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

[madslug]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Thanks. Not sure whether to have two seperate entities for BT Group and BT Retail...

Until the comments made by board directors came out of the AGM, I would have said to keep them separate, now I am not so sure. BT Group will be responsible for appointing the directors of BT Retail and will also be dictating the culture under which BTR operate.

It is much easier to keep them separate, and will not do any harm. Showing them as one may make for a more complicated diagram.

Don't forget, BT also have international ISP interests and those will not be under the control of BTR.

[phormwatch]

I've created two entities: One for BT Retail and one for BT Group plc.

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

No they havent R jones look

The group is one of three UK internet service providers which have conducted trials of technology developed by Phorm, an Aim-listed company, which tracks the web-surfing habits of its internet users to enable it to target advertising more tightly.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34c59420-5...077b07658.html

stock exchange knows more about developments than this government, says a whole lot ;s.

sorry re read it it says "The group is one of three" ref to BT at the start BT been the one.

Something else for newcomers, and for regulars who haven't already noticed, head over to twit....

http://twit.tv/sn153

The interview with Alex is up.

Newcomers may also wish to listen to edition 151 (the last half explaining more about phorm technology will be more of interest)

[Bonglet]

Re-read it wildie the one (change the group for BT) is in the past tense it still says 3 conducted tech trials (So Does the charles stanley securities document back the claim up earlier) :p.

We all know the tech trials were on the networks but didnt serve ads in 2007 - also remember these tech trials would have been used for development of phorm kit mk3 2008 that dr clayton got to eyball, he even mentioned somewhere that he saw an older more horrific version of the phorm kit but didnt see it in action someone might remember where.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Re-read it wildie the one (change the group for BT) is in the past tense it still says 3 conducted tech trials (So Does the charles stanley securities document back the claim up earlier) :p.

We all know the tech trials were on the networks but didnt serve ads in 2007 - also remember these tech trials would have been used for development of phorm kit mk3 2008 that dr clayton got to eyball, he even mentioned somewhere that he saw an older more horrific version of the phorm kit but didnt see it in action someone might remember where.

I think what has happened is that the article was originally wrong on both counts earlier -
a)the para about "three UK internet service providers which have conducted trials" and
B)when it named VM and CPW as having done trials.

Then I think the lawyers of VM and CPW got in touch so they had to alter the second para. But they left the first para because no one could action them on it as it wasn't naming anyone.

Someone on BT Beta forums also pointed out that the sentence "Critics have alleged that BT conducted trials without customers' consent in 2006-07." is also a bit economical with the truth, as it isn't an allegation but a FACT admitted eventually and reluctantly and publicly and on the record by an embarrassed BT.

Maybe people could use the "contact us" at the FT to ask who the "three" are who have supposedly conducted trials, if they aren't CPW and VM. Only leaves a very small sector of the market - because BT, VM and CPW are supposed to hoover up 70% of the broadband market between them.

I tried doing it myself this morning but the wretched contact form page reset and timed out after I had typed most of my letter so will try again later. Maybe that's part of the design of the page to discourage complaints... Did it a second time too. What a waste of time. It loses everythng you write!

As to the "motives" for that - I couldn't possibly comment. But well spotted.

[Bonglet]

Do a search for my name on here cable forum someone have a look at some of my comments and others from last year especialy note comments of since the name change was a great deal of similar to me posts in the time i came to cable forum to look for answers of how this happened overnight to most people.
yes the name change to virgin media the very same name change that changed the T&C's of vm to include the word PROFILING and that they could profile you (Only kit i know that profiles is phorms).
http://www.broadbandgenie.co.uk/blog...eviews-please/
check out some the users comments there about march and after and ignore the non broadband ones.

All of this stuff didnt click into place for me untill i seen the channel 4 steven mainwairing interview this year and that guy was having more or less exact same problems as me added with reading dr claytons report and how phorms kit would affect a user it was all too very similar was like reading wow thats what happened to me last year.

[Deko]

@ r jones, type into notepad then cut n paste into feedback form when you are ready.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Deko

@ r jones, type into notepad then cut n paste into feedback form when you are ready.

Yes thanks. I'll be doing that next time I try!!!

Update - made it!

"Re the article "BT to begin further trials of ad technology" - By Philip Stafford.
Published: July 17 2008 03:37 | Last updated: July 17 2008 03:37

I see that you have already corrected in the online article, a factual error regarding the claim that Virgin Media and CarphoneWarehouse/TalkTalk have trialled Phorm. Unfortunately there remain two other paragraphs with what appear to be factual inaccuracies.

Firstly, you state that, "The group is one of three UK internet service providers which have conducted trials of technology developed by Phorm, an Aim-listed company". I am well informed on this subject, and I am not aware of any other UK ISP outside of BT Retail, who have trialled this technology. Are you sure you can substantiate this statement? You have already admitted that neither VM nor CPW were responsible for these trials, so who did you have in mind?

Secondly, you state tht "Critics have alleged that BT conducted trials without customers’ consent in 2006-07." Actually the conduct of trials without consent is not just an allegation by critics. BT have fully admitted that they did indeed conduct covert trials in 2006 and 2007 and have also admitted, on the record, in documents from the UK ICO, that are published on the web as a result of an FOI process, that these trials were without the consent of their customers. This is not an allegation, it is a matter of fact.

Articles such as this have a direct effect on the share price of Phorm. The last time it rose substantially was the result of announcements about trials. Unsubstantiated rumours about trials in the press, can adversely affect the fortunes of investors. Given that FT is alleged to have links with Phorm through partnership in the Open Internet Exchange, it is incumbent on FT journalists to be very sure that the content of stories on this company are edited to the highest standards of accuracy or you may expose yourself to Regulator scrutiny.

Any reply to this correspondence will be published on the web unless you indicate to the contrary in which case your wishes will be respected.

Thank you and best wishes."

[rryles]

@R jones

Very well written. An article in the FT can definitely have an effect on the share price so it is important that this is corrected.

I would add one thing. Shouldn't the paper declare the potential conflict of interest? What do others think?

[Rchivist]

From the Lords questions session and Baroness Miller's questions in particular,
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ldtoday/02.htm

This was a Home Office Q&A session and involved Baroness Miller - fresh from her appearance at the demo and full of good info from the campaign to counter the Phorm PR.

Internet Privacy
11.15 am
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What guidance they have issued to internet service providers on when and how they can intercept their customers’ website use; and what information they have made available to the public about the privacy issues involved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, the Home Office provides guidance about lawful interception conducted under warrant for law-enforcement purposes. This is separate from advice provided by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the relevant business facing legislation. ISPs may, with the consent of the consumer, use information about consumers’ internet use for the provision of value-added services. The Information Commissioner provides information to the public on privacy issues.

So - another acronym to add to the glossary.
BERR- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Anyone been in touch with them? Letters, references, statements from ministers etc.?

If it's their job to advise business about regulation compliance etc. maybe we need to do some FOI to that department to find out if they have been in touch with Phorm/BT and when.
Aim - to reduce wriggle room. If BT/Phorm talked neither to Home Office NOR BERR prior to trials then any claim to due diligence looks increasingly weak.

Also - if they have talked to BERR it would be good to know what advice they were given.

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by R Jones

BERR- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Anyone been in touch with them? Letters, references, statements from ministers etc.?

I wrote to Alistair Darling, my MP - and he contacted BERR, namely John Hutton MP.

I will note that the response from Mr Hutton is extremely empty, and appears to contain alot of Phorm PR. Additionally, he sent me the ICO Website Article (which I have viewed so many time already).

Quote - para 2 from the letter:

As you may be aware, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have announced plans to track Internet web activity using Phorm's Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) products. Many web pages, including for example search engine results pages, include advertising which may or may not be of interest to the customer. Phorm enables the ISP to replace these advertisements with others that are relevant to the customer's recent web browsing. This potentially means less irrelevant advertisements for the user and better targeting of their advertisements for the advertgisers, for which they would pay the ISP.

You should note in addition to Mr Hutton drafting this letter to Mr Darling using the Phorm PR as a reference; Mr Hutton also appears to have a few of the facts incorrect.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

You all missed the really meaty result of the AGM protest which was the debate about the covert trials in HoL today!!!

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ldtoday/02.htm

Well done to Radio 4 for including much of the sound track from this debate in their parliament report this morning. It was given the prime 8:55 slot.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer is an amazing speaker. The written words did not give credit to the strength and depth of her presentation. If she had made her short speech to the BT AGM they would not have dared summarise the words as being some questions.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno was also given air time this morning as part of the short sound extract. His mention of "and the use of this technology, especially by Virgin Media, to write to 800 customers warning them about this downloading" - does anyone know what he is talking about? I suspect it is to do with the video and music file sharing. If so, it does show that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the 2 different methods of detecting.

However, it does show how easy it is for a script which is sitting somewhere other than within the ISP to also capture a lot of data about what people are doing on the internet. If people feel that a script 'in the wild' is damaging to their privacy, once they understand what DPI is capable of doing .... coupled with misunderstanding .... the thought does not bare thinking about.

Just look at how excited people are getting at the tracking now being done by scripts hosted by search engines. Those in the know have been talking about these scripts and privacy invasion for 2 - 3 or more years and, until now, very few people have been listening. The free analytics have been seen as an essential tool for sites that have poor hosting that does not provide access to logs. Even commercial sites are happy to host this script and give away all their visitor data - they even host an https version on the login and shopping cart pages.

No wonder so many people feel that websites will not be an issue when it comes to DPI interception.

The problem seems to be that there is a whole generation of web developers that know no more than that there is a free analytics script available that they can host i t on a website and then charge their client a fortune for ever month when they print off a few pages of a report. I just feel so sorry for the clients that are paying to give away their commercial secrets.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

I wrote to Alistair Darling, my MP - and he contacted BERR, namely John Hutton MP.

I will note that the response from Mr Hutton is extremely empty, and appears to contain alot of Phorm PR. Additionally, he sent me the ICO Website Article (which I have viewed so many time already).

Quote - para 2 from the letter:

As you may be aware, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have announced plans to track Internet web activity using Phorm's Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) products. Many web pages, including for example search engine results pages, include advertising which may or may not be of interest to the customer. Phorm enables the ISP to replace these advertisements with others that are relevant to the customer's recent web browsing. This potentially means less irrelevant advertisements for the user and better targeting of their advertisements for the advertgisers, for which they would pay the ISP.

You should note in addition to Mr Hutton drafting this letter to Mr Darling using the Phorm PR as a reference; Mr Hutton also appears to have a few of the facts incorrect.

Okay - that's helpful.

I have a bit of jargon of my own now - I think we can classify these key people as either

UNinphormed -average member of public who simply hasn't heard of Phorm
DEphormed - someone who has chatted to Kent or read the Phorm PR
or
REphormed - someone who has read the information we can give them

We have seen some really encouraging signs of key public figures being REphormed. I think Baroness Miller is a classic example - look at her performance in the Lords just after the demo. Her questions were spot on and so useful.

When a DEphormed figure makes a public statement (I would classify John Hutton's reply as DEphormed) then we need to be nice to them and REphorm them. They may then be very useful to us. Like all those shareholders that got REphormed on Wednesday. Well done again everyone.

further comment:
The question from Lord Northesk that Lord West of Spithead (HO) didn't answer at all in that session, was the one asking how/why the HO correspondence about Phorm got onto cryptome website. "My Lords, can the Minister explain how the Home Office advice to Phorm found its way onto the cryptome.org website?"
totally ignored!
Always interested in the questions that didn't get answered!

[Wild Oscar]

I wrote to Alistair Darling, my MP - and he contacted BERR, namely John Hutton MP.

I got virtually the same response from my MP Paul Clark .. although to be fair he did seem genuinely surprised in his first e-mail back to me ..

Enclosed was a letter from Shriti Vadera at BERR which is seems to be word-for-word as yours, and also includes the ICO website article!