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

I understand that and I've posted the same message on several occasions.

My concern is that this area of the discussion is not Phorm related as much as a general analysis of the internet's workings.

It is not an attack on the technical side of the discussions and I don't want to get into an argument on that basis because no-one is trying to put anyone elses efforts down but I believe that all of the necessary information is now available for people to run these checks for themselves and they can post any Phorm related findings if and when they are discovered. Until then it really has wandered way off topic and into the realm of a geeky chat about redirection in general.

Originally Posted by Peter N

My concern is that this area of the discussion is not Phorm related as much as a general analysis of the internet's workings.

It is not an attack on the technical side of the discussions...

Tend to agree and the Mod gent is right. Absolutely valid to keep hunting the issues down and as soon as we find anything which could be DPI and Phorm related - well, that's what this thread is about.

Still waiting to hear from PC Plod about my request that they investigate the issue. It was sent recorded delivery and it has been received. I don't want to waste police time - they've got a lot on their plates I know but if there is a possibility that there is a case to answer by BT for their Phorm trials in 06 & 07... well they should look into it. Lord Spithead and the ICC who they pointed me in the direction of said so!

Originally Posted by Hank

Still waiting to hear from PC Plod about my request that they investigate the issue. It was sent recorded delivery and it has been received. I don't want to waste police time - they've got a lot on their plates I know but if there is a possibility that there is a case to answer by BT for their Phorm trials in 06 & 07... well they should look into it. Lord Spithead and the ICC who they pointed me in the direction of said so!

An investigation of the trials would put a lot of information into the public domain and I can imagine that BT will be desperate to avoid this.

I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly agreed to police the internet themselves despite telling MP's that this was neither possible or legal in October 2007.

Wait a minute, what's that I see on the BBC news? BT has done just that. Well I'll be blowed.

I'll risk a court appearance by saying that I believe that this deal was reached on the understanding that this corrupt government will protect the equally corrupt ISPs from prosecution and will not oppose the use of Phorm type systems and that there are other deals involving directly spying for the government and security services.

I'll also lay money on a story coming to light very soon that BT weren't the only UK ISP to have run secret trials of DPI systems in the last couple of years.

Would the European Commission follow this up?

Dear x


Thank you for your correspondence regarding the use of Phorm's targeted online advertising product.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you, our office is currently dealing with large volumes of work. This has meant that we have been unable to deal with incoming correspondence as promptly as we would like.

I understand you have read our latest statement regarding Phorm on our website. As you are aware, this statement does not cover the 2006 and 2007 trials.

The Information Commissioner's Office considered complaints from individuals who were involved in the BT trials and concluded that a breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 was likely but that no further action was necessary in this instance to bring about compliance. This is primarily because the trials have already occurred, that future trials of the Webwise product should be transparent and in compliance with the regulations and that there is also no indication that BT are likely to undertake secret trials of this nature again.

We will however be contacting BT on a general level to ensure we understand the involvement of any IP addresses in the trials.

We are continuing to engage with Phorm and relevant ISPs in advance of any roll out of the technology to ISP customers to ensure that any public use of the product is transparent, and based on individuals understanding what they are agreeing to.

We will keep our website www.ico.gov.uk updated with any further statements about this issue.

I hope this information is helpful.


Yours sincerely


Case Officer
DP Case Reception Unit

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Peter N

I'll also lay money on a story coming to light very soon that BT weren't the only UK ISP to have run secret trials of DPI systems in the last couple of years.

Lay money on it if you like, but the odds I would offer you are not that good. I think the chances are looking increasingly like you are right

Oh dear, is that the pooping of some pants in Westminster? All this stuff about data protection, leakings, thefts and loss of data...

[BetBlowWhistler]

with all the FOI's going around it's hard to keep track, but has anyone asked if the ICO/Home Office have been contacted by any ISP other than BT?

[Wildie]

I read in that lots they said isp`s<< not singlar is it.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Hank

Would the European Commission follow this up?

Dear x


Thank you for your correspondence regarding the use of Phorm's targeted online advertising product.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you, our office is currently dealing with large volumes of work. This has meant that we have been unable to deal with incoming correspondence as promptly as we would like.

I understand you have read our latest statement regarding Phorm on our website. As you are aware, this statement does not cover the 2006 and 2007 trials.

The Information Commissioner's Office considered complaints from individuals who were involved in the BT trials and concluded that a breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 was likely but that no further action was necessary in this instance to bring about compliance. This is primarily because the trials have already occurred, that future trials of the Webwise product should be transparent and in compliance with the regulations and that there is also no indication that BT are likely to undertake secret trials of this nature again.

We will however be contacting BT on a general level to ensure we understand the involvement of any IP addresses in the trials.

We are continuing to engage with Phorm and relevant ISPs in advance of any roll out of the technology to ISP customers to ensure that any public use of the product is transparent, and based on individuals understanding what they are agreeing to.

We will keep our website www.ico.gov.uk updated with any further statements about this issue.

I hope this information is helpful.


Yours sincerely


Case Officer
DP Case Reception Unit

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------



Lay money on it if you like, but the odds I would offer you are not that good. I think the chances are looking increasingly like you are right

Oh dear, is that the pooping of some pants in Westminster? All this stuff about data protection, leakings, thefts and loss of data...

How do I get membership of this club, where although I may be guilty of a few thousand breaches of PECR, and although I was doing it under cover, and although I lied about it, and misled customers, and although some of those customers suffered actual material harm, the ICO doesn't even issue a formal notice on the matter? So my "record of priors" remains clean? No enforcement notice on my sheet?

I suppose I need to make myself more valuable to HMG by offering to do something they need me for. Like trial some technology for them, that they might find very valuable in the future?

Actually, from my viewing of TV cop shows I've just tumbled to the exact scenario needed. Isn't that what happens to snitches in TV cop dramas? They provide the authoritiies with valuable information on what is going down on the street/internet and the police make sure they don't end up in chokey unless they do something really really stupid AND the public find out.

Any resemblance between this fictional TV scenario and internet reality is purely coincidental.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

If you don't use traceroute from time to time being a BT customer how will you tell which RAS your info is passing through I disagree if this is not monitored regularly how will BT customers know if there has been a redirection every other route of mine goes to Ealing RAS which has been used for Phorm trials in the past so presumably some stuff is still there.IMHO it is the alertness and knowledge of the techies that has so far prevented BT starting there long awaited trials,and it is from them we may learn.Remember this kit is already installed an we only have the word of some untrustworthy people that we will be informed of any implementation.to my mind this is far more relevant than share prices.

I'm not afraid to come straight out and name Virgin Media.

Their statement on the subject states that...

It may be that, as part of the evaluation process, we want to test the technology among some of our customers but we are not currently doing so and we will not conduct any such tests without individual customers' prior consent. Moreover, should Virgin Media eventually decide to roll out Webwise, customers will not be forced to use the system.

...which carefully avoids stating that they hadn't previously run any trials and uses the phrase "not currently" to describe their involvment in the trial process. BT could make the same statement.

It may be time for VM customers to demand clarification in plain English rather than trusting their ISP. After all, those of us who are BT customers used to trust our ISP.

Originally Posted by Peter N

It may be time for VM customers to demand clarification in plain English rather than trusting their ISP. After all, those of us who are BT customers used to trust our ISP.

What about FOI requests to ask if any other ISPs have been offered immunity from any action by the toothless ICO following a trial which they did not ask their customers about before they did it?

Names not actually required at this stage, we just want to know if they did it!

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

If you don't use traceroute from time to time being a BT customer how will you tell which RAS your info is passing through I disagree if this is not monitored regularly how will BT customers know if there has been a redirection every other route of mine goes to Ealing RAS which has been used for Phorm trials in the past so presumably some stuff is still there.IMHO it is the alertness and knowledge of the techies that has so far prevented BT starting there long awaited trials,and it is from them we may learn.Remember this kit is already installed an we only have the word of some untrustworthy people that we will be informed of any implementation.to my mind this is far more relevant than share prices.

It's not a matter of not checking - it's about whether or not these checks need to be discussed on this thread unless and until something is discovered that relates to Phorm.

So far all this proves is that the internet is not a simple connection and that any redirection due to Webwise is no better or worse than "normal" internet use. Constantly posting proof that Phorm and BT are actually doing anything wrong at the moment is not my idea of a strong argument and risks giving Kent exactly what he wants.

It's about as useful in context as a long and winding discussion about internet advertising in general - an interesting topic that indirectly links to Phorm but not one for this thread unless it is a bit more specific.

This does not need to become and argument about which information is important ot more important than others. It's about whether anything in those traces is relevent or has any connection with Phorm, Webwise or OIX.

Please don't make this into a techy versus non-techy issue as that will only cause in-fighting.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Hank

What about FOI requests to ask if any other ISPs have been offered immunity from any action by the toothless ICO following a trial which they did not ask their customers about before they did it?

Names not actually required at this stage, we just want to know if they did it!

Speaking as a BT customer (who has been harassing BT on this issue to the point of exhaustion!) - it is absolutely clear to me that VM and TalkTalk are hiding in BT's shadow, and playing a very convenient waiting game.

There is even an argument for saying that (once exposed) BT have at least been consistent - (perhaps because they unwisely signed the wrong sort of contract with Phorm, or perhaps because they have a different sort of relationship with HMG) - they did covert trials and they are planning Overt trials (once the retrophitting has been done and when the legal opinions sought, er .. obtained.. have indicated it is safe to go ahead without them getting banged up).

Whereas VM and TalkTalk have come to a smart but very quiet halt, done an about turn, then marched backwards at high speed till they reached cover amongst the long grass. Apart from the odd logo popping on or off the Phorm Webwise pages, and a few weasel words from execs behind sandbags, equipped with periscopes and press officers in full body armour - they have been remarkably free of embarrassment or scrutiny.

Maybe they are cleaner than clean. Maybe they are absolutely trustworthy. I hope so - we need trustworthy ISP's - wish I had one - but it's time to put up a few parachute flares, and aim the searchlights, and line up the artillery.

Range - HMG.
Altitude - Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), ICO, Home Office
Munitions - the Signed for Delivery High Explosive FOI request
Target - VM and TalkTalk/CPW and any other ISP in range

So all you VM customers - FIRE!

[Ravenheart]

I've had a recurring niggling feeling for some time that VM haven't told the truth, for some reason I seem to remember the sysip.net appearing at the bottom of my firefox window during last year. As I've always scanned for adware and malware it caught my attention.

Considering how quiet VM have been on the whole Phorm issue, and their other "ohh no we're not doing anything like that" claims about STM only to implement it soon after I'm beginning to think that the reason VM have stayed quiet is they're just as guilty as BT.

I may be wrong, but given VM's usual "honesty" on these sort of issues, makes me think that they have done a Phorm trial and used it on customers.

[serial]

Anyone done a FOI request to ICO or the HO etc regarding Virgin and their involvement with Phorm?

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Originally Posted by Peter N

It's not a matter of not checking - it's about whether or not these checks need to be discussed on this thread unless and until something is discovered that relates to Phorm.

So far all this proves is that the internet is not a simple connection and that any redirection due to Webwise is no better or worse than "normal" internet use. Constantly posting proof that Phorm and BT are actually doing anything wrong at the moment is not my idea of a strong argument and risks giving Kent exactly what he wants.

It's about as useful in context as a long and winding discussion about internet advertising in general - an interesting topic that indirectly links to Phorm but not one for this thread unless it is a bit more specific.

This does not need to become and argument about which information is important ot more important than others. It's about whether anything in those traces is relevent or has any connection with Phorm, Webwise or OIX.

Please don't make this into a techy versus non-techy issue as that will only cause in-fighting.

Almost as useless as hypothesising about what other ISP's may or may not have done at least it was a factual based discussion not a work of fiction.