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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

No...

Although inviting the world's greatest exponent of the electronic era to bakroll opposition to the lazy man's way to e-riches is a questionable strategy. My experience of 'selling yourself' is that someone else then owns you. Ask 80/20 about that one.

[GeoffW]

I can't see this getting very far with Microsoft. Their current arch enemy is Google who generate loads of cash from Google ads, they would see Phorm as a competitor who could steal revenue from Google so would probably be more inclined to support data pimping IMHO.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by GeoffW

I can't see this getting very far with Microsoft. Their current arch enemy is Google who generate loads of cash from Google ads, they would see Phorm as a competitor who could steal revenue from Google so would probably be more inclined to support data pimping IMHO.

With the greatest of respect to our ebullient leader, it was a rather naive move imo. I'm afraid I cringed in parts. I mean no offence but representing this cause must not get confused with personal aspiration.

[Frank Rizzo]

portly - sysip.net domain 2007.

In July 2007 it was registered to 121media.com and specifically in the name of Ahmet Can.

[kagemusha]

Did anyone else find the announcement that pensioners private data is to be shared with corporations in the name of 'fighting fuel poverty' a tad worrying?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7426123.stm

Guess what? It's going to be opt-out as well. Call me a suspicious type, but here's an excuse to change the DPA in favour of organisations such as Phorm.

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by GeoffW

I can't see this getting very far with Microsoft. Their current arch enemy is Google who generate loads of cash from Google ads, they would see Phorm as a competitor who could steal revenue from Google so would probably be more inclined to support data pimping IMHO.

Why would Microsoft want support Phorm data pimping wen Microsoft wants Yahoo!

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

portly - sysip.net domain 2007.

In July 2007 it was registered to 121media.com and specifically in the name of Ahmet Can.

Many thanks - here's a question I'll be submitting to the ICO and putting up on Inphormationdesk when I complete the update later today:

"Given that the data in the BT trials was processed at sysip.net, a domain operated outside the BT network by a former adware company with a poor ethical record, on what basis do you think privacy was not at risk?"

Let me know if it needs correcting or improving.

Originally Posted by bluecar1

could several of us take PI's interim PIA as a framework and write our own PIA?

this would be independant (as none of us are in the pocket of BT etc) ...

peter

Well I would find it hard personally, to write an independant PIA on Phorm, BT's implementation Webwise or anything to do with DPI! However, with several re-reads and re-writes I am sure there are enough capable authors here who would do a factual PIA which is unbiased etc. Interesting thought Peter...

Hank

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

If you google "BT AGM 2008", the protest is top hit...

Immediately below the official BT page for the event on my Google results (global anyway... on the Search UK only it is, oddly, further down)

Hank

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Originally Posted by bluecar1

and goingt to www.bt.com/webwise dies as well so they have not redirected to elsewhere

Searched BT pages for Webwise. Result came back - 1 item. Clicked link and yep...

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

Most likely causes:
- You are not connected to the Internet.
- The website is encountering problems.
- There might be a typing error in the address.

Does anyone think that "The website is encountering problems"?

Hank

[jelv]

Thinking forward - if BT implement Phorm, could BT do the following and still stay within the law:

Stage 1

Change the T&Cs for new users joining the service. These would include their version of what the Phorm/Webwise system does and could say that by agreeing to these T&Cs you are agreeing to be opted in to Webwise by default. BT/Phorm would then be able to say people had made inphormed consent.

We all know that many people just click agree without reading the conditions.

Stage 2

Require people changing or adding products to their service to agree to the T&Cs as above. For example, they will at some stage be moving people across to the higher ADSL2+ speeds offered under 21CN, this would be a great opportunity for them to effectively impose acceptance of changed conditions - accept Phorm or you can't have the higher speeds.


Going further, would it be legal for BT to at some stage to repeat the above, only making Phorm/Webwise mandatory with no opt out?

If the above is possible, surely that is a very strong argument against those idiots who are at present saying they are not too bothered because they will be able to opt out. Widespread penetration of Phorm in to the ISP market would put Kent in to an incredibly powerful position of being able to control the information fed to the masses.

Unfortunately, we can all think of examples around the world where people have only been shaken out of their apathy and tried to stand up to be counted after the argument has been lost. We must make sure that Kent (Adolf) Entrugel isn't allowed to become the latest example of evil men who succeed to gaining an inappropriate level of power.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

anyone noticed the modereators over on the BT forum seems to have gone silent,

and i have not noticed any posts being edited or removed lately?

perhaps they are actually watching the progress and it is ringing alarm bells with them?

peter

The reason they are quiet, is because they are too busy trying to chase the BTWebwise site around the internet and around the globe since various facts came out about how the BT Webwise site has been operating.

www.webwise.bt.com has just disappeared - that's the one that used to resolve to the Phorm IP
http://webwise.bt.com is still live but living much closer to home than it used to last week.

I must confess to a feeling of satisfaction that we may have created a lot of work and panic at BT - but there again - maybe it is all part of a carefully planned schedule of routine maintenance in preparation for the trials - which will no doubt be happening any day now.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jelv

Thinking forward - if BT implement Phorm, could BT do the following and still stay within the law:

Stage 1

Change the T&Cs for new users joining the service. These would include their version of what the Phorm/Webwise system does and could say that by agreeing to these T&Cs you are agreeing to be opted in to Webwise by default. BT/Phorm would then be able to say people had made inphormed consent.

We all know that many people just click agree without reading the conditions.

Stage 2

Require people changing or adding products to their service to agree to the T&Cs as above. For example, they will at some stage be moving people across to the higher ADSL2+ speeds offered under 21CN, this would be a great opportunity for them to effectively impose acceptance of changed conditions - accept Phorm or you can't have the higher speeds.


Going further, would it be legal for BT to at some stage to repeat the above, only making Phorm/Webwise mandatory with no opt out?

If the above is possible, surely that is a very strong argument against those idiots who are at present saying they are not too bothered because they will be able to opt out. Widespread penetration of Phorm in to the ISP market would put Kent in to an incredibly powerful position of being able to control the information fed to the masses.

Unfortunately, we can all think of examples around the world where people have only been shaken out of their apathy and tried to stand up to be counted after the argument has been lost. We must make sure that Kent (Adolf) Entrugel isn't allowed to become the latest example of evil men who succeed to gaining an inappropriate level of power.

I would say that BT are probably headed in that direction already.

If someone agrees to the BT Webwise trials they will get new T&C's - already stated by BT.

If someone agrees to the Webwise rollout if it occurs - they will also get new T&C's

If someone takes a new contract or additional services BT already are routinely in the habit of imposing new T&C's - so that is not anything new.

However - whatever the T&C's say - if the basic technology is still illegal then it fails.

The crunch will as you say, be - what ARE the barriers to legality? Depsite all the FIPR/Clayton/Davies/Hanff reports - it still isn't clear to me that we have established the illegality of Webwise/Phorm technology - if we had, the ICO and the police wouldn't be throwing it all back at us and saying go take a jump.

We may be convinced - but have we convinced anyone else yet?

If the only barrier is just "informed consent" - then getting DPI and targetted advertising working across the user base will be relatively easy within a period of 12 months or so with some clever marketing and "added value services" like BT Vision/BT Anywhere etc.

My recent experiences tracking what BT do with my data right NOW have convinced me that ISP's need watching very carefully - but by WHO? No one seems interested in doing the job - neither the ICO or the Police who look like they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the investigation.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I don't think we need a PIA and we certainly wouldn't need to plagiarise from the meaningless. There's no need to apply a legitimate process to an illegal concept imho. My prediction for 80/20's PIA is that it will never see the light of day or will be covered in whitewash. At least it wastes some of Phorm's money but I suppose buying in a potential opponent was a sneaky move. Shame 80/20 either didn't see through it or simply weighed up the deal and took the handout.

the idea is not plagerise, but use the PI pia as a framework to ensure all the relevant sections are included, without using any of their content.

the idea is in the absense of the official PI document to provide a fully independant one, which in the first paragraph makes it clear why it was written and the fact that all people who do not have a vested interest in phorm agree the DPI technology to be deployed breaks all the relevant regs (ripa, perc, dpa etc), then goes on to the main body which will included where the system break the relevant regs as part of the report.

this should then be presented to the press quoting we have done this to highlight the lack of this study and the fact it should have been part of any due diligence by BT etc, then wait for statements from phorm and BT

anyone want to help?

peter

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

the idea is not plagerise, but use the PI pia as a framework to ensure all the relevant sections are included, without using any of their content.

the idea is in the absense of the official PI document to provide a fully independant one, which in the first paragraph makes it clear why it was written and the fact that all people who do not have a vested interest in phorm agree the DPI technology to be deployed breaks all the relevant regs (ripa, perc, dpa etc), then goes on to the main body which will included where the system break the relevant regs as part of the report.

this should then be presented to the press quoting we have done this to highlight the lack of this study and the fact it should have been part of any due diligence by BT etc, then wait for statements from phorm and BT

anyone want to help?

peter

I'm good at polishing and injecting some emotion, tech docs tend to be a bit dry, and don't grab you by the throat.

[OldBear]

Fellas, didn't someone say that BT had some of this stuff hosted with theplanet.com? If so, this could be why it's gone:

Explosion at theplanet knocks out 9000 websites

OB

[serial]

I recommend everyone part of the campaign watches:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...16293369601334

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Fellas, didn't someone say that BT had some of this stuff hosted with theplanet.com? If so, this could be why it's gone:

Explosion at theplanet knocks out 9000 websites

OB

Could be right, looks like that IP address resolves to Houston (according to this web site).

Shame. I sincerely hope it doesn't come back.