Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] - Page 540

popper · 05-06-2008, 04:25

btw ,
BT GROUP PLC

TRANSACTION IN OWN SHARES - VOTING RIGHTS AND CAPITAL
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/L...650&source=RNS

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 05:11

Wikipedia updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 05:11 ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 ----------

It is now on WikiLeaks front page with a link to here:

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Britis...idation_report

Alexander Hanff

popper · 05-06-2008, 06:05

http://current.com/items/89001700_th...acts_in_8_days

Rchivist · 05-06-2008, 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

On cookies: Reading 4th section (page 46 of 52 in footer) - I see the 3rd paragraph states cookie dropping could not be done in this trial due to the legal position. So I'm not sure they did do this but if someone has evidence or has read in the hefty document that they did, I'll happily stand corrected.

Hank

Exactly - so they did it illegally - that's what the 2weeks pre-trial ads on popular 3rd party sites were for - to get as many 121Media cookies secretly dropped on people's systems as possible in advance - p7 "Normally the PageSense system deploys cookies directly to user's (sic) machines. BT's Broadband terms and conditions prevented this approach. Instead 121Media conducted an initial cookie drop exercise. For two weeks prior to the trial proper 121Media purchased advertising space on popular third-party websites from which cookies were dropped directly onto users machines. This approach in turn constrained the effectiveness of the BTRT trial since not all of the 10,000 triallists were covered by the initial-drop. Estimations were made that approximately 7,000 had received a cookie."

Aren't Terms and Conditions a pain? But never mind we can get round them, although darn it-we do feel our effectiveness has been constrained.

Tharrick · 05-06-2008, 06:47

Again, I go on holiday and come back to find 40 pages I need to go through.

This news about the ICO is appalling, and I'll be writing to my MP again and quoting select chunks. While I'm there I'll be mentioning, and probably giving the link to, that leaked document.

I am frankly sickened by that article, Alex. Sickened and terrified. Keep up the good work! I won't be happy until I see the people responsible in jail for this, and massive fines levied against BT and Phorm.

Rchivist · 05-06-2008, 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Wikipedia updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 05:11 ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 ----------

It is now on WikiLeaks front page with a link to here:

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Britis...idation_report

Alexander Hanff

Alex - the person at BT who has been handling customer questions (mostly by remaining silent and closing down the BT Beta Q&A thread over a month ago) and making press statements, is Adam Liversage, so do give his name as the BT press contact. I think it's time he answered a few difficult questions.

05-06-2008, 06:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Jones

Exactly - so they did it illegally - that's what the 2weeks pre-trial ads on popular 3rd party sites were for - to get as many 121Media cookies secretly dropped on people's systems as possible in advance - p7 "Normally the PageSense system deploys cookies directly to user's (sic) machines. BT's Broadband terms and conditions prevented this approach. Instead 121Media conducted an initial cookie drop exercise. For two weeks prior to the trial proper 121Media purchased advertising space on popular third-party websites from which cookies were dropped directly onto users machines. This approach in turn constrained the effectiveness of the BTRT trial since not all of the 10,000 triallists were covered by the initial-drop. Estimations were made that approximately 7,000 had received a cookie."

Aren't Terms and Conditions a pain? But never mind we can get round them, although darn it-we do feel our effectiveness has been constrained.

I know it is so wrong. However, even though they did it like this to get around the fact that their Ts & Cs did not allow them to do it "using PageSense in the trial" it does seem to me that you are dead right: They found a way to drop the cookies all over the place so that they could use the fact that they were there later, but without breaking the law (in their opinion). Is that what we are saying here?

Hank

Rchivist · 05-06-2008, 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

I know it is so wrong. However, even though they did it like this to get around the fact that their Ts & Cs did not allow them to do it "using PageSense in the trial" it does seem to me that you are dead right: They found a way to drop the cookies all over the place so that they could use the fact that they were there later, but without breaking the law (in their opinion). Is that what we are saying here?

Hank

I can't comment on which bits were more or less illegal than others. IANAL!
That's where this whole scenario is so surreal. If you take the FIPR line, the whole thing is illegal so the details are just details of which bit of illegality was which. all of it was illegal.

I think BT were less interested in legality and more in deniability which is really the name of the game now in our contract ridden, outsourced sub-contracted world. I serously think these executives have got to the point where they regard themselves as either above or immune to the law. They seem to think that it is something that only applies to the little people who pay their salaries.

Having spent a tedious amount of time on BT internal newsgroups being told by other customers that we had no proof, no evidence of wrongdoing, that we were scaremongering, I have to confess a certain amount of satisfaction in posting Alex's no DPI link there last night. And even more satisfaction emailing details to Emma Sanderson, Adam Liversage, Ben Verwaayen (sort of parting gift) and Ian Livingstone. Hope they enjoy their breakfast. It will not the day at the office that they were expecting.

I'm in London for 24 hours so expect I'll miss about 40 pages of this stuff!

Toto · 05-06-2008, 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

FULL REPORT! (minus personally identifiable data)

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Image:BT_Report.pdf

Enjoy.

Alexander Hanff
/me breaths out.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:05 ----------

I haven't sent a press release yet I wanted to scan it and get it up on wikileaks first, so I could stop panicking.

Alexander Hanff

Alex, somebody seems to have edited that page.

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Alex, somebody seems to have edited that page.

Yeah they changed the file name and added a section to the wiki for it. I have posted the link at the top of this page.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Britis...idation_report

Also, anyone with a /. account please vote this one up in firehose (already Yellow) by clicking the + button:

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=705657

Alexander Hanff

Bonglet · 05-06-2008, 07:38

Just goes to show how much isp's value the customers now, when i read that couldnt belive what i was reading tbh i bet the second trial lasted much longer involved more people and was still just as bad if not worse.

Sad day when you cant trust your isp especially when there in bed with crooks.

bluecar1 · 05-06-2008, 08:14

the debate is warming up over on the bt page at iii

just seen this

take a look at the list of acts possibly broken, seem to be a few i have not seen before

also we need to focus on how do they know the age of the person and do not show unsuitable adverts to a 8 year old if they only know a random number?

do websites come under the jurisdiction of advertising standards? or would BT as they are in effect serving the ads from THEIR servers?

peter

**************
leo said:
"Don't know what all the fuss is about over Phorm. I'd rather see adverts that are tailored to me than adverts for products I have no interest in.

There is a precedent - Google already responds to people's web searches to deliver adverts. "

the information is out there Leo if you want to read it, basicly Phorm/Webwise is using Deep Packet Inspection/Interception Hardwre kit that sits directly on the other side of your ISP payed for Broadband connection.

this special DPI kit has every single bit of your PCs web comunication (if your browser can see it, so can the Phorm interception for profit kit) sent through it, every single web page even password protected HTTP pages you request/click are then fully scaned/collected into their kits ram, processed.

and under UK and EU law, an unlawful derivative work is made without consent of the website content owner, or the ISP end user (should they refuse to take part in any trials, their datastream is still collected.and processed, but dont see the ad's onscreen apparently)for commercial profit.

apparently these are some of the laws broken by not getting Express/Explicit, and informed consent of both partys (end user AND the website content owners)or paying the profits of this unlawful derivative work to the owners.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

Computer Misuse Act 1990

Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (see derivative works)

Data Protection Act 1998 (IP addresses are legally defined as personally identifiable data)

this basic laymans copyright might be helpful to outlines the problems BT have placed themselves in during the prior trials without getting consent.

and dont forget may websites already have explicit terms against commercial use of the sites webpage content in their notices (including this very site infact
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co...opyright_myths

***********

NTLVictim · 05-06-2008, 08:27

We don't have to worry about stress analysis of Emma's voice..most people have a "telltale" when they tell porkies (touching the tip of the nose, etc..), and Emmas is when she lies, she s s s s stammers.

She's being lined up to take the fall on this one, I suspect.

Emma? The phrase you're looking for is "turning Queen's evidence".

AlexanderHanff · 05-06-2008, 08:32

Just a quick reminder cos the thread is moving at a bit of a pace at the moment:

Digg - http://digg.com/tech_news/BT_commite...acts_in_8_days

Slashdot (vote up please) http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=705657

Alexander Hanff

bluecar1 · 05-06-2008, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just a quick reminder cos the thread is moving at a bit of a pace at the moment:

Digg - http://digg.com/tech_news/BT_commite...acts_in_8_days

Slashdot (vote up please) http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=705657

Alexander Hanff

been posting comments to slashdot as well

peter