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

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by manxminx

My thought though is that no matter how random the number is, it refers to the type of ads they serve to your computer, so It must be personal, if not to you, then certainly to your computer!

As there is one number assigned per browser per user per ip then the number would refer to your use of a particular browser in a particular account on a given machine. This is surely personal information. Even if a person can have more than one id associated its still personal information, e.g. bank account numbers. The fact that it is linked to several ad streams is the mechanism by which PHORM works to serve up relevant ads.

Originally Posted by dav

I've seen a quote from someone in Phorm this week that the cookie number is actually Pseudorandom. I would imagine that in cryptography circles, that particular word gets a hearty laugh, a nudge and a wink.

All computer generated random numbers are pseudorandom due to the fact that computers, being machines, can't actually generate truely random numbers. This is probably more of the smoke screen. In actual fact, its probably a UUID of some sort that they generate. If they used a lottery machine or something then they could generate true random numbers but they wouldn't be guaranteed unique.

But the point is, random, pseudorandom or even sequential, its still a number assigned to you and as such, it could be argued, is personal information.

I might be barking up the wrong tree but hopefully there's some mileage in the argument.

[manxminx]

Originally Posted by OF1975

I can understand how you feel but I personally do want an explanation of their technology.

{ . . .}
If they do actually come forward and stop spinning and give detailed, non-obfuscated answers to the questions posed to them then maybe, just maybe, there will be a smoking gun in there. Something we can use to truly land a killer blow. At the very least, if they do this, hopefully it will mark a change in direction and the end to all this disingeniuos PR spinning.

Definitely, Rather than second hand info, awful Pr spin and our guesswork, lets have a proper genuine investigation from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Even if we do win this battle, it doesn't mean the war is over. There's lots of other companies out there who are waiting to step into Phorms boots. The more we find out now, the better prepared we will be in the long term.

[AlexanderHanff]

I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to concentrate on the criminal aspects of this technology under RIPA not least the fact that this technology could criminalise customers if they visit web sites with expressed terms which deny the right to intercept, if they have opted in.

Remember, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, so whether you are "aware" of RIPA or not is irrelevant; if you initiate a communication with such a website (like Amazon or the BBC) after opting in to Phorm you are opening yourself up to criminal liability because you are complicit.

FIPR have again stated that they feel Phorm is illegal under RIPA (after visiting Phorm) which just reinforces my point. BT, CPW and VM could literally criminalise millions over night if they deploy this. Also, as I have said before, if you have opted in and the ISP can in anyway wriggle out of criminal charges by passing the buck on to you for initiating the communication after opting in, you can be damn sure that is exactly what they are going to do.

Wake up people, opt-in and you risk becoming a criminal, opt-out and your privacy is retained AND you don't risk becoming a criminal. It is an easy option in my opinion.

Sorry I haven't written any other replies today I have been in bed with a migraine.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to concentrate on the criminal aspects of this technology under RIPA not least the fact that this technology could criminalise customers if they visit web sites with expressed terms which deny the right to intercept, if they have opted in.

Agreed and not only that, as you and others have stated, we need to move some of the Phocus (sorry!) from Phorm onto the ISPs.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Remember, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, so whether you are "aware" of RIPA or not is irrelevant; if you initiate a communication with such a website (like Amazon or the BBC) after opting in to Phorm you are opening yourself up to criminal liability because you are complicit.

FIPR have again stated that they feel Phorm is illegal under RIPA (after visiting Phorm) which just reinforces my point. BT, CPW and VM could literally criminalise millions over night if they deploy this. Also, as I have said before, if you have opted in and the ISP can in anyway wriggle out of criminal charges by passing the buck on to you for initiating the communication after opting in, you can be damn sure that is exactly what they are going to do.

Wake up people, opt-in and you risk becoming a criminal, opt-out and your privacy is retained AND you don't risk becoming a criminal. It is an easy option in my opinion.

Definately agree. I have posted my letter to liberty (am sure its full of grammar mistakes and maybe not the best written ever) and if I get any response I will post it here. I included my email address in the letter in the hope that it would mean a quicker response. Trying to think positive despite the fact there was no response to my earlier email. I got another response from one MEP but it was just to say they were passing on my letter to another MEP who would hopefully be in touch.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Sorry I haven't written any other replies today I have been in bed with a migraine.

Alexander Hanff

Hope you feel better real soon, Alexander. Migraines can be really nasty/ Luckily I only get migraines occasionally. Get some rest.

[dav]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

As there is one number assigned per browser per user per ip then the number would refer to your use of a particular browser in a particular account on a given machine. This is surely personal information. Even if a person can have more than one id associated its still personal information, e.g. bank account numbers. The fact that it is linked to several ad streams is the mechanism by which PHORM works to serve up relevant ads.



All computer generated random numbers are pseudorandom due to the fact that computers, being machines, can't actually generate truely random numbers. This is probably more of the smoke screen. In actual fact, its probably a UUID of some sort that they generate. If they used a lottery machine or something then they could generate true random numbers but they wouldn't be guaranteed unique.

But the point is, random, pseudorandom or even sequential, its still a number assigned to you and as such, it could be argued, is personal information.

I might be barking up the wrong tree but hopefully there's some mileage in the argument.

I know, and because it's pseudorandom, it all depends on what they are using as the seed. If it is something traceable back to you, then it isn't secure. For example, if they were daft enough to use your IP address as the seed and the pseudorandom number generator algorithm became known, then it's the work a few moments to decode the 'random' number in the cookie to an IP address. (even they wouldn't be that stupid though. Would they?)

[AlexanderHanff]

I have just created a petition on the PM website demanding that he instruct the Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings under RIPA against BT for their trials in July 2007. I will post the link once (if) the petition is accepted by the PM web team.

Tonight I am also going to write multiple letters to my MP, MEPs and Lords requesting them to increase the severity of the debate on this issue with particular focus on the criminal aspects of this technology under RIPA. I will post the letters here once I have written them so anyone else who wishes to take similar action can use them as templates. They will be up by the end of the weekend.

Alexander Hanff

[Anonymouse]

I wonder how popular an ISP would be if offered point-to-point VPN tunneling? According to one poster on the ORG site, VPN has to be decrypted at the server end - I'm not so sure about that, but if true it means you're not secure with any Phorm-dealing ISP even if you use VPN. Techies stand up and speak, please!

[AlexanderHanff]

I have also started a new Facebook group to help raise awareness of this issue. You can find the group here:

Anmeldung | Facebook

...and Phorm is supposed to ;improve' security?

Possible trivial Phorm opt-in "Exploit" discovered - ISPr Forum

[mark777]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to concentrate on the criminal aspects of this technology under RIPA not least the fact that this technology could criminalise customers if they visit web sites with expressed terms which deny the right to intercept, if they have opted in.
....
Alexander Hanff

Regarding last years BT trial and any presecution under RIPA, presumably Phorm would also be presecuted as being party to the abuse?

Suppose a BT customer involved in the trial could show that they, for example, signed any Downing Street petition, during the trial. (This would be authenticated, time-stamped and auditable). Could the PM website (or PM!) be implicated in a breach of RIPA?

Just wondering.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I have just created a petition on the PM website demanding that he instruct the Home Office to initiate criminal proceedings under RIPA against BT for their trials in July 2007. I will post the link once (if) the petition is accepted by the PM web team.

Tonight I am also going to write multiple letters to my MP, MEPs and Lords requesting them to increase the severity of the debate on this issue with particular focus on the criminal aspects of this technology under RIPA. I will post the letters here once I have written them so anyone else who wishes to take similar action can use them as templates. They will be up by the end of the weekend.

Alexander Hanff

You are certainly on good form tonight, Alexander (I was going to spell it Phorm but couldnt bring myself to put their name next to the word good). I will definately sign the petition if its accepted and will mention it on any responses on other forums/blogs.

[mark777]

OF1975

I just had a quick peep at the share summary link in your signature. I was greeted with the following advert.

"Short this share with CFD Trading. Low commission: Equity CFDs (trade from £10)."

Perhaps there is something to be said about targeted advertising!

[AlexanderHanff]

I am also interested in filing for an injunction order from the courts to prevent BT, VM and CPW from deploying this technology. If anyone has any information on how to file an injunction order (not something I have ever done) I would appreciate some input.

The main points I intend to lean on for the purpose of the injunction are:

1. Informed Consent of -all- parties under RIPA
2. The risk of criminalising millions of people by making them complicit in criminal breaches of RIPA

I will be relying on the number of popular sites on the internet which already have expressed terms on their site's denying the right to intercept, such as BBC and Amazon. So I am calling upon this community to try and come up with a big list of popular sites which meet this criteria as this list will be important for both point 1 and point 2. If there are a lot of popular sites with similar terms then the risk of a customer becoming complicit rises significantly.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by mark777

OF1975

I just had a quick peep at the share summary link in your signature. I was greeted with the following advert.

"Short this share with CFD Trading. Low commission: Equity CFDs (trade from £10)."

Perhaps there is something to be said about targeted advertising!

LOL Shhhhhhhh whisper that quietly lest the phorm PR team start using that quote against ya LOL

The only adverts I would be remotely interested in right now are adverts telling us how to land a "killer blow" against phorm and others like it.

Its good to see that according to the website in my signature the change in Phorms share price over the last month is down by 48.2%. They are definately wounded at the moment.

EDIT: Alexander, I cant tell you much about injunctions. I failed my law A-level back in 2000 because I had hip replacement surgery shortly before the exam and hadnt really been in a frame of mind to revise properly.

I imagine that you would most likely need to apply to the High Court in London in this instance because of the scope of the injunction. In cases with lesser ramifications I believe some magistrates courts can hear cases that would normally need a high court injunction but I doubt that applies here.

One last note... there is one other possibility... if anyone involved in the BT trials last summer reports it to the police and the police refuse to issue a crime reference number or refuse to investigate then they might be able to apply for a judicial review of that decision although I think typically those kinds of cases are very expensive.

Vis-a-vis building a site list you can count me in. I will get looking.

[AlexanderHanff]

If we manage to get an injunction issued you will be able to watch Phorm's share price break new records for the worst performing stock ever.

I am going to request FIPR submit an Amicus Curiae for the injunction hearing based on their legal opinion of Phorm under RIPA. I also want to investigate if it is possible for multiple persons to be involved in filing for an injunction, because then we have the possibility of getting thousands of people supporting the injunction application and possibly (if people turn up) a very interesting day at court.

Alexander Hanff