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

[Rchivist]

Just to recap, I'm awaiting replies from BT management on the following:

1 - The ISPA statements in October 2007 about how they "cannot monitor or record the type of information passed over their network. ISPs are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope... data protection legislation actually prevents ISPs from looking at the content of the packets sent " and whether that has application to the current situation with webwise/phorm.

2 - The Struan Robertson article that points out the contradiction between statements that Phorm can be instructed by an OIX partner to send ads to an individual based on what they viewed 2 days previously, and the statement that Phorm "never knows who you are, it can't find out and it has no record of where you've been"

3 - The "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" which result in an automatic DPA breach (with the need for ICO action) if other legislation has been breached (even the "technical breaches" that Struan Robertson thinks don't matter).

4 - The fact that the robots.txt method of excluding Webwise/Phorm, promoted and recommended by Phorm and by BT, won't work on the BT hosted customer websites, whether on BTOpenworld or on BTYahoo!/Geocities because webmasters do not have access to the toplevel domain where robots.txt is stored, and which NOT include any exclusion clauses such as those which would exclude Google or Phorm.

I'll either post the replies here or the gist of them if there is not consent to publish exact text.
Have a good weekend everyone.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by R Jones

4 - The fact that the robots.txt method of excluding Webwise/Phorm, promoted and recommended by Phorm and by BT, won't work on the BT hosted customer websites, whether on BTOpenworld or on BTYahoo!/Geocities because webmasters do not have access to the toplevel domain where robots.txt is stored, and which NOT include any exclusion clauses such as those which would exclude Google or Phorm.

Keep in mind the comments here; robots is a method of exclusion not a method of inclusion.

In other words robots is the same old opt out idiocy. You can't follow an opt out model of copyright abuse, violation of privacy, communication interception etc.

---------- Post added at 23:53 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------

And speaking of copyright abuse I've coded up a CDR generator.

If you're feeling kind, please help me test by clicking here;

http://www.dephormation.org.uk:8080/..._cdr/usage.php

If you're feeling very generous, please try the following link too (sets a temporary Phorm UID alike cookie);

http://www.dephormation.org.uk:8080/...ge.php?debug=y

No invoices will follow.

Please feel free to click a few times. You'll either see CDR LOGGED or NO CDR LOGGED according to the copyright risk/RIPA risk identified by the code. If you're with a Phorming ISP or you present a Phorm UID (by using the debug link) then you'll be classed a high risk (and a log entry will be created). If you're on a non-Phorm ISP you'll be classed a low risk (and no log is created).

Sadly, people who share the same IP address range as Phorm in Delaware or Moscow may see the words 'Sorry!'.

This is a known fault.

I'll release the code once I'm happy its doing what was intended.

If you think the code hasn't classified your request correctly, please can you drop me a PM (ideally with your IP/ISP details).

Pete.

UPDATE; thanks for your test clicks, its made/making a huge difference to the code, please keep clicking, thank you!

[Cumulus]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

.
.
.
Parliamentary Ombudsman
Parliamentary Ombudsman is a road I am currently heading down. I intend to fire off a letter to my MP next week once my schedule has quietened down a little and should my grievances not be satisfied I am planning to go forward with a full complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman with regards the lack of action by ICO, Home Office and the Police on the issue of the covert 2006/2007 trials.
.
.
.
Alexander Hanff

Can I suggest a clear distinction is made between the 2006 and 2007 trials as the technology did differ considerably e.g. PageSense parsing pages with Javascript, and ProxySense being server-based (and therefore more like Webwise).

IANAL and I don't know whether this is significant legally but perhaps it is?

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Sadly, people who share the same IP address range as Phorm in Delaware or Moscow may see the words 'Sorry!'.

This is a known fault.

I'd get that fixed PDQ if I was you. You know what people are like if they feel they are being discriminated against.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Keep in mind the comments here; robots is a method of exclusion not a method of inclusion.

In other words robots is the same old opt out idiocy. You can't follow an opt out model of copyright abuse, violation of privacy, communication interception etc.

Yes - I am bearing that in mind and I agree, hence the caveats in my post and in my email to BT about the fact that webmaster opt-OUT is no substitute for explicit informed consent.

But nevertheless my aim is to create maximum confusion and embarrassment and extra work for my own ISP by criticising the method they are suggesting, not just on legal grounds, but because it doesn't even work practically - it lowers their general credibility when the explanations they give about website opt-OUT don't even apply to their own customer-base ISP hosted webspace.

What about VM customer webspace? Does that work the same way?
What have VM said about webmaster opt-out and robots.txt? Can it be used on VM customer webspace? Has anyone asked VM about it?

Spotted by Peter N over on the BT forum. Insider trading?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...xmktrep110.xml

"Online advertising technology group Phorm soared 425p to £17.62½ on speculation that it was close to sealing a large new contract"

IF that's true, expect a new influx of anti-Phorm forum members.

Mind you - it's all rumours - another take -

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/47be7fde-1...nclick_check=1

"
Phorm , internet advertising group, surged 32 per cent to £17.62 on rumours BT was set to start trialing its WebWise ad-serving system."

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

Someone else on here poined out that EDM's are restricted to backbenchers and WH is the shadow foreign sec (i think)

Originally Posted by BadPhormula

Okay that is fair enough. But what excuse do the other Tories (and a major section of Labour) have?

Yep, it was in my reply from my local Labour MP. She is a parliamentary private secretary. She explained that EDMs are a way "To put pressure on the Government"

To BadPhormula's point, my take on this is that some Labour MPs might still sign it (but that makes them "rebels" and is a career limiting decision!). However, I don't see why any Tory or other flavour MP would not be able to sign (unless they had cross party discussions and used it as part of a bargaining point to get something else on their agenda forward...)

So keep asking your MP - and why not ask even if they are a Labour one, nothing to lose? If they are not in a big job for the current Government, they might sign it.

Hank

[Bonglet]

Vm just ignore everything i e-mail them r-jones im writing to CEO this week and telling them this amongst other things (i.e Secret Trials), sick of the standard we havent implemented webwise blah,blah crap then ignore my 2 follow up's stating they have not answered my questions.

The first reply i got didnt even have my correct name on it dont forget a guy admitted to me on the phone that trials were on the ex ntl platform i pointed this out to them also and the silence i have had is a sign of guilt in my eyes, all i asked for was a written or e-mailed reply stating that as a concerned custormer of long standing i was no part of a trial in 2007.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by mark777

I'd get that fixed PDQ if I was you. You know what people are like if they feel they are being discriminated against.

I heard an industry leader called 'Berk' (or something like that) had described a concept called 'Net Neutrality' as being rather like testicles.

I didn't understand that comparison, it sort of suggests a confusion between technology and biology.

Anyway. There are two ends to the pipe. His end. And my end. With a single cut/paste I can block the pipe to him.

I'm pleased to say I have discovered the fault may be fixable, but I put the cost of fixing it at around £2.5M. If anyone from Virgin/BT/TalkTalk/Phorm would like to cover the cost of fixing please send me a PM and a cheque marked "urgent".

Pete.

[popper]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Yes - I am bearing that in mind and I agree, hence the caveats in my post and in my email to BT about the fact that webmaster opt-OUT is no substitute for explicit informed consent.

But nevertheless my aim is to create maximum confusion and embarrassment and extra work for my own ISP by criticising the method they are suggesting, not just on legal grounds, but because it doesn't even work practically - it lowers their general credibility when the explanations they give about website opt-OUT don't even apply to their own customer-base ISP hosted webspace.

What about VM customer webspace? Does that work the same way?
What have VM said about webmaster opt-out and robots.txt? Can it be used on VM customer webspace? Has anyone asked VM about it?

vm webspace doesnt allow anything other than static html pages (not including a small subset of the old companys network that did see fit to use a real webserver package)no bin dir,nothing, so its assumed robots etc wont work eather.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Phorm do seem to be playing a wiser tactical game these days. They have reigned in the PR team (I bizarrely miss them too, how messed up is that? LOL) and do seem to have upped their game some.

I think someone with half a brain in their PR machine realised at some point that "engaging" with technically savvy customers was a waste of time precisely because we do understand how their system will work. So the decision was made to disengage from an informed debate that they knew they couldn't win, and go into silent-running mode.

The only people they'll talk to now are potential clients (ISPs, advertisers) and, if they're absolutely forced to, regulators and legislators.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I just contacted one of my many press contacts (I seem to be collecting quite a list) who works for the Financial Times to see if she has any insight on the strange market behaviour with Phorm's stock today. Will update once I get a reply.

Alexander Hanff

I've been reading the BT forums for updates on Phormware and came across an interesting discussion.

Now that VM have made it clear that they never signed any contract to use Webwise, if it is established that Phorm deliberately misrepresented the potential value of the company, thereby effectively conning the stock market and share buyers into believing that they had an extremely valuable contract with a huge company, Phorm could be in serious trouble, their shares could be suspended and they could face fines and possible prison sentences for any individual who is proven to have been involved in what is effectively fraud.

It was also suggested that an investigation into this matter is already underway but there is no confirmation of this from any source.

Do you or anyone else have any information on this?


I also read somewhere that Amazon maybe close to signing up to the OIX

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by icsys

I also read somewhere that Amazon maybe close to signing up to the OIX

Where did you read this? It could certainly account for the sudden hike in the Phorm share price yesterday...

[icsys]

Originally Posted by lucevans

Where did you read this? It could certainly account for the sudden hike in the Phorm share price yesterday...

I've been vigorously searching but can't find the source If it turns out to be true, we'll hear about it soon i'd imagine.

What about the latest on the ICO's new powers to 'fine for data breaches'?.
Sadly the law is not retroactive, so maybe he can't try them out on Phorm?

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I'm pleased to say I have discovered the fault may be fixable, but I put the cost of fixing it at around £2.5M. If anyone from Virgin/BT/TalkTalk/Phorm would like to cover the cost of fixing please send me a PM and a cheque marked "urgent".

Pete.

Pete

I've just been looking at your post on the new system over on Badphorm.

Might I suggest you offer the ISP's 60 days payment terms if they wish to pass on the costs to their users? This will give them a chance to collect the money.

Of course, if they are to do this, they should warn all users to check the T&C's of all sites they visit as they may now be liable for billing by visiting certain sites.

No doubt when the system is finalised you will have a download and description page. When that appears I am sure we will all want to reference it and demand to know from our ISP's if they will be passing on the costs to us.



The system needs a name. How about ContentWise?