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

[hOrZa]

Originally Posted by icsys

Soon all newborn will be given chip implants at birth. And your every move throughout the world will be monitored.

If its just tracking then they could already be doing it

http://www.tfot.info/news/1032/hitac...rfid-chip.html

[Tharrick]

Well, I've just had another letter from Tim Boswell saying that he's noted my helpful further comments on the phorm/webwise issue. Looking forward to seeing what he gets done.

[Florence]

Lets not get diverted by other matters all deserve their own threads for discussions since they all need a different type of battle this is the present battle and this does need to be rained in. Phorm/webwise with its patent and manipulated by an untrustworthy scriptor has the ability to take over your identity, all from your own PC and from within your ISP....

That is the main link that the ISP is willing to allow rootkit servers on their network.

So come on anything that you feel is invading your privacy start a new thread you can link to it so others will not miss it but please let us keep on track here...

[dav]

Sort of related...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...d_consent.html

[Dephormation]

X-Post from badphorm, I just noticed a subtle change (I think) to the wording on webwise.bt.com site.

Instead of saying

BT Webwise is not available until BT Webwise is switched on.

It now says...

The Webwise feature is not available at this time.

Not sure what significance (if any) this has. But someone is clearly twiddling with it.

Rob? Any ideas?

[mark777]

Originally Posted by dav

Sort of related...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...d_consent.html

International working group set up to investigate legal solutions to informed consent, managed by 80/20 thinking.

Originally Posted by mark777

International working group set up to investigate legal solutions to informed consent, managed by 80/20 thinking.

What's wrong with the current solution?

Not convenient enough for Phorm I suppose!




EDIT: Still I suppose Simon "Two Hats" will get to pay his mortgage on time from the proceeds

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by BBC Link

An international working group has been created to help uncover solutions to the problem of how to create a "legally acceptable means of establishing consumer consent".

How about asking them up front, clearly and succinctly?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

What's wrong with the current solution?

There's nothing wrong with the current solution, unless you've broken the law already.

Then you need to change the law (retrospectively) or buy an opinion, to avoid prison.

I understand the working group will be filmed, and the entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

X-Post from badphorm, I just noticed a subtle change (I think) to the wording on webwise.bt.com site.

Instead of saying

BT Webwise is not available until BT Webwise is switched on.

It now says...

The Webwise feature is not available at this time.

Not sure what significance (if any) this has. But someone is clearly twiddling with it.

Rob? Any ideas?

Nope. No idea at all and I have nothing to add! Its gone v quiet! (I think they'll attack at dawn)

I see BT are still basically advertising a cookie based opt-out, with an option to block www.webwise.net cookies as a permanent opt-out if you do't want webwise cookies on your computer.

No sign on the FAQ of a change to opt-IN but then the Webwise trial is Opt-IN anyway and they aren't saying anything about the final design of Webwise at this point. I think they have realised that the safest way to avoid putting their feet in their mouths is to keep their mouths closed.

No sign either of how the Webwise trial invitation is to be issued - whether by illegal interception of a browsing request for a 3rd party site or merely by a legal customer service message when a customer visits BT-ISP customer pages such as bt.com or BTYahoo Homepage or BTYahoo Webmail.

No indication of how comprehensive the informed consent will be on the Webwise trial invitation.

BT are now blocking my emailed questions with their spam filters, unless I change to a new address. I've asked if they can explain why they are doing that rather than just admitting that they don't want to answer any more questions, so I can forward their reply to the regulator. And I've sent a list of legal questions by snail mail to the BT Retail legal department.

Latest "official" Webwise trial commencement date now only six days away with formal 24 hours notice therefore only five days away (Sunday!!)

BT Beta forums currently throwing up server errors all morning. Some BT customers reporting problems logging into BTYahoo! webmail.

Reading between the lines of Dr Richard Clayton's blog, I suspect he may be getting very annoyed at being misled by Phorm. Aren't we all!?

[thebarron]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

There's nothing wrong with the current solution, unless you've broken the law already.

Then you need to change the law (retrospectively) or buy an opinion, to avoid prison.

I understand the working group will be filmed, and the entire event will be placed unedited on the Web shortly.

Right next to the Phorm video I expect!

[popper]

Originally Posted by icsys

Soon all newborn will be given chip implants at birth. And your every move throughout the world will be monitored.


It would seem that in the US, they are now actively discussing the legality of web monitoring for ads.

NebuAd refused to disclose what advertising networks--such as DoubleClick or Microsoft's Aquantive--it uses, or what broadband providers it counts as customers. So did Phorm and Front Porch (which said it could not arrange an interview).

it possible these US laws will go by unnoticed unless highlighted so
"...
Three federal laws, three legal hurdles
At least three wiretapping-related federal laws restrict what broadband providers can do:

the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA);
the Communications Act of 1934; and the
Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984.

The cable privacy law is the most restrictive and applies only to cable broadband providers--meaning, thanks to a law written when the Apple Macintosh was new, they're at a competitive disadvantage to AT&T and Verizon.

The cable privacy law is unusually onerous because it requires the "prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber" before any personally identifiable information can be collected. What that means is sending a postcard or e-mail telling customers that they can opt-out (which is what cable providers are doing so far) may not be good enough.
...
"

also, i found this part interesting, it seems that their entire basis for consent is flawed in that to "convincingly show" that consent, nothing beats a confirmation email or better, a signed letter in law.

"...
The 2003 In Re Pharmatrak decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit offers a glimpse of how judges view consent.

The court ruled in a case involving Web tracking "that it makes more sense to place the burden of showing consent on the party seeking the benefit of the exception."

The judges approvingly cited a second case, which said "consent can only be implied when the surrounding circumstances convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception."

Yet another legal obstacle for Web monitoring is the Communications Act, which says companies engaged in "transmitting" communications shall not "divulge" those contents.

"The question is whether or not a third party like this can track usage for things other than for routine maintenance of a network--they are entitled to do that," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program. "But where you're actually tracking the content of what users do, there are serious questions there about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the cable laws." ...
"

US law:
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA);
http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html

the Communications Act of 1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984
much the same as the UK/EU DPA type act but with more bite
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47...1----000-.html

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by dav

Sort of related...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...d_consent.html

i have just added my comment below to the article

with 80/20 thinking being a consultant to phorm for the impending rollout by BT, virgin media and talk talk of phorms WEBWISE product, and the requirement for the users of this services to make an "informed choice" is there not a conflict of interest here for 80/20 thinking as their client phorm has a direct interest in the recomendations of this working group, and getting them watered down?

80/20 thinking have also yet to release the promised video of the public meeting which happened several weeks ago(that they arranged for phorm i believe) where phorm was to answer its critics, speculation is they dare not release it as it shows phorm (their client) in a bad light

put these two things together and you have to ask if they can be independant and have the interest of the public and not a client at heart

peter

[Wildie]

I can get onto the bt vision forums no problem but any other they have not at all.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Wildie

I can get onto the bt vision forums no problem but any other they have not at all.

please email the moderator at forum.moderation.team AT bt.com and add your voice to the rest of us complaining about this - been down all day.
(Maybe they are connecting the Webwise equipment up today... ! )