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

[Chroma]

Can the cock measuring contest please stop?

Rather than argue about what should and shouldnt be done or whos opinion is right wouldnt it be time better served to actualy go and do something?

If pepople feel the need to continualy argue with one another can they please take it to PM or if they need the ego stroke make a seperate cesspool thread?

The simple fact is the inhouse bickering is doing nothing to forward the cause and is actualy serving only to detriment an otherwise decent thread.

[GeoffW]

Can I ask someone to clarify whether Phorm will insert of change ads of sites not signed up to their system, or simply profile them and then insert relevant ads into sites that have signed up?

i.e the only way the system modifies the source web page is when the host has signed up with them?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by GeoffW

Can I ask someone to clarify whether Phorm will insert of change ads of sites not signed up to their system, or simply profile them and then insert relevant ads into sites that have signed up?

i.e the only way the system modifies the source web page is when the host has signed up with them?

It is stated they will only display ads on OIX partnered sites; however it should be made clear that we only have their word for this. Historically (the covert BT trials) they did insert ads into pages which did not consent and also their patent application is rather dodgy in this regard.

Alexander Hanff

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by windowcleaner

hmm, isn't this phorms argument - It doesn't matter that we intercept everything - because we take steps to ignore everything private then it's legal.

Not in my book!

Well, yes and no. I’m not arguing for Phorm. I’m using the same argument as BTs lawyers but against them.

Fipr/Nick Bohm do have some very compelling cases where the implied consent argument clearly does not apply.

The beauty here is that it is relatively easy to prove that Phorm cannot with accuracy detect and ignore all such content. How can an intercept box detect the difference between a private page authorised by a session cookie and a visit to the Times Online?

Or at least without implementing an opt-in for webmasters, but not for the reasons that many people believe.

RIPA (arguably) only applies to communications, and no-one can deny that an email or private message thread on Myspace is not a private communication.

The opt-in would be to indicate that the site did not convey private messages , opt-in being the only reliable way of ignoring each and every one of the estimated hundreds of thousands of private email, messaging and other similar sites on the internet.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Life can be so ironic! Just had this email from BT

Dear BT Forum user,
<snip>

I've had one too.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

RIPA (arguably) only applies to communications, and no-one can deny that an email or private message thread on Myspace is not a private communication.

This I agree with, but again I have to point out that it is not the content of the communication which is applicable under RIPA, it is the actual communication itself, irrespective of the content within it. It applies to all communications on a Public Telecommunications Network (which includes PSTN and Internet conduits etc.)

Alexander Hanff

[murfitUK]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and would like to add my tuppenceworth.

There has been lots of talk of various legislation which may, or may not, be invoked to permit or prevent Phorm from happening. We can't rely on legislation to protect us - even if Phorm is found to be unlawful today there is nothing to stop the government from changing the law tomorrow to allow it.

This issue is about money. Full stop.

VM wants to make money from us as subscribers. VM also wants to make money by handing our details to Phorm. Phorm wants to make money from advertisers. And advertisers want to make money from us - when we click and buy their products.

Without advertisers, Phorm will not exist.

The only way we can really stop this is to make it clear to potential advertisers that we will campaign to boycott their products. Not just their web-based selling sites but high street stores as well. Can we find out which companies have expressed an interest in Phorm? If so, it is those companies we need to put pressure on.

Remember, the Guardian withdrew - they said it didn't phit (sorry, fit) into the ethos of the newspaper, but I bet they got phrightened (sorry, frightened) when they saw the strength of feeling of the public. I myself have taken the Guardian for 25 years and wrote to the editor to say I would stop if they signed up. I like to think that, however small, my protest helped them come to their senses.

Let's set up a boycott site and target the retailers - without the retailers and their adverts, Phorm will not exist.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by GeoffW

Can I ask someone to clarify whether Phorm will insert of change ads of sites not signed up to their system, or simply profile them and then insert relevant ads into sites that have signed up?

i.e the only way the system modifies the source web page is when the host has signed up with them?

AFAIK they insert "relevant ads" into OIX.net linked websites. Not sure what happens to the ads those sites already carry. Try here
http://www.phorm.com/oix/publishers.php
but wash your hands carefully after handling this site.

[Chroma]

Originally Posted by GeoffW

Can I ask someone to clarify whether Phorm will insert of change ads of sites not signed up to their system, or simply profile them and then insert relevant ads into sites that have signed up?

i.e the only way the system modifies the source web page is when the host has signed up with them?

As Alex stated its only OIX websites that will provide altered adverts based on your personal habits.

However its unclear as to how your data will be handled if you where to opt out, the feeling is (based on the tech at present) is that regardless of your consent your data will still run through Phorm equipment before getting to the page you requested.
Meaning in simple terms they can still see everything you do over http:// sites but that they wont actualy store the information they've snooped.

This may differ on implementation however, for instance BT could implement a way that would effectively give you a direct connection whereas say virgin would rerout your data regardless of your consent. How this would be done at this point is not entirely clear.

Furthermore should an external party gain access to the phorm equipment and youve opted out but still go through the equipment (which at this point seems the default scenario) then you would still be entirely vulnerable to that external parties whims.

Once the equipment is up and running then your ISP has effectively placed every customer at considerable risk for the sake of a few quid per battery farmed human connected.

going slightly off at a tangent here:
Have you noticed the myriad of available viruses and exploits/hacks on the internet today?
Notice that there are very few targeting systems like Linux/BSD/Unix or mac platforms?
People spend considerable time writing these things for what i can see as being two main reasons.
1: A wide target audience to harvest.
2: a dislike for Microsoft in general.

Now look at the phorm system, it will undoubtedly (if Kent has his way) have a vast userbase so point 1 looks promising to any prospective would be hacker.

And the dislike for Microsoft is nothing compared to the feelings on Phorm so point 2 is also filled.

I can see the system (especialy in the early stages) as being full of all kinds of exploits that the russian coders had failed to think of.
I feel personaly that everyones data that passes through the system is therefore at a considerable risk of being missused by people whose motives are unclear. At the current juncture this means everyone connected to an ISP who has launced the Phorm system, irregardless of wether theyve opted in or out.

A little frightening huh?

[popper]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

As I've been careful to say, I was questioning not dictionary attacks but your assertion about random alphanumeric strings. But as Mick points out this is OT so PM me.

If you re-read my original post that seemed for some reason to have caused so much controversy:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6037.html

I said "Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt"

I heard them say that in one of Cpt. Jamie's videos. I saw it in Clayton. I had reasonable grounds to say exactly and precisely what I did.

Now I know what I said was maybe an unpopular view, and maybe the moderators will do the courtesy of re-reading my original post, but I really don't think copyright holders do have a very strong legal argument against Phorm *if* what Phorm say is correct and they provide one or more mechanisms for content owners to opt-out.

I also stand by my original assertion that *some* lawyers will argue for the premise of implied consent on published works.

I still don't support what Phorm are doing, so why this original post caused such a wave of anger from some posters which lead to me being cast in a demonic light is beyond me.

your view is not unpopular ,infact your the only person to bring it up AFAICS in this thread,we can explore that in a reasonable mannor and come to a consensus perhaps!.

its your diversion from stating your view, was the point people took and take offence, nothing new there, attack someone, get berated for it......that isnt beyond your understanding is it, OC its not.

on the matter of your view as regards the not a very strong legal argument assuming they put in place this content owners opt-out.......


OK, so lets look at that...., you agree and understand that in the UK and EU there is infact an automatic right to copyright protection, and all the remedys that go with that, yes/no ?.

its always been my contension that a users content is also covered in this auto copyright legislation, but lets just concentrate on the website owner for your purposes for the moment...


so,admitedly not very long, but for the past 30 minutes iv looked for any and all UK statute regarding opting out of copyright, and at no point can i find anything that does not reference the original content owner signing a valid "legal notice" to give up their right to said ownership (PD)to make 3rd partys using it legal( fair use and the % of content not withstanding etc).

i didnt look at any EU legislation or statute....


can you find or give here, any UK OR EU legislation or statute, or even non binding legally factual advice, or (very ) strong legal argument anywere to move this content owner gives up their many legal right's with a mere (and this is a KEY point) 3rd party provided opt-out option perspective forward ?

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by popper

...

OK, so lets look at that...., you agree and understand that in the UK and EU there is infact an automatic right to copyright protection, and all the remedys that go with that, yes/no ?.

Preface: the following applies to copyright and not RIPA

Just look at how search engines operate. They breach website owner's copyright, but they offer an opt-out. robots.txt is an established mechanism for saying whether or not as a content owner you agree to have your pages read and classified by an automated process.

Parallels will be drawn by lawyers whether you like it or not, and worldwide courts have sided with the search engine's arguments.

Google make money. A lot of money. From your copyright. Yes, they give a lot back to both vistors and content owners, but at the end of the day they are making money off the back of content owners.

The ISPs will put every argument forward to show they too are part of the symbiosis and they should be allowed to make an honest buck too. I don't agree with this, but I firmly believe they will continue to stress this point.

When someone puts content online there are certain expectations as to how the content will be used and accessed. In my view you are wrong to make these black and white distinctions and parallels. My view, my opinion.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Parallels will be drawn by lawyers whether you like it or not, and worldwide courts have sided with the search engine's arguments.

Worldwide courts have done no such thing. There have been a number of cases which have done the opposite. Google Images had one case overturned on appeal but only because they only provided thumbnails as opposed to the actual images and linked directly to the site to see the actual image so it was determined as fair use.

Google rarely gets taken to court over caching or storing keywords not because the courts have judged in the favour but because most web sites want Google to spider them, they benefit from it and it drives people to their web site. The minority who do not what Google to visit them have the choice to take them to court or use robots.txt which is seen as a valid option because Google provide a unique user-agent string and have an established reputation for adhering to robots.txt. I don't recall any judgement ever being made in Google's favour over robots.txt opt out, if you know of one please cite it.

The -big- difference between Google and Phorm is Phorm uses your content to pull customers away from your site, not drive them to it (as eloquently explained on the BCS blog posted earlier today).

But to say there are worldwide court judgements favouring Google on this issue is "exactly not correct" </Kent>, unless of course as I said above you can cite this overwhelming support from the courts for Google with specific case law?

Internet Archive (archive.org) has also fallen the wrong side of the law on this issue.

This was discussed here about 2000 posts back maybe a bit further.

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Preface: the following applies to copyright and not RIPA

Just look at how search engines operate. They breach website owner's copyright, but they offer an opt-out. robots.txt is an established mechanism for saying whether or not as a content owner you agree to have your pages read and classified by an automated process.

Parallels will be drawn by lawyers whether you like it or not, and worldwide courts have sided with the search engine's arguments.

Google make money. A lot of money. From your copyright. Yes, they give a lot back to both vistors and content owners, but at the end of the day they are making money off the back of content owners.

The ISPs will put every argument forward to show they too are part of the symbiosis and they should be allowed to make an honest buck too. I don't agree with this, but I firmly believe they will continue to stress this point.

When someone puts content online there are certain expectations as to how the content will be used and accessed. In my view you are wrong to make these black and white distinctions and parallels. My view, my opinion.

sure, Ok .. so in effect your saying it's your view (and/or the view of these legal people you have talked with/about) that because it might seen as so called "industry Practice" to ignore some/any of the laws and clauses as layed out by the UK and EU , then its also OK for a new player to do the same?.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by murfitUK

<snip>

Let's set up a boycott site and target the retailers - without the retailers and their adverts, Phorm will not exist.

I have already pointed out to amazon that if they became part of the OIX platform I would buy eslwhere that I had no intentions of buying anything from businesses that joined.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Just look at how search engines operate. They breach website owner's copyright, but they offer an opt-out. robots.txt is an established mechanism for saying whether or not as a content owner you agree to have your pages read and classified by an automated process.

Phorm is not a search engine. Not never, not ever, not at all. Nothing like a search engine.

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Google make money. A lot of money. From your copyright. Yes, they give a lot back to both vistors and content owners, but at the end of the day they are making money off the back of content owners.

Google make money. Not from my copyright content, but from their adverts.

To paraphrase a famous political quote;
"Links to my pages were served by Google: I know Google; Google is a friend of mine. Phorm, you're no Google."



Pete.