrant:
Kent Ertugrul
Kent Ertugrul
6 Cite Varenne
Paris, FR 75007
FR
Email: kentert@compuserve.com

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Woah. Now this is weird. I've been following a complex trail of domains that typically vanish into oblivion.

But looking at LucasDylan.com (registered by Kent) has revealed an interesting link;

www.LucasDylan.com = 207.44.142.4 = yeshua.kristos.org

Now, have a look at www.kristos.org. Christian Internet Marketing??

As I look through these domains, the name "David Crawford" keeps cropping up. He is also the owner of kristos.org.

Not sure what it means, but it is more data, if not more info.

"Our mission is to place believers in the top spots in the natural search engine results pages so that they get the business, instead of non-believers, success causing them to become tithers and givers in their own circles."

"The Kristos Group - Handing the Internet World to Believers"

Which begs a question in the context of targeted advertising.

Don't get me wrong, but I'm sure I remember a more generous marketing pitch in our local church. "Love your neighbour as yourself" etc.

Blimey.

Politics. Crime. Commerce. Now Religion in the mix.

Well I could follow that one up couldn't I??

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Found another Phorm/Kent domain...

LucasDylan.com

Registrant:
Kent Ertugrul
Kent Ertugrul
6 Cite Varenne
Paris, FR 75007
FR
Email: kentert@compuserve.com

Another address:

peopleonpage, inc
Kent Ertugrul
26, Avenue Kleber
Paris, 75006 FR
207.44.142.4 peopleonpage.com
207.44.142.4 LUCASDYLAN.COM
66.98.188.54 download.peopleonpage.com

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Found another Phorm/Kent domain...

LucasDylan.com

Registrant:
Kent Ertugrul
Kent Ertugrul
6 Cite Varenne
Paris, FR 75007
FR
Email: kentert@compuserve.com

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Woah. Now this is weird. I've been following a complex trail of domains that typically vanish into oblivion.

But looking at LucasDylan.com (registered by Kent) has revealed an interesting link;

www.LucasDylan.com = 207.44.142.4 = yeshua.kristos.org

Now, have a look at www.kristos.org. Christian Internet Marketing??

As I look through these domains, the name "David Crawford" keeps cropping up. He is also the owner of kristos.org.

Not sure what it means, but it is more data, if not more info.

"Our mission is to place believers in the top spots in the natural search engine results pages so that they get the business, instead of non-believers, success causing them to become tithers and givers in their own circles."

"The Kristos Group - Handing the Internet World to Believers"

Which begs a question in the context of targeted advertising.

Don't get me wrong, but I'm sure I remember a more generous marketing pitch in our local church. "Love your neighbour as yourself" etc.

Blimey.

Politics. Crime. Commerce. Now Religion in the mix.

That's not Religion it's a gross misuse of any Religious Belief!

[madslug]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Well I could follow that one up couldn't I??

So that's why your business ADSL connection was targeted.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by madslug

So that's why your business ADSL connection was targeted.

Not a business connection. Sorry-have to kill that theory. I'm on a residential BT connection.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Not a business connection. Sorry-have to kill that theory. I'm on a residential BT connection.

I think that this is one of the most profound of all statements from the point of view of this whole debate.

Tracking someone from their phormed residential internet connection puts e-commerce at risk. So many people interact with businesses which they are connected to from a residential connection. Having a DPI system sitting on that data stream - in your worst nightmare no business sys-admin would think about homeworkers having everything they do intercepted by DPI.

There are so many small website owners that I have had contact with over the last few years. The majority use their HTML editor to upload pages to their server. The rest use an editor supplied by their web host. Most hosting is done through cPanel or Plesk without any https to protect emails and file uploads. All done on port 80 and not ftp.
Children interact with the school intranet - not https.

It must be the exception rather than the rule for a business site not to interact with the owner/webmaster on port 80 and have everything now being offered to pass through the DPI system. All those personal details stored away in a database and looked at from time to time, via port 80.

BT really do have to answer the question of how non port 80 traffic avoids being intercepted by the DPI system.
And ... The ISPs really are leaving themselves open to all sorts of problems if they don't warn their customers about the risks of using port 80 for any web traffic.

[Florence]

So we now of a conspiracy that could be the next blockbuster at the cinema. Corporate, government, privacy international, payments to government funds, large amounts paid one way or another perhaps for favours, then the icing on the cake once he had the internet stitched up under his thumb. The internet editing to only allow what he felt was allowed to show. All conspiracy possibly true maybe pie in the sky but bottom line is you cannot trust this guy... Dig deeper there is perhaps more skeletons in the closet..

Well done all we could have a best seller once we have all the jigsaw pieces..

[SelfProtection]

BT really do have to answer the question of how non port 80 traffic avoids being intercepted by the DPI system.
And ... The ISPs really are leaving themselves open to all sorts of problems if they don't warn their customers about the risks of using port 80 for any web traffic.

And the moment they warn their customers, the DPI profiler becomes uneconomic.
Catch 22 I think!

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by madslug

I think that this is one of the most profound of all statements from the point of view of this whole debate.

Tracking someone from their phormed residential internet connection puts e-commerce at risk. So many people interact with businesses which they are connected to from a residential connection. Having a DPI system sitting on that data stream - in your worst nightmare no business sys-admin would think about homeworkers having everything they do intercepted by DPI.

There are so many small website owners that I have had contact with over the last few years. The majority use their HTML editor to upload pages to their server. The rest use an editor supplied by their web host. Most hosting is done through cPanel or Plesk without any https to protect emails and file uploads. All done on port 80 and not ftp.
Children interact with the school intranet - not https.

It must be the exception rather than the rule for a business site not to interact with the owner/webmaster on port 80 and have everything now being offered to pass through the DPI system. All those personal details stored away in a database and looked at from time to time, via port 80.

BT really do have to answer the question of how non port 80 traffic avoids being intercepted by the DPI system.
And ... The ISPs really are leaving themselves open to all sorts of problems if they don't warn their customers about the risks of using port 80 for any web traffic.

Just to help your theory along a bit madslug...

I run two charity websites, one is a church site, one an inter-church social action charity site.

One is with BT Domains, and I use their sitebuilder plus FTP Explorer to maintain it - from my home via my residential BT broadband line.
The other is with an independent site host, maintained partly via their web based interface, but mostly by FTP explorer - again from home.

I had extensive discussions with BT (following the Webwise revelations) about our online forums, our forums included ones for children which were closed, invitation only to establish whether those would be profiled and they said they wouldn't go behind a password screen (but I don't trust them or their system not to expose that). since changing hosts I lost the forums and haven't actually re-established them.

I also ran a calendar system that got hacked so I dumped most interactive content - I couldn't afford to purchase the more secure commercial solutions and was using open source ones.

May main current beef with BT is their total failure to engage on copright and intellectual property issues. They simply say they can infer consent because its on the web and I allow Google.

I think there are a number of current issues and legal cases being decided around Europe, involving commercial spats over website copyright and intellectual property, where copyright has specifically been cited in the cases and write-ups afterwards, that will have a direct impact on the Webwise/Phorm website copyright issue. I've decided to chase at least one of them up directly to ask the firm concerned if their concern for their site copyright might extend to the Webwise project.

*****************

Further to the above paragraph, I've just composed a letter to a company currently making a fuss about the copyright of their website, to tell them about Webwise and Phorm, and the impact it could have on their site's revenue earning potential, and wondered if we needed a flyer/information leaflet that particularly focusses on that topic but is easily understood by a non-techie, non-legal person like a PA who would be deciding whether to bin it or pass it on for further consideration. I'm sending them the Phorm flyer, but it doesn't say much about websites, and it is website copyright that this letter is about, specifically where commercial interests are paramount.

If nothing else, if this company got involved it would generate headlines. Their CEO is a bit of a pit-bull when it comes to such issues.

Anyone interested in doing a Website copyright version of the Phorm flyer?