Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > Virgin Media Services > Virgin Media Internet Service

Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Poll Results: Will you be opting out of the Virgin Ad Deal?
Yes, Definitely. 958 95.51%
No, I am quite happy to share my surfing habits with anyone. 45 4.49%
Voters: 1003. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 31-05-2008, 12:12   #7696
Kursk
-.- ..- .-. ... -.-
 
Kursk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,842
Kursk has disabled reputation
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
* * * ICO will NOT take action over the 2007 trials * * *
A useful discovery during this Phorm episode has been that the ICO are toothless, ineffective bureaucrats whose very existence should be reviewed by those in authority. The ICO are full of gullible, defensive platitudes for big business and serve no useful purpose to the taxpaying, wage-paying public. When Phorm is buried, the ICO are due a performance review imho. This Country can do without layer upon layer of pontificating "it's-nothing-to-do-with-us" government.
Kursk is offline  
Advertisement
Old 31-05-2008, 12:19   #7697
Frank Rizzo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 57
Frank Rizzo is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

1. "BT sought their own legal advice"

Can we see that legal advice? Can the ICO confirm it was bona fide?

2. "BT did not associate your enquiry with the 2007 trials and as they were not able to identify individual cusomters that had participated"

BT knew full well I was participating in the trials - I told them as soon as I started unearthing the murky world of 121media. BT logged support, abuse, and customer service records in my name and thus knew I was part of the trials.

3. "(because of the anonymity of the process) they were unable to contact you"

As with 2. BT knew full well who I was. I told them about 121media. They had support, abuse and CC records of my contact details

4. "They have advised that they attempted to contact you after you had expressed concerns online at 'The Register' however they were apparently not successful."

Was the line constantly engaged? Did they not know my phone number or address? I was a god damn BT customer! Of course they had my contact details.

5. "BT have confirmed that no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. We have no reason to doubt this assertion."

So BT told the ICO that was the case. Did the ICO see evidence of this or did they just take BT's word for it?

6. "Regulation 6... the user should be provided with 'clear and comprehensive' information..."

BT did not provide this information during the trials. They therefore contravened that Regulation. The ICO allowing BT to get off that hook because 'we could not comply with that regulation because we did not know who the customers were’ looks a whitewash to me.

7. "Regulation 7… It is arguable whether the requirements are engaged in this instance, however it is our view that Regulation 6 would be likely to apply… BT’s view is that the trial was small scale and technical in nature and no ads were served.”

How small scale is small scale? How many people were involved in the trials? Did BT give the ICO a figure? Did the ICO agree it was small scale? It doesn’t matter if it was one or ten thousand. A contravened regulation is a contravened regulation.

8. ”Our view is that, whether or not there was a technical breach of the Regulation, there is no evidence that the trials generally involved significant detriment to the individuals involved, or privacy risks to individuals”

There was significant detriment. BT lied to me and caused disruption to my business. As for privacy risks please explain exactly what happened to my internet communications. As far as I am aware my internet connection was connecting to sysip.net – a domain owned by 121media – a company with a history of spyware and rootkits. Please give me evidence that my privacy was not at risk.

9. “As I mentioned briefly, Regulation 30 specifies that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention can make a claim for compensation”

ICO don’t want to know and they would prefer I pursue this matter in the courts, at my expense. What exactly is the point of the ICO if it is up to individuals to seek recourse themselves?
Frank Rizzo is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:25   #7698
Kursk
-.- ..- .-. ... -.-
 
Kursk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,842
Kursk has disabled reputation
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
1.ICO don’t want to know and they would prefer I pursue this matter in the courts, at my expense. What exactly is the point of the ICO if it is up to individuals to seek recourse themselves?
Quite. And we pay for this 'service'.
Kursk is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:33   #7699
warescouse
cf.addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 337
warescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nice
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
1. "BT sought their own legal advice"

Can we see that legal advice? Can the ICO confirm it was bona fide?

2. "BT did not associate your enquiry with the 2007 trials and as they were not able to identify individual cusomters that had participated"

BT knew full well I was participating in the trials - I told them as soon as I started unearthing the murky world of 121media. BT logged support, abuse, and customer service records in my name and thus knew I was part of the trials.

3. "(because of the anonymity of the process) they were unable to contact you"

As with 2. BT knew full well who I was. I told them about 121media. They had support, abuse and CC records of my contact details

4. "They have advised that they attempted to contact you after you had expressed concerns online at 'The Register' however they were apparently not successful."

Was the line constantly engaged? Did they not know my phone number or address? I was a god damn BT customer! Of course they had my contact details.

5. "BT have confirmed that no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. We have no reason to doubt this assertion."

So BT told the ICO that was the case. Did the ICO see evidence of this or did they just take BT's word for it?

6. "Regulation 6... the user should be provided with 'clear and comprehensive' information..."

BT did not provide this information during the trials. They therefore contravened that Regulation. The ICO allowing BT to get off that hook because 'we could not comply with that regulation because we did not know who the customers were’ looks a whitewash to me.

7. "Regulation 7… It is arguable whether the requirements are engaged in this instance, however it is our view that Regulation 6 would be likely to apply… BT’s view is that the trial was small scale and technical in nature and no ads were served.”

How small scale is small scale? How many people were involved in the trials? Did BT give the ICO a figure? Did the ICO agree it was small scale? It doesn’t matter if it was one or ten thousand. A contravened regulation is a contravened regulation.

8. ”Our view is that, whether or not there was a technical breach of the Regulation, there is no evidence that the trials generally involved significant detriment to the individuals involved, or privacy risks to individuals”

There was significant detriment. BT lied to me and caused disruption to my business. As for privacy risks please explain exactly what happened to my internet communications. As far as I am aware my internet connection was connecting to sysip.net – a domain owned by 121media – a company with a history of spyware and rootkits. Please give me evidence that my privacy was not at risk.

9. “As I mentioned briefly, Regulation 30 specifies that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention can make a claim for compensation”

ICO don’t want to know and they would prefer I pursue this matter in the courts, at my expense. What exactly is the point of the ICO if it is up to individuals to seek recourse themselves?
ICO should be put to bed as a lame duck, and perhaps a PROPER organisation should be put in its place that follows the remit!!!
What are these guys paid for. I COULD BE A YES MAN FOR HALF THEIR COST!
It is a disgrace and I sincerely hope that this will be thoroughly investigated at some point.

To me it seems like you have a fairly good case against BT. Is there nobody who would take your case on as a legal test case for the common good?
warescouse is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:39   #7700
NTLVictim
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Services: Finding people (retired)
Posts: 1,065
NTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these parts
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Frank, I presume you will be notifying the relevant European body about ICO's inaction?
NTLVictim is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:41   #7701
Kursk
-.- ..- .-. ... -.-
 
Kursk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,842
Kursk has disabled reputation
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

In my view the ICO should be persuaded to engage. I am not interested in their stated remit; if needs be I want that remit changed so that it serves the electorate. That is the proper return for a vote. Government serves and shouldn't try ducking issues that affect so many people.
Kursk is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:49   #7702
Frank Rizzo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 57
Frank Rizzo is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

NTLVictim. I already had....

With the earlier conversations I had with the ICO it was clear that they would not be able to actually do anything.

In those conversations I was informed that the ICO can only take action after a second contravention has taken place. If a contravention takes place the ICO warn the company not to do it again. If the second contravention takes place the ICO have the power to fine the company. Although the figures talked were laughable - they only have the power to fine a few thousand.

I did not expect such a whitewash today though. I had expected firm confirmation that PECR was contravened so that it was crystal clear BT broke the law and that the police could then not refuse to investigate. This is now not the case and once again a buck has been passed and it is up to a lawyer to enforce the law.

EU it now is.

Oh and I am now more vigorous in pursuing for compensation
Frank Rizzo is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 12:52   #7703
warescouse
cf.addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 337
warescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nicewarescouse is just really nice
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
NTLVictim. I already had....

With the earlier conversations I had with the ICO it was clear that they would not be able to actually do anything.

In those conversations I was informed that the ICO can only take action after a second contravention has taken place. If a contravention takes place the ICO warn the company not to do it again. If the second contravention takes place the ICO have the power to fine the company. Although the figures talked were laughable - they only have the power to fine a few thousand.

I did not expect such a whitewash today though. I had expected firm confirmation that PECR was contravened so that it was crystal clear BT broke the law and that the police could then not refuse to investigate. This is now not the case and once again a buck has been passed and it is up to a lawyer to enforce the law.

EU it now is.

Oh and I am now more vigorous in pursuing for compensation :-)
From what was said by the EC on the Phorm matter recently I think that would be a good course of action.
warescouse is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 13:02   #7704
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
1. "BT sought their own legal advice"

Can we see that legal advice? Can the ICO confirm it was bona fide?

2. "BT did not associate your enquiry with the 2007 trials and as they were not able to identify individual cusomters that had participated"

BT knew full well I was participating in the trials - I told them as soon as I started unearthing the murky world of 121media. BT logged support, abuse, and customer service records in my name and thus knew I was part of the trials.

3. "(because of the anonymity of the process) they were unable to contact you"

As with 2. BT knew full well who I was. I told them about 121media. They had support, abuse and CC records of my contact details

4. "They have advised that they attempted to contact you after you had expressed concerns online at 'The Register' however they were apparently not successful."

Was the line constantly engaged? Did they not know my phone number or address? I was a god damn BT customer! Of course they had my contact details.

5. "BT have confirmed that no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. We have no reason to doubt this assertion."

So BT told the ICO that was the case. Did the ICO see evidence of this or did they just take BT's word for it?

6. "Regulation 6... the user should be provided with 'clear and comprehensive' information..."

BT did not provide this information during the trials. They therefore contravened that Regulation. The ICO allowing BT to get off that hook because 'we could not comply with that regulation because we did not know who the customers were’ looks a whitewash to me.

7. "Regulation 7… It is arguable whether the requirements are engaged in this instance, however it is our view that Regulation 6 would be likely to apply… BT’s view is that the trial was small scale and technical in nature and no ads were served.”

How small scale is small scale? How many people were involved in the trials? Did BT give the ICO a figure? Did the ICO agree it was small scale? It doesn’t matter if it was one or ten thousand. A contravened regulation is a contravened regulation.

8. ”Our view is that, whether or not there was a technical breach of the Regulation, there is no evidence that the trials generally involved significant detriment to the individuals involved, or privacy risks to individuals”

There was significant detriment. BT lied to me and caused disruption to my business. As for privacy risks please explain exactly what happened to my internet communications. As far as I am aware my internet connection was connecting to sysip.net – a domain owned by 121media – a company with a history of spyware and rootkits. Please give me evidence that my privacy was not at risk.

9. “As I mentioned briefly, Regulation 30 specifies that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention can make a claim for compensation”

ICO don’t want to know and they would prefer I pursue this matter in the courts, at my expense. What exactly is the point of the ICO if it is up to individuals to seek recourse themselves?
If you've just received this response, then on the basis of the time-lag, I would imagine it was prepared in advance of the latest published communication from the European Commission spokesperson which I think makes reference to your case. (text here - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16046 )

I think if it was me, I would be inclined to reply to the ICO saying I was sending their response for consideration by the European Commission spokesperson and to your MP and MEP's (all of them - available via theyworkforyou.com etc). I would copy the latest Commission statement along with that letter back to the ICO, along with your rebuttals.

And I would send the ICO response you have just published, to the Commission spokesperson who replied on behalf of Vivian Reding (not sure of name) also with your rebuttals and say that you think the ICO is not pulling their finger out and could someone remind them of how the EC view these things.

At the very least it should generate some correspondence between the ICO and the EC which may mean that the next complaint the IC gets (and he will be getting several!) is considered a little more carefully, and maybe the IC will organise a visit to the dentist to get his teeth sharpened (or perhaps get false ones fitted if all his own have fallen out). At best, the IC will say - oh dear I haven't been properly informed about those other details - we'll look at this again.

Don't see it as a defeat, merely the first hopeless incompetent ill-informed
fudge from a civil servant interested in the easy life. Make their lives harder till it becomes easier to take you seriously than ignore you.

I'm sure you are probably aware of all this anyway so apologies for sounding patronising.

It really does sound as if all a "defendant" has to do when the ICO contact them is say "no we never done that officer" and the case is over. Which won't do.

Mischievous thought - I wonder if you could send in £10 and an FOI request to BT asking for the details of their responses to ICO concerning your case?

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
NTLVictim. I already had....

With the earlier conversations I had with the ICO it was clear that they would not be able to actually do anything.

In those conversations I was informed that the ICO can only take action after a second contravention has taken place. If a contravention takes place the ICO warn the company not to do it again. If the second contravention takes place the ICO have the power to fine the company. Although the figures talked were laughable - they only have the power to fine a few thousand.

I did not expect such a whitewash today though. I had expected firm confirmation that PECR was contravened so that it was crystal clear BT broke the law and that the police could then not refuse to investigate. This is now not the case and once again a buck has been passed and it is up to a lawyer to enforce the law.

EU it now is.

Oh and I am now more vigorous in pursuing for compensation
Just to cheer you up - I'm preparing a letter to ICO regarding BT's cookie handling and the way they have been running bt.com, in association with custhelp.com and webwise.bt.com, in terms of handling personally identifiable data which has been made available to Phorm.Inc. So the case load is beginning to build up, and this is a different but related issue illustrating how poor BT are at protecting customer data. there's some good stuff on file.

Maybe eventually it will click in the ICO's mind that BT have difficulties finding and speaking the truth owing to a mixture of their incompetence, corporate poor communication, and general greed.
Rchivist is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 13:17   #7705
NTLVictim
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Services: Finding people (retired)
Posts: 1,065
NTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these partsNTLVictim is just so famous around these parts
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

A thought has just crossed what I laughingly call my brain, could be a new wrinkle..

Does phorm/BT's activity contravene our human rights (as in European Court of)?
NTLVictim is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 13:34   #7706
Kursk
-.- ..- .-. ... -.-
 
Kursk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,842
Kursk has disabled reputation
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
Mischievous thought - I wonder if you could send in £10 and an FOI request to BT asking for the details of their responses to ICO concerning your case?
FOI only applies to Public Authorities so an approach to BT isn't on; the ICO is a Public Authority though

It is shameful that the EU is better representing our rights than our own Government.
Kursk is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 13:43   #7707
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk View Post
FOI only applies to Public Authorities so an approach to BT isn't on; the ICO is a Public Authority though

It is shameful that the EU is better representing our rights than our own Government.
Doh! - of course
Rchivist is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 14:10   #7708
vicz
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 160
vicz is on a distinguished roadvicz is on a distinguished road
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Well it seems knacker of the yard still has enough time and IT nous to go after the real big time cyber crooks http://torrentfreak.com/oink-investi...rrests-080530/
vicz is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 14:11   #7709
gnilddif
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 39
gnilddif is on a distinguished roadgnilddif is on a distinguished road
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
<snipped>
Just to cheer you up - I'm preparing a letter to ICO regarding BT's cookie handling and the way they have been running bt.com, in association with custhelp.com and webwise.bt.com, in terms of handling personally identifiable data which has been made available to Phorm.Inc. So the case load is beginning to build up, and this is a different but related issue illustrating how poor BT are at protecting customer data. there's some good stuff on file.
If you wish to have either of my emails from "BT Webwise" Robert, let me know. I've made an online complaint to ICO already, as you know.
What I'm considering is whether there might be a case to prosecute BT under the DPA in respect of the BT Webwise/121media/phorm online question procedure fiasco. I don't think I'd sent my DPA/Common law rights Notice to them by the time I had the 1st email (with the explicit marketingATphormDOTcom body text insertion), but certainly they had acknowledged the Notice by the time of the second email that contained the "reference" to 121media in the headers. And there is still the evidence in that the Subject line of both read "FW: BT.webwise.com Contact Request". The fact that they've changed the "Contact BT" link to a btDOTcom UK server rather than the phorm US one surely implies that they felt they were not on solid legal ground.
g
gnilddif is offline  
Old 31-05-2008, 14:47   #7710
Phormic Acid
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Services: Still to decide on Aquiss or Be
Posts: 62
Phormic Acid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo View Post
* * * ICO will NOT take action over the 2007 trials * * *
It’s as though the ICO have written a quick guide to the ‘legal’ mass interception of any data, voice or text message communications within the UK.

  1. Call your interception a Technical Trial.
  2. Intend that your customers should remain completely unaware that their communications are being intercepted.
  3. Limit the number of customers whose communications you intercept to a figure in the tens of thousands.
  4. Should your interception cause problems for your customers, act surprised.
Phormic Acid is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20.


Server: osmium.zmnt.uk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.