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

[philj]

hypothesis,
Gordon the gopher is passing the buck on this because he wants to spy on the likes of Ebay etc looking for undeclared income and cant do it himself cos he's p'd everybody off with his money grabbing tax increases. I'm sure he'd like this done for him so he can distance himself from it.

Philj

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by philj

hypothesis,
Gordon the gopher is passing the buck on this because he wants to spy on the likes of Ebay etc looking for undeclared income and cant do it himself cos he's p'd everybody off with his money grabbing tax increases. I'm sure he'd like this done for him so he can distance himself from it.

Philj

All Parties seem to want the Power at the moment, but not the Responsibility, the result is growing Chaos!

[3x2]

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7545766.stm )

The Home Office told the BBC that it was unaware of BT's early trials, in which thousands of BT customers had their web habits monitored without consent.

But it did confirm that Phorm had approached the Home Office in June 2007.

Is this just the usual standard of BBC journalism or have we moved to a parallel universe? The HO is is unaware of the earlier trails !!?

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by 3x2

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7545766.stm )



Is this just the usual standard of BBC journalism or have we moved to a parallel universe? The HO is is unaware of the earlier trails !!?

With it being the HO, failing to check the legalities of any proposed new Commercial System Properly, would you call that Incompetence or Negligence?

[philj]

3x2

Welcome to the Great Banana Republic of Britain.

For Sale One Government, slightly tarnished, one owner
reason for sale MONEY

Philj

[SelfProtection]

Relevant to how Phorm may be lobbyng Parliament, but this should not become Political!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...lobby_openess/

[phormwatch]

>There is this (by phormwatch) openletter which covers the issues from the point of view of a business.

This really feels unfinished to me. Anyone want to finish it?

I think we should update the links, too.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

If recent events hadn't made me slightly paranoid I'd have ignored the possible link between the possible financial Plights of Nebuad & Phorm & this recent Spam Explosion.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...c=news_ts_head

Just to update the phishing element on this spam - the reply I had back from netcraft says "The URL you recently submitted could not be accepted as a phishing site by the Netcraft Anti-Phishing Team, for the following reason:

The Netcraft Toolbar does not block this type of site.
See http://toolbar.netcraft.com/help/faq/#whattoreport
for details of the types of sites that we block."

So much for thinking that netcraft do a good job of recording malware sites - perhaps this explains the reason? - "We will also block URLs that return malicious or virus infested executable files, but only if either BitDefender or ClamAV detects a problem with the executable." - so fake flash updates that leave computers open to downloads of multiple malware don't get counted.

For those who believe that the anti-phishing feature of Webwise is good and an improvement on browser security, I have only one thing to say: a fool and his privacy are soon parted.

For those who want to get out the basic message about Webwise, this non-existant security feature being 'sold' as anti-phishing is probably more dangerous to ISP customers than anything else they could 'put onto' their computers.

[Digbert]

Does anyone here subscribe to PC Pro.

I'm seething at this month's edition (October 2008), in particular an article by Davey Winder "BT 2008 Information Security Journalist of the Year"

The article is 'Is Phorm good or bad' Davey Winder investigates.
It contains nothing but quotes from Phorm, various media agencies and 'experienced' marketing hands.
He also does the usual comparisons with clubcards and Google. Protestors are summed up as "The media feeding frenzy, both in print and online has been encouraged by privacy advocates and opinionated bloggers alike.

The article concludes with "If you want free content, you need advertising - get over it".

Well I've got over it, I've cancelled my subscription and I've emailed them to tell them why.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

With it being the HO, failing to check the legalities of any proposed new Commercial System Properly, would you call that Incompetence or Negligence?

So far, the FoI requests have shown that the government bodies have not been given any information upon which to base a technical review. PR and spin is all that they have received.

Also, don't forget that the campaigners see DPI, UID and OIX as one system. When Phorm talk to anyone DPI is not even considered.

The UID contains no personal information and the OIX is outside the ISP so has no way of picking up any personal data. "No personal information" is the one constant when it comes to adware and is what makes it so attractive to the brand ad networks.

The ISPs want to sell our data, the brands want to use that data. They are the real enemy in all of this. In the UK we basically have a monopoly when it comes to ISPs so there is no choice. When it comes to brands, can you imagine a world where just one brand is boycotted? - imagine no one buying Pepsi or Coke and only buying shop labeled cola.

It is the consumers who are between a rock and a hard place. It is the consumers who need to be protected. That is what the laws should do.

[ImaJack]

Originally Posted by philj

3x2

Welcome to the Great Banana Republic of Britain.

For Sale One Government, slightly tarnished, one owner
reason for sale MONEY

Philj

I'm just using this quote as an example, nothing personal implied to the quoted poster.

I don't believe that remarks like this are going to help the cause against Webwise and the like. This campaign should I think be fought on reason and facts and not innuendo.

When someone of influence blogs/ politician/ article writer/ etc. incorrectly states facts about Phorm then we should concentrate on reasonable correction rather than vilifying them. We want to get people on our side not antagonise them and end up fighting the wrong battle.

If I remember correctly Baroness Miller was given incorrect facts by K E and when the true story was pointed out to her she came over to our side and has helped publicise the true story about Phorm.

I know from personal experience that ranting on about Phorm to my relatives and friends just turned them off about the issue. I have had more success in slightly understating things. For example, asking them if they would like their mail opened in order to be targetted with "relevant ads" was much more effective strategy in getting them interested in Webwise and what it really stood for.

I don't understand most of the technology behind Webwise but nor do I suggest the majority of the public which is why the analogy about opening mail seemed to work for me.

[phormwatch]

Phorm PR at work, no doubt.

Remember, they can't control or stop people on the net from blogging or posting negative opinions about Phorm. That is their weakness. Their strength is that they are adept at influencing 'official' opinion. The press is eager for official opinion. They have the money and connections to influence government, press, and other companies.

Speaking of which, were people aware that Phorm had/has hired (not sure if they are still with Phorm) the 'Burson-Marsteller' PR agency?

"Hi — Phorm Comms Team here. Just wanted to bring some clarity to your spirited piece. We actually have three agencies on board: Freud, Citigate Dewe Rogerson and Burson-Marsteller (why where they ignored?! Could the PR Week article that inspired your blog http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/articl...fightback/have got its facts wonky?) also we work with John Stonborough, as you say. Marvellous chap. "

http://tinyurl.com/strictembargo

Try googling:

"Burson Marsteller" Suharto

"Burson Marsteller" Argentina disappeared

"Burson Marsteller" "Union Carbide"

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

Speaking of which, were people aware that Phorm had/has hired (not sure if they are still with Phorm) the 'Burson-Marsteller' PR agency?

Not that surprising when Burson-Marsteller are strategic partners of 80/20 thinking.

http://www.8020thinking.com/about-us.html

[madslug]

Originally Posted by Digbert

Does anyone here subscribe to PC Pro.

<snip>

The article conludes with "If you want free content, you need advertising - get over it".

I have been providing free content since I started writing web sites. Yes, the content promotes commercial products. But, each of those products has been chosen and tested by me.

Free content IS the advertising expense to promote the product. Free content does not need to be spammed by additional advertising in order to survive. Free content does not need DPI to survive.

It is because the free content I provide is the advertising for products that I complain so much about someone else using that content, which I have paid for, to promote their product at no cost to themselves - it is industrial theft.

The web is just one big advertisement - no one is complaining about the advertising.

Simple economics says that if the advertising costs more than the revenue, then you stop advertising. You don't start to use someone else's advert for your product.

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by Digbert

The article conludes with "If you want free content, you need advertising - get over it".

The greedy advertising industry want their cake and to eat it. The two realistic revenue models for the internet are subscription and advertising. We already pay the subscription (VM XL broadband: £37.00 per month) so why the hell should we accept the other model on top of that? If VM cannot break even on my 20Mb line by charging me £37 a month, then write to me explaining this, together with a realistic quote of what it would actually cost to provide that connection, and I'll consider whether I'm willing to pay it or not. What I am absolutely NOT willing to do is submit to being Phormed.
No doubt the prat who wrote the original article also believes that the BBC's content is "free", therefore we should all pay the licence fee AND be forced to watch adverts on BBC channels. What an idiot.