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

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

Required lie-detector could be a simple motion sensor attached to his lips.

The joy of simplicity

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 ----------

Also, if I don't get a response from the computer crime unit in this mornings post I will start working on a letter to the Metropolitan Police Authority.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by Phormic Acid

Unfortunately, the Internet abhors a vacuum and is starting to fill that vacuum with guff. For example, look at the article Your Privacy for Sale: Internet Providers Cash In.

In fact it is already being used by three of the biggest Internet Service Providers in the UK … BT, Talk Talk and Virgin Media are currently using this software…

Well if there is a vacuum to be filled do as I've done and help them fill it (you can post comments on that site without registering). Could someone else post comments linking to sites telling the truth about the matter - the more different posters the better.

We must make sure that every article we see in every website/publication gets a response from us.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Also, if I don't get a response from the computer crime unit in this mornings post I will start working on a letter to the Metropolitan Police Authority.

It was the Metropolitan Police who prosecuted Clive Goodman for intercepting Royal voicemail... which seems a trivial thing to do in comparison to the trials in 2006/7.

I couldn't find out which force prosecuted Stanford, but I found this QC's CV.

The Royal Family got justice. Its well past time 38,000+ ordinary people had the same protection IMHO.

Update; This article claims the 'UK National Hi-Tech Crime Unit' prosecuted Stanford...
Update #2; NHTCU disbanded in 2006 replaced by e-Crime Unit of SOCA

Pete

[BetBlowWhistler]

Zen 8000 Active account, here I come

MAC Code received from BT, ordered Zen account 5 minutes ago (I've had the code a couple of weeks but no money in my account). Even now, when I said the reason for me leaving was 'Phorm', the service bod hadn't heard of them and didn't know what it was about - I think I may have sounded a little cynical at this point in the conversation - (the belly-laugh/snort gave me away I think).

Who the hell do they think they're kidding? Still, it's better than being asked what I have to hide :P

[Tharrick]

Originally Posted by warescouse

I think its a little OTT but if we could devise a lie detector test with this placed in a certain persons renal area with the device designed to trigger when economic truths or outright lies were spoken verbally or in electronic 'form' I would turn a blind eye.

You want to implant spikes in a 'certain person's' kidneys?
Nasty :P

[Florence]

Has anyone read this in Canada looks like privacy is becoming hot topic around the world.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...g_and_privacy/

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Tharrick

You want to implant spikes in a 'certain person's' kidneys?
Nasty :P

slip of the pen renal should read rectal.

Originally Posted by Florence

Has anyone read this in Canada looks like privacy is becoming hot topic around the world.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...g_and_privacy/

Yeah I was reading that yesterday, I noticed in the comments:

Proud Canadian
By Jamie
Posted Wednesday 14th May 2008 12:49 GMT
Linux

I am a proud Canadian and when I see things like this I would love to see the gov't take a hard line and nail the company to the wall. Problem is as we all know they are bed buddies so most likely nothing will come of it.

Viva La Revolution

Not sure how you'd fight that, apart from encouraging a mass migration to an ISP with different policies - but do they exist? It's sad that Canada lack our legislation protecting privacy, another point on our side is that the UK government are far from in bed with BT or any ISP (if that were the case I'm sure the taxpayer would be contributing towards a fibre optic rollout by now).

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

It was the Metropolitan Police who prosecuted Clive Goodman for intercepting Royal voicemail... which seems a trivial thing to do in comparison to the trials in 2006/7.

I couldn't find out which force prosecuted Stanford, but I found this QC's CV.

The Royal Family got justice. Its well past time 38,000+ ordinary people had the same protection IMHO.

Update; This article claims the 'UK National Hi-Tech Crime Unit' prosecuted Stanford...
Update #2; NHTCU disbanded in 2006 replaced by e-Crime Unit of SOCA

Pete

Interesting information. Needless to say that I haven't received a response at all from the computer crime unit of the metropolitan police and IIRC I posted the letter about 3 weeks ago or more. Most disappointing but hardly surprising. This afternoon and tomorrow I will work on a letter to the Metropolitan Police Authority complaining about the lack of an investigation. I just wish I had been part of illegal trials of 2006 and 2007 as then I could really push this avenue hard.

On another note, just to update people, its now fast approaching the 8 week mark since I posted my letter to Liberty so if past information is correct about them usually taking 8 weeks to respond I hope to have a reply from them shortly.

I have also yet to receive any kind of response from the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals which I am very surprised about given the considerably thorny issue of consent vis-a-vis library internet access.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by basa

Let’s face it, you can chew the fat forever and a day about the deployment of the Phorm/Webwise software, but I feel it will change nothing. The heat has gone out of the fight both here and at El Reg.

Most people in the UK are so used to being manipulated, screwed, ripped-off and spied upon, they no longer have the heart or tools to fight, even if they knew what was going on.

We here who know of these things are a minority. Your majority internet punter won’t have a clue and will be sucked into any opt-in, EULA or change in T&Cs to allow this crap with the seductive promise of a 'safer surfing experience'.

On the other hand BT & VM would probably love to be rid of us (the geeks) who are a thorn in their side and more than likely the greatest users of their bandwidth.

Everybody is in limbo until something happens. Phorm have displayed some intelligence in switching off the counter-productive PR exercise but the damage has been done and hundreds if not thousands are waiting to act when the system goes live.

When it goes live it will almost certainly rank as number one reason for everything from slow surfing to area wide outages. It will almost certainly be portrayed, on help forums, as the first reason of choice for everything bad and complaints will prove costly for the ISP's. Just like the transparent caches were hated, multiply the spyware by any large factor you choose.

VM saw a mass exodus when it had an argument with Sky over programs and I suspect that Phorm could be far more damaging, over time.

There is a very strong possibility that the relativity new UK phenomena of class action suits could come into play over the Phorm issue. A few thousand disgruntled customers banding together to employ the best legal and technical minds available with a challenge to the very thin ice legality of ISP violation of privacy could easily see one or more ISP's into bankruptcy.

The ISP's have good reason to be very fearful because the Phorm issue has triggered powerful emotions and they stand a chance of being the target of the public's "we have had enough of the spying culture" revenge.

The ISP's are motivated by greed and are potentially going to employ a cavalier attitude toward their customers. They are ultimately responsible if they allow the hardware to be connected and they will face the backlash. The failure of most large companies and governments can be attributed to one decision that went too far (10p tax rates) that seemed like a good idea at the time. Liaison with a spy company may prove to be a catastrophe of director's ego over commonsense and see the eventual deployment of many golden parachutes.

Erm

I'd like to say thank you to the people who've kept the "BT Webwise Discussion Thread" constantly on visible on page one of the BT Support Forum (you know who you are)
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/forum....ID=110&start=0
No longer drawing comments from the management, the posts in the thread, discussing topics often raised here, must be excruciating at times for the moderators to read. Well done for keeping up the relentless pressure and, of course supplying a constant update of events relating to Webwise (that BT would rather not be made common knowledge) to BT Support forum users.

I often imagine "Mark W" cringing as he reads some of the posts!

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Erm

I'd like to say thank you to the people who've kept the "BT Webwise Discussion Thread" constantly on visible on page one of the BT Support Forum (you know who you are)
http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/forum....ID=110&start=0
No longer drawing comments from the management, the posts in the thread, discussing topics often raised here, must be excruciating at times for the moderators to read. Well done for keeping up the relentless pressure and, of course supplying a constant update of events relating to Webwise (that BT would rather not be made common knowledge) to BT Support forum users.

I often imagine "Mark W" cringing as he reads some of the posts!

We wil continue until phorm admit defeat and leave the shores if Phorm stays and some ISPs deploy then I say leave the ISP then phorm has nothing to phormulate into clickable adverts.

Would be nice if Mark.W and a few BT bods came over to meet us we have a few questions they might be able to help us with. Perhaps someone could hand out the olive branch asking them to join us in a discussion on ethics, privacy, human rights, freedom of choice, webdesigners rights to not conphorm.. would bring a sparkle to the thread infact now I am a BT customer maybe I should sign up

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by Florence

Has anyone read this in Canada looks like privacy is becoming hot topic around the world.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...g_and_privacy/

This is what BT have been doing for ages with their Ellacoya kit. Deep packet inspection for QoS on BT Vision and VoiP and for managing traffic shaping.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Florence

We wil continue until phorm admit defeat and leave the shores if Phorm stays and some ISPs deploy then I say leave the ISP then phorm has nothing to phormulate into clickable adverts.

Would be nice if Mark.W and a few BT bods came over to meet us we have a few questions they might be able to help us with. Perhaps someone could hand out the olive branch asking them to join us in a discussion on ethics, privacy, human rights, freedom of choice, webdesigners rights to not conphorm.. would bring a sparkle to the thread infact now I am a BT customer maybe I should sign up

We can't even get them to answer questions on the BT forums anymore so I don't think they will come here. But we do invite them....

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Digbert

This is what BT have been doing for ages with their Ellacoya kit. Deep packet inspection for QoS on BT Vision and VoiP and for managing traffic shaping.

The difference there is that there is a valid legal argument that the inspection relates to the provision of the service - VOIP (BTBroadband Talk) or On Demand BTVision. I'm a customer of both with BT.

And I would even go part way on the issue of P2P - if you share a contended pipe with a few rabid filesharers it is quite welcome if their traffic is shaped, or they get throttled a bit during peak hours just so the rest of us can get a reasonable proportion of our theoretically available bandwidth. That too can be justified on the basis of managing the network to provide the service.

But deep packet inspection just to enhance my life with targeted ads? I can't see how that is necessary for the functioning of the ISP service.

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by R Jones

And I would even go part way on the issue of P2P - if you share a contended pipe with a few rabid filesharers it is quite welcome if their traffic is shaped, or they get throttled a bit during peak hours just so the rest of us can get a reasonable proportion of our theoretically available bandwidth. That too can be justified on the basis of managing the network to provide the service.

But deep packet inspection just to enhance my life with targeted ads? I can't see how that is necessary for the functioning of the ISP service.

I heartily agree with that.

I don't know if you have kept any logs from bt.broadband.support from last June/July when people were complaining that they were being throttled on port 80. My own tests showed downloads, ftp etc at 6700kps but browsing and anything else on port 80 110kbps. Support seemed to meet a brick wall in obtaining answers and reported that everyone that complained was a heavy downloader. The problem then seemed to fade away.

Was that caused by the Phorm trials, I do hope so. It would give BT a face saving let out.