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

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by icsys

Pete, did you send a FOI request via writetothem? I can't find anything on there: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/ico
Just wondering if it has been 'misplaced' or perhaps you wrote directly to Richard Thomarse?

Ah perhaps I mis-spelt his name? That might explain it

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Dephormation will vanish at 10pm precisely. Sorry.

[Wild Oscar]

Originally Posted by tarka

How can the police say they have not received any complaints? As far as I know every attempt at reporting this has been met with a refusal to issue a crime reference number?

Surely you must realise our police force have far more important things to do!

Only today for example both my nephews were stopped by the boys in blue while out riding their scooters .. one was told his vehicle was illegal because 'it was too dirty' .. the other was told to go home and get properly dressed 'you must wear a leather jacket and gloves' ..

excuse this moment of madness ...

[Deko]

@ Alex, did you legal papers turn up before 1400 today or did the sabre rattlers go quiet ?

Bt/Phorm will not take this to court as it means eveidence would have to be produced , and they know this is bad for them.

Shame really.

Originally Posted by tarka

How can the police say they have not received any complaints? As far as I know every attempt at reporting this has been met with a refusal to issue a crime reference number?

Originally Posted by mark777

We are told by HMG that Police are responsible for investigations of RIPA violations though. Does this mean a formal complaint is needed?

Originally Posted by Hank (but in an envelope with a first class stamp on it)

Sir Norman Bettison
Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police
West Yorkshire Police Headquarters
PO Box 9
Wakefield
WF1 3QP

26th May 2008



Dear Sir Bettison


BT plc - Interception of communications, contrary to RIPA 2000

In the Hansard publication within the last week that there is a response to a 'Question for Written Answer' from the Earl Of Northesk. A Home Office parliamentary under secretary, Lord West of Spithead, states that suspected breaches of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would be investigated by the police.

It is for this reason that I write to you. I wish to report what appears to be a crime by a corporate body who has offices within our county. This needs to be investigated so that any evidence found can be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

On April 3rd this year I witnessed a director of BT appear on Channel 4 News*, confirming that individuals within BT had carried out acts of interception of communications. I am currently not aware if my communications were intercepted but I read on the internet that the number of individuals affected is probably in excess of 100,000.

BT plc confirmed that they intercepted the communications of a number of their customers in 2006 and in 2007. It appears that this was without any warrant or requirement to do so from Government or other agency. This was allegedly done without the knowledge of their customers and done, not for counter terrorism or other criminal investigatory purposes. It seems to be contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and I cannot understand why we have not heard that any investigation has been carried out already, or is currently in progress.

I should stress that I am not suggesting any breach of the Data Protection Act which would not be a police matter. I am specifically concerned that there have been thousands of breeches of RIPA 2000 by individuals in BT plc, as confirmed by Ms Sanderson on television on April 3rd.

* Video evidence from Emma Sanderson, the BT director interviewed by Channel 4 News is available on the internet: http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/pl...p?showId=11622

I hope this information is useful and I trust that consideration of the need to investigate this further is given, unless such an investigation has been initiated already. Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely

I have it on authority of friends that he's a very good man who won't ignore this... well, we shall see - I will update of course (although I may have to paraphrase as, again, I have not advised that I would post the reply here (still not quite got the hang of this have I?!)

Hank

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

You might like to get back to them on that, and ask them, didn't they mean "the option to opt-IN"? That is what the ICO kindly very politely suggested that if they really didn't mind, he'd be very grateful if they could do it that way. (Think of the ICO as Mr Barraclough in Porridge, but without Mr Barraclough's overt aggressive tendencies)

Sorry but right now I'm disparing and the ICO seems to me to be more like an insanely grinning cheshire cat who just occasionally flicks their tale but other than that, it's claws are completely retracted and it's got nothing about it. Just laughable.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Hank

Sorry but right now I'm disparing and the ICO seems to me to be more like an insanely grinning cheshire cat who just occasionally flicks their tale but other than that, it's claws are completely retracted and it's got nothing about it. Just laughable.

retracted, no, it's been declawed.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

retracted, no, it's been declawed.

Yes, so it seems... the question is: Who took kitty to the vets and had this done? And will they be allowed to grow back? And will kitty use them after it has had a knap?

Seriously though, do we think that the ICO can be stirred into action?

Hank

[tarka]

Originally Posted by mark777

Just a quick one for the tech bods because I can't get my head around it.

Two weeks prior to the trial, advertising space was bought on non-phorm advertising platforms to do the cookie drop (as it would otherwise have breached BT T&C's).

Does this mean that the cookies would have been dropped into the 3rd party ad host domain?

Does this also mean the ad hosts must have been complicit? (Although I can't think why, they are rivals).

Presumably, then once the trial started, BT/Phorm would need to wait for the user to visit that ad domain again in order to retrieve the cookie and read the UID. Then it could forge cookies into all domains?

Why would this still not breach BT's T&C's?

Or have I got it all wrong?

Disclaimer: The following is NOT fact.. it is just a possible scenario for what happened and is only guesswork based on the information available.

My guess is that when they purchased ad space, the banners were served from a phorm (or then 121media) server, eg rather than supplying the ad company with the image files for banners they just gave them a link to point to (eg http://www.phormadserver.com/banner.php). So when you visited www.apopularshoppingsite.com (i hope that isn't a real site ), a banner was served from the phorm server which also dropped a cookie on the users machine.

This would seem logical, but I imagine when they ran the actual ad part of the trial, they purchased ad space again supplying the same link instead of an image (eg http://www.phormadserver.com/banner.php) meaning that all cookies dropped previously would be readable when ads were served. This would allow them to decide if you should be served a default advert or a targeted one.

The question arises however... how were they updating that cookie information to assign you to the advertising channels? My brain cogs are whirring... I think another read of Dr Claytons report is in order.

Originally Posted by tarka

Disclaimer: The following is NOT fact.. it is just a possible scenario for what happened and is only guesswork based on the information available.

I would also like to guess something, based purely on the facts and evidence we have - in the absence of any indication from BT or the ICO to the contrary:

BT may have misled the Information Commissioner's Office and not given them all the facts until they had to speak to them again after the leaked release of the BT report on the 2006 trials.

As I understand it they (BT) were seeking legal action to make Alexander H remove this suggested possible situation from the www.nodpi.org website but that by close of play today they had neither given any information to confirm or deny the case, nor had they issued any legal papers to insist that Alexander complies with their initial request to remove said statements.

All just my thoughts and comments, given what I have read. I could be wrong but currently I think not!

Hank

[mark777]

Originally Posted by tarka

This would seem logical, but I imagine when they ran the actual ad part of the trial, they purchased ad space again supplying the same link instead of an image (eg http://www.phormadserver.com/banner.php) meaning that all cookies dropped previously would be readable when ads were served. This would allow them to decide if you should be served a default advert or a targeted one.

The question arises however... how were they updating that cookie information to assign you to the advertising channels? My brain cogs are whirring... I think another read of Dr Claytons report is in order.

If they were not forging cookies in other domains once they had obtained your UID from the previous cookie drop, they couldn't profile all pages.

Unless they linked UID to IP?

I'm not sure how relevant Dr Claytons report would be to the version used in the 2006 trial, but I can't see how it could work without forging cookies or using IP.

EDIT : Was IP classified as PII in 2006?

[Dephormation]

Gone

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

Depending on developments, it may return in 7 days time.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Gone

http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

Depending on developments, it may return in 7 days time.

Pete, I congratulate you on your cunning. I know from your previous posts that the Dephormation site has become popular, and using this popularity this way borders on genius.

May I make one small suggestion - that you post a link to the petition? I noticed of late the petition struggling to make even 50 sigs per day, except when the BBC run a story, and has been overtaken by the (deserving) fuel price petition and beat into 4th place. Can we get it back up to 3rd?

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Pete, I congratulate you on your cunning. I know from your previous posts that the Dephormation site has become popular, and using this popularity this way borders on genius.

May I make one small suggestion - that you post a link to the petition? I noticed of late the petition struggling to make even 50 sigs per day, except when the BBC run a story, and has been overtaken by the (deserving) fuel price petition and beat into 4th place. Can we get it back up to 3rd?

A smart plan. I will do so after I've visited the gents. Sorry, that was too much info wasn't it?

[phormwatch]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Lets get /.'ing folks - http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=712283

Vote it up, leave some comments.

Alexander Hanff

Alex-

It's a disgrace the way the ICO has acted in this situation. Of course, the fight has just begun. Have you considered contacting various US government agencies, NGOs, and privacy advocates regarding the way Phorm and BT have operated in the UK? Given that you have first-hand knowledge and a great deal of information (including the leak) which may be useful to them, it might help them fight the battle in the United States.

For example:

http://tinyurl.com/535upx

It might be helpful to get in touch with these privacy organisations, as it may help them compile a case against Phorm.

After all, a victory over Phorm in the US is tantamount to a victory in the UK.

[serial]

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

There can't be only one BT dissenter. There can't be. And what about the Virgin techs? The same goes for you guys; in your case, you can stop it before it even starts and keep cable broadband clean of this plague!

And lets not forget the TalkTalk team, come on guys we haven't heard from you.

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Gone
http://www.dephormation.org.uk/

Depending on developments, it may return in 7 days time.

Just make sure you put it back if BT start the next trial

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Hank

I would also like to guess something, based purely on the facts and evidence we have - in the absence of any indication from BT or the ICO to the contrary:

BT may have misled the Information Commissioner's Office and not given them all the facts until they had to speak to them again after the leaked release of the BT report on the 2006 trials.

As I understand it they (BT) were seeking legal action to make Alexander H remove this suggested possible situation from the www.nodpi.org website but that by close of play today they had neither given any information to confirm or deny the case, nor had they issued any legal papers to insist that Alexander complies with their initial request to remove said statements.

All just my thoughts and comments, given what I have read. I could be wrong but currently I think not!

Hank

There is no possible way the honourable people at BT, a blue chip company of international repute, could ever knowingly mislead the ICO. Just because any reasonable person looking at the evidence now in the public realm and in the total absence of any reasonable alternative explanation or clarification from BT, might conclude that, just because a range of knowledgeable people with relevant experience in the ethical and legal areas that are germaine to this area er... iss - specific thingy - have said they should be prosecuted over the secret trials (including Dr Richard Clayton) - I would just like to say - they can't possibly have misled the ICO. It just wouldn't be right. And I can't afford the libel action so I would never make such a suggestion. It would be very foolish. I'd get sued if I said it. So I won't say it.

Hear that BT - because you might sue me for saying that you misled the ICO - I'm not saying it. I'm a BT customer of many years standing, I've been keeping myself well informed about this. I've studied your covert trials and your leaked documents. I'd love to express my opinion - I'd love to see you hammered by the ICO and I'd love to see the police raid your head office but I can't say you misled the ICO.

I am familiar with your management style. I am familiar with the way you do things. And although all the bits of the jigsaw appear to fit in a particular way, although all the signposts appear to point me in a particular direction, I won't say you misled the ICO. Of course you didn't. I can't think of any other interpretation of the facts, but if you say you didn't mislead the ICO then of course you didn't. There may be no explanation that makes the slightest sense, but nevertheless you didn't mislead the ICO.

But I'm very very angry. With BT for their obsession with covert and stealth activity, and with the ICO for being so feeble and guillible. Not that you misled him. Of course not. I don't want to be sued. So I won't say it. You wouldn't mislead the ICO. You misled your customers and called it "transparency" but of course you didn't mislead the ICO.

Perhaps we should all post on BT Beta forums saying "Of course BT didn't mislead the ICO" 1000 times, just like when we were at school doing lines? No - don't do that it would be very naughty.

I've come to the conclusion that neither the BT nor the ICO actually understand rational reasonable factual argument. I couldn't possibly speculate as to why that might be.

Maybe you didn't mislead the ICO. Maybe the Commissioner just doesn't fully understand his duties. Maybe someone is leaning on him. Maybe the ICO is a fig leaf. I don't know.

Maybe ridicule will work better?

Of course if BT write to me demanding a retraction of this post - then in obedience to the legal muscle I will of course retract this post, in which I insist that BT did not mislead the ICO.

I hope that BT appreciate just how loyal their customers are. Just like those who line the streets of Harare to cheer Mr. Mugabe, just like those who chanted in support of Enver Hoxha and Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Caucescu, we loyal BT customers join together, in very very straight row, conscious of your friendly lawyers alongside us, and we say,

Viva BT! standard bearers for integrity, transparency and compliance!