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

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by madslug

I am recalling how, in the early days, many posters were saying that Webwise would be OK if it could be shown to met all legal requirements. Basically that means that a few 'things' need to be disclosed and managed differently. If those things are changed, then there could be positive spin.

I imagine that there are a few investors / shareholders who are putting a lot of pressure onto the Board of Directors / Senior Management of ALL companies concerned to ensure legality and protection of data, communications and computer systems before any trial is initiated. Will the earlier calls (and welcomed by Phorm) to open up the scripts to independent quality control and verification by qualified independent experts happen before the trial commences?

For new readers, the minimum that needs to be changed from the webwise system that was analysed in May this year:
* opt-in system [verification that minors do not opt-in without adult consent?]
* no forged cookies
* no leaking of cookies to 3rd parties
* no fraudulent 307 redirects
* opt-in system for 2nd party content to be intercepted, as per RIPA requirements
* licence fee system for websites and other content providers [audit trail open to independent verification, and royalty payments including provisions for copyright infringement]
* webwise useragent [making use of a new Allow protocol, not to be confused with the robots.txt Disallow protocol]
* privacy policy which discloses the loss of privacy and confidentiality of communications and provides a layman's explanation of behavioural targeting by 3rd parties, etc per informed consent requirements.
* etc [only the main items listed]

The only 2 items that have been mentioned in press releases are the opt-in and removal of reliance on cookies, with no timescale on when these changes will be implemented.
Updates on the other items are eagerly awaited.

Hmm, I suspect that the original business model Phorm presented to a few ISP's may have a few flaws

I still stand by my point about PR. Even if ALL the things you mention (and a few you may have missed) are 'fixed'. If ISP's adopt Phorms's WebWise interception, their standing and PR IMHO wil only go one way and that is down down down. Is it worth that risk?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.

Legal milestone for open source

I think it may have a bearing on the Emma Sanderson "If it's on the internet there is an implied consent to copy" argument.

***
snip
****
They have previously denied this point. Does anyone think this US ruling may dent their confidence?

i think it confirms what we have been saying all along, but like everything else with the BT webwise gravytrain will just carry on regardless until there is an almighty crash when it hits the buffers at full speed because no-one at BT checked the track was clear and safe

all they can see is £££££ £Â£Â£ not the real world

peter

el reg have picked it up as well

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...cense_victory/

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.

Legal milestone for open source

I think it may have a bearing on the Emma Sanderson "If it's on the internet there is an implied consent to copy" argument.

Good spot, and the only right result.

"In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licences set conditions on the use of copyrighted work. When you violate the condition, the licence disappears, meaning you're simply a copyright infringer. "

.

[bluecar1]

just found this on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7559731.stm

"Fire Eagle's features are beyond our comfort level as far as the average internet users is concerned," wrote Christian Zibreg of TGDaily.com.

The problem for privacy watchers is that privacy policies across the web are all very different and using a service through a third party could raise some real issues.

it seems someone has worked that one out, shame BT and Phorm have not

also the service requires a opt-in every 45 days

Every 45 days, the service will send users an email to reauthorize the sharing of their location with the enabled applications.

phorm and BT could take a look at this and gets some ideas how things should be done "transparently" with a good "opt-in" and "no cookies"

peter

[rryles]

In relation to the recent press and phorm comments about turning off cookies:

Phorm seem to have a very simplistic view of cookie permissions. Yes you can turn cookies off. Yes you can allow all cookies. However, there are many shades of grey between these two extremes. You can set permissions based on 1st/3rd party, session/persistent, expiration time and domain (with either a white list or black list). Every browser I know allows some settings between on and off. There are also add ons for many of them to improve this functionality.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by rryles

In relation to the recent press and phorm comments about turning off cookies:

Phorm seem to have a very simplistic view of cookie permissions. Yes you can turn cookies off. Yes you can allow all cookies. However, there are many shades of grey between these two extremes. You can set permissions based on 1st/3rd party, session/persistent, expiration time and domain (with either a white list or black list). Every browser I know allows some settings between on and off. There are also add ons for many of them to improve this functionality.

The Probable reason Phorm is complaining cookies need to be allowed by the Browser by default (even if the user maintains a White Blacklist etc), or the Phorm system cannot inject its forged cookies into the Browser.

[Wildie]

well I for one block cookies.

[bluecar1]

seen this yet??

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...o_beacon_sued/

Facebook is being sued for breaking privacy and wire-tapping laws by introducing Facebook Beacon - the ad service which tracked what you did on other websites.

interesting

peter

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Wildie

well I for one block cookies.

There is a subtle difference in how you block all cookies, some Browsers will allow you to block all cookies by default & then set permission to allow only specific Websites, if a plug-in is used to control cookies the web browser may allow the injected forged cookie in some cases. (Application Coding priorities)

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

just found this on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7559731.stm



it seems someone has worked that one out, shame BT and Phorm have not

also the service requires a opt-in every 45 days



phorm and BT could take a look at this and gets some ideas how things should be done "transparently" with a good "opt-in" and "no cookies"

peter

I would argue that the opt-in period of 45 days not that good, although the principle of a none continuous opt-in is not a bad principle.

I do think though that Fire Eagle is another erosion of our privacy. Imagine going down the high street and you are suddenly accosted by the insurance salesman who has tracked you down! Or worse still... your secret stalker.

Anyhow slightly off topic I guess..

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

There is a subtle difference in how you block all cookies, some Browsers will allow you to block all cookies by default & then set permission to allow only specific Websites, if a plug-in is used to control cookies the web browser may allow the injected forged cookie in some cases. (Application Coding priorities)

a wee popup asks me yes or no on all cookies.

[rryles]

My point was that cookies are a lot more complicated than the on or off suggested by phorm recently.


There argument (if you can even call it that) seems to be:

Cookies have good uses
Therefore people will want to enable all cookies
Therefore they will be tracked
Therefore phorm isn't so bad

There are several serious flaws in their logic.

[icsys]

I have received a response to my FoI request for details of BT's legal advice that was disclosed to the ICO.
The request was denied under section 41.

As you are aware we have already redacted some of the information
provided to us by BT in reliance on section 41 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) including, amongst other
things, specific references to the nature of the legal advice sought by
BT. BT specifically stated in their letter of 9 May 2008 that this
information was being provided to us in confidence, and it is primarily
for this reason that we considered the information was exempt from
disclosure in accordance with the provisions at section 41 of the FOIA.
As this information describes the content of communications between a
client and their legal adviser this information would, in any case, be
subject to legal professional privilege, which is presumably why BT
emphasised that it was being provided to the ICO in confidence. As far
as we are concerned this position remains unchanged, and the information
we hold, and withheld previously, is still subject to a duty of
confidentiality.

I have liaised with my colleagues who were in contact with BT at the
time, and they have advised me that other than the information contained
within BT's letter of 9 May 2008 we have not been provided with a copy
of any other documentation that consists of any legal advice BT received
from their own or external solicitors about the 2006/07 trials.

ICO letter to BT 25th April 08 requesting details of legal advice
BT Letter 9th May 08

[Dephormation]

Just recording for posterity/future reference/interest

Searching BT for Webwise used to result in a link which took you to

http://www.bt.com/webwise (which in turn redirected to webwise.bt.com, the Phorm operated server). The redirection is still operational.

But now, searching BT.com for Webwise results in a link which takes you to

http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/index.html (which in turn redirects to webwise.bt.com, the Phorm operated server).

Curious. 302 temporary redirect.

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Update, looks like there's more to that BT linkage than first thought.

This URL

http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail...t-warning2.gif
(www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/images/fraudulent-warning2.gif)

results in a familiar graphic being displayed.

What this firmly suggests is that BT are holding a copy of the webwise.bt.com site on www2.bt.com, yet redirecting visitors to the Phorm owned server for some reason.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

But now, searching BT.com for Webwise results in a link which takes you to

http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/index.html (which in turn redirects to webwise.bt.com, the Phorm operated server).

Curious. 302 temporary redirect.

If I recall, earlier there was some webwise content on BT - back in the days when they hosted a link from the home page and it was within a webwise subdirectory as well as the webwise subdomain. Duplicate content (unlikely) or server domain management. With the external hosting still having the same content over multiple domains it is likely that this has always been their domain hosting method.

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

I think this may have a bearing on the copyright aspects of Webwise and would appreciate it if our resident copyright experts could give it a browse and comment.

Legal milestone for open source

If you ever have a look at one of the image libraries available you will see there how many allow free use for personal / educational use or non published use and a different licence for commercial use - even having different licences depending on the number of copies to be used. Third party use gets even more complicated. So much so that when I use one of these libraries for web design and can't work out whether the language says I can then sell the derivative design to a client or not, I use the 'free' licence during the design phase and then arrange for the client to obtain the commercial licence and use the images they buy for the final design. The last thing I want is to produce a design and then have a copyright lawyer chasing them for using the images without them being able to show that they obtained a licence.

Copyright law and licences could make some lawyers very rich.
If you are into 'funny pictures' you will know many sites that host images and usually try to cover themselves with something along the lines of requesting people not to submit images if they are not the copyright owner, that images are published in good faith, are covered by copyright, etv. And if someone who owns the copyright sees their image hosted without permission to contact the webmaster so that the material can be removed.
In the real world, once you have seen the image on one site you are likely to see it on many other sites in the not too distant future. (Feel sorry for the celebs and [often drunk] students trying to get their 'unofficial' images removed.)