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

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

You're going to find some of this hard to believe...

To summarise a Freedom of Information Response from the Home Office;

• Home Office had one meeting with Phorm in August 2007 (after the 2007 trials in the summer perhaps?)
  
• Office did not consult with any external bodies (including UK Intellectual Property Office), did not consult with any independent IT or Communications industry expertise, did not consult with any external legal advice before preparing their "Is it legal?" advice document
  
• Home Office did not discuss with BT/Phorm the proposition that Phorm would enable compliance with proposed UK and European Data Retention laws
  
• Regarding an assertion that the Home Office might expect "to stand with Industry on any human rights challenge" to Phorm as a possible way forward to a "code of practice for voluntary data retention"*, the Home Office consider the quotes to which I referred were taken out of context from "part of a presentation encouraging the communications industry to retain data under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Target Online Advertising is a commercial activity that the industry is undertaking for its own interests. The two issues are not and never have been linked."

* See slide 13 in this presentation; http://www.fipr.org/sfs6/watkin.ppt

Excellent digging. I will digest a little more when the alcohol is out of my bloodstream, but first thoughts are yes, I do find it hard to believe!

[Privacy_Matters]

Originally Posted by XBNM

This is factually incorrect they are seperate divisions of the same company the barrier is artifical and created by ofcom.

Yes, similar to the split the Gas Regulator attempted with NGT Transco, which resulted in a firm that was paid half* the connection cost per Customer from NGT. In the case of NGT, the proposal failed. (*approx. @NGT, don't deny it - I worked for your Planning Dept in Edinburgh whilst this happened )

---------- Post added at 00:36 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

"to stand with Industry on any human rights challenge"http://www.fipr.org/sfs6/watkin.ppt

I see where you got the confirmation of my original assessment of the Phorm System from, Pete

Its disgraceful, the HO willing to completely violate Human Rights, and this is the proof.



Ive sent you an email Pete.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

I see where you got the confirmation of my original assessment of the Phorm System from, Pete

Its disgraceful, the HO willing to completely violate Human Rights, and this is the proof.

HO willing to side with commercial industry (rather than UK citizens) to obstruct human rights claims, in the name of crime prevention and terrorism. Nice.

Someone remind me, why are we fighting a war on terrorism again? It was about protecting something or other. I forget what it was now. Couldn't have been important.

Anyway, I'm pleased the HO claim there is no link to Phorm.

This will become evident when they hand over dossiers and dossiers of evidence to the EC Commissioners, and prosecute British Telecom without mercy, or further delay for abusing EU Privacy Rights and EC Communications Directives.

Or will they side with the industry on this human rights challenge, and lob the evidence in the Thames?

Watch this space eh?

[zwade]

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a couple of months but I had to sign up because you have to see this...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4137799.ece

about half way down the page

<snip> BT – where the latest trial of the technology begins this week </snip>

zwade

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

... lob the evidence in the Thames?

More likely is that they'll leave it on a train

[Privacy_Matters]

Ok, so it goes like this, I Log-on to Facebook, browse a little, and then decide to check the mail.... what do I find?

Hi Samuel,

I'm a writer for the Christian Science Monitor, doing a piece on Information Law and the questionably legality of British Telecom's trial of Phorm on its clients without their knowledge. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on your experience and what has made you join this group for me. I have opinions from industry insiders, but I think it is important for users air their takes on the issue as well.

I can cite you by name or anonymously, whichever you prefer. These are my questions:

1. What about the idea of targeted marketing, ie, an internet service provider taking your "non-personal" data including search history to deliver ads relevant to your interests, is off-putting to you?

2. Some industry professionals and web enthusiasts think that targeted marketing is an inevitable and essential part of Web 2.0, and that getting ads targeted to your interests is actually a good thing. Do you see that side of the argument?

Thanks so much for your time, and please get back to me if you're interested.

Best,
Nida

http://features.csmonitor.com/innova...e-with-others/

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by zwade

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a couple of months but I had to sign up because you have to see this...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4137799.ece

about half way down the page

<snip> BT – where the latest trial of the technology begins this week </snip>

zwade

Hi zwade and to the Forum.

[Bonglet]

All dont forget that lots of newspapers have vested interest in phorm hence little to no coverage in the dailies about all the huff and puff that phorm do, i thought we lived in a democracy where we are free to pick and choose what we do and dont like and can say so freely without getting things forced upon us.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters

Ok, so it goes like this, I Log-on to Facebook, browse a little, and then decide to check the mail.... what do I find?

Hi Samuel,

I'm a writer for the Christian Science Monitor, doing a piece on Information Law and the questionably legality of British Telecom's trial of Phorm on its clients without their knowledge. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on your experience and what has made you join this group for me. I have opinions from industry insiders, but I think it is important for users air their takes on the issue as well.

I can cite you by name or anonymously, whichever you prefer. These are my questions:

1. What about the idea of targeted marketing, ie, an internet service provider taking your "non-personal" data including search history to deliver ads relevant to your interests, is off-putting to you?

2. Some industry professionals and web enthusiasts think that targeted marketing is an inevitable and essential part of Web 2.0, and that getting ads targeted to your interests is actually a good thing. Do you see that side of the argument?

Thanks so much for your time, and please get back to me if you're interested.

Best,
Nida

http://features.csmonitor.com/innova...e-with-others/

Could K*nt be a Christian after all?

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Bonglet

All dont forget that lots of newspapers have vested interest in phorm hence little to no coverage in the dailies about all the huff and puff that phorm do, i thought we lived in a democracy where we are free to pick and choose what we do and dont like and can say so freely without getting things forced upon us.

I agree but democracy is being eroded over time as the powers that be, spoon feed us more and more with what they think we want to eat. Often, just like a fussy child eater who doesn't like the taste, it gets forced in the mouth regardless. Because it's good for you (sic)!

[Blackbeak]

Originally Posted by SelfProtection

Typical not accepting adverse comments & probably collecting E-mail addresses of anyone who's anti-phorm.

I moderate all comments personally. The problem being SPAM with is ironic considering I am taking a position which kind of defends the use of technology to send behavioral targeted ads.

I have accepted all comments I saw to be non abusive (which I am glad to say was most of them) and argued my points back. I will continue to do so in the spirit of an open debate to any comments on my own site. I am particularly interested in Alexander Hanff's comment regards the legalities because I'm no lawyer and I'm assuming he is based on his comments.

I did however research the technology before making my post.

My interest is not "to get more work" for myself as someone commented - I have plenty to do already. It is to put my view across and get the opposing view back. It is important for the online industry as a whole that people like myself give our point of view because the way I see it all of our futures rely on it. A balance between what is fair and transparent needs to be struck. I already took the stance that BT were appalling in how they handled this and I stand by that. They have frightened a lot of folks and that is not a good thing for the industry as a whole.

I do however have doubts that what they're doing is illegal although certainly their ethics are in question.

[Bonglet]

121 media a.k.a phorm have no ethics its been proven in the past and its going to bite them back, if all these pro researchers cant see it by phorms history we'll then you have to start thinking who can you trust anymore and you end up with the state of paranoid people and no one trusts anyone anymore.

[Tharrick]

I did however research the technology before making my post.

Did you look at the patent information for the system? It includes things like the modification of web pages between server and end user, which is a major threat to net neutrality.

I do however have doubts that what they're doing is illegal

It's monitoring the contents of the traffic that goes through a communications network. It's like wiretapping a phone or opening somebody else's post. It would be illegal for Royal Mail to open your post so they can see what junk mail to send you, and it would be illegal for your phone provider to record all your conversations so they can send you junk mail, so why do you have doubts that it's illegal for your ISP to track your surfing patterns so that they can send you adverts?
The European Commissioner for Information Society and Media has already stated, in letters you'll find posted earlier in this thread, that it's breaching the european convention on human rights and the EU charter of human rights.

How much more do you need?

Oh yeah, the system as it is relies on a cookie placed on your computer that claims to have been placed by a different website - that's fraudulent misrepresentation, and is illegal under the fraud act. It's also illegal under the computer misuse act.
The system also relies on making an unauthorised copy of the page requested for analysis and financial gain. That's copyright theft, and I know several webmasters prepared to take legal action against this system if it ever rolls out.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Blackbeak

My interest is not "to get more work" for myself as someone commented

I notice your a member of the DataShaping group, interested in data mining?
Could be some work for you in Phorm and the like.

Sorry I don't agree with what you say. My gut feelings are that your could be somebody who is touting for work in this area or that you could already in K*ts pocket. I also see many holes in your replied comments on your site.

I would suggest to all we keep our debate on this site and the others we feed off and not Google-boost this another site in the discussions. Lets not fall into any possible traps. He is obviously an expert in data analysis and certainly will know how to boost his site in the Phorm debate rankings by our visits. If Blackbeak wishes to debate here by all means he can do so.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I'm working on something similar.

It captures leaked UIDs as primary evidence of copyright infringement. If the UID really is as anonymous as Phorm claim, and ICO accept their assurance, then there is no requirement to remove it from logs. (Which is not to say I agree with either Phorm or ICO, to my mind claiming a user identifier UID is not PII is absolutely and obviously utter bunk).

Pete.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

PS. Should add, concealing copyright infrigement (eg, stripping evidence of copying like UIDs) is an aggravating factor in considering damages IIRC

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Noted on London Stock Ex site, BT seem to be systematically buying voting shares at present, in advance of AGM. Around 2,500,000 a day if I'm reading right. (I know nothing about share trading btw, this might just be noise).

This may be my Paranoia but it's better said than ignored & regretted later.

I've been seeing occasional format anomalies on some pages this week, apart from the spell where other posters were reporting blank pages before a Site loaded.

It may be that Phorm were looking for a way to hide the UID in so called "white space", which would probably cause such anomalies.

Since 121Media were very good at this, I would recommend some kind of MD5 checksum analysis, if BT actually announce a trial.

[lardboy]

Frankly I haven't got the time to check every post in this thread to see if this has already been posted so here you are apologies if already posted -

Channel 4 news article on Phorm - Even their paid expert can't agree with them on the opt in / opt out debate.