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

[ceedee]

Not content with lodging the Early Day Motion to Parliament, Don Foster MP continues to ask awkward questions.
In his monthly newsletter, emailed to a huge number of his constituents (and available online), Don writes:

You may remember last month’s controversy over Phorm - the online technology which tracks your browser history in order to provide you with targeted adverts. It’s great to see that my Early Day Motion on the subject has now attracted over 40 signatures from all parties. View it here.

Earlier this month, I met with BT to question them about their “secret trials” last summer, where the technology was tested on customers without their knowledge or consent. I have also now written to the Home Office and the Information Commissioner’s Office asking them to clarify whether BT’s actions were legal. I hope they will step up to the mark and provide a definite answer and I’ll let you know when I get a response.

Rather proud to have Don as my MP.

[phormwatch]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Not content with lodging the Early Day Motion to Parliament, Don Foster MP continues to ask awkward questions.
In his monthly newsletter, emailed to a huge number of his constituents (and available online), Don writes:



Rather proud to have Don as my MP.

I just sent Don a letter of praise and thanks for the work he has done.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I just sent Don a letter of praise and thanks for the work he has done.

If Don was my MP he would certainly get my vote. My own MP's reply was so uninspiring it caused me change my vote in the recent local elections.

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by warescouse

If Don was my MP he would certainly get my vote. My own MP's reply was so uninspiring it caused me change my vote in the recent local elections.

Just a quick one, have you noticed how they tag you when you're voting? You become a number, and you can be traced. Anonynous - no.

You may as well have a "random" UID assigned.

The only answer is to spoil your ballot by scrubbing the paper no.

Is that my tin foil hat? How do you know?

Si

[warescouse]

(Tongue in cheek) Is this how they do it? .

Watch the swinging pendant with your eyes.

You are feeling sleepy...... sleepy .... ....... sleep.... when I count to 10 you will wake up and agree with everything I have said. 1....2...3 ------...10.

You are an ISP. Whenever you hear the name 'Phorm' you will relax and do everything I say. You will agree to us putting servers within your exchanges. You will not question this, as it is normal behaviour. relaaaaaaax,

Nod your head if you agree (nods twice)...

You will not question anything we say or do.The equipment we are going to install, you will understand that only we will have access to it and although you know we are intercepting all you clients data for our own purposes, you will relax and be happy about it because we are Phorm. Sleep, relax.... Sleeeep.

When I count to ten you will wake up and every time you the hear or see the word Phorm or WebWise mentioned, you will smile and say it is legal. If you are sent to prison, you will be happy as you will feel that you needed a holiday. Relaaaaaax .....
I am now going to count to 10.

1, 2, 3, .....10

[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by warescouse

1, 2, 3, .....10

OOH - could I have some more Phorm please. Zzzzzzz

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Please, everyone, take a minute to consider what I posted before replying... (snip) We can simply and effectively avoid the strongest part of the ISPs defence by steering the debate away from the areas covered by implied consent (published material) and focussing instead on the private messaging services and webmail.

I disagree (which I know you won't have issues with Oblonsky) - there are issues to be debated and whilst we have the resources to go into battle on all fronts we should not withdraw on any.

We are not losing resources to fight these battles, we are gaining them. We are not weakening but growing in strength.

So, the implied consent battle is something we should continue with.

If this was an actual war, given our growing numbers we would not withdraw from one front because we don't need to. And the implied consent issue is another front or part of the battle which we should stick with because we can win it too.

Hank

[Bonglet]

Implied consent should mean some sort of hand writen signature not an electronic tick box that might be clicked or activated by accident by another member of your family.

When will phorm open up there kit fully and be transparent and open CAN WE SEE THE SOURCE CODE FOR THE PROFILER,ANONIMISER and AD CHANNEL KIT we know the process is already illegal and i bet that the source code for 1 if not all the items i listed is illegal too.

If something is getting released on the general public we want it verified by the government or a goverment appointed body not the phorm tall tales of trust us we have the Phorm and done it in the past.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by Hank

I disagree (which I know you won't have issues with Oblonsky) - there are issues to be debated and whilst we have the resources to go into battle on all fronts we should not withdraw on any.

We are not losing resources to fight these battles, we are gaining them. We are not weakening but growing in strength.

So, the implied consent battle is something we should continue with.

If this was an actual war, given our growing numbers we would not withdraw from one front because we don't need to. And the implied consent issue is another front or part of the battle which we should stick with because we can win it too.

Hank

I was lucky enough to speak to 2 MPs about this, one of whom couldn't see what all the fuss was about. He was also a solicitor. When I used an argument from a letter published further UT about cyber security threats, and explained about RIPA and web email it was a different story.

The problem we will face is not simply "numbers" but also legitimacy and power of arguments. It's not about battling the letter of the law, its about showing powerful reasoning. It's about pursuading the poeple in power to act.

I can't prove anything I write so I will just have to leave it to you all to decide, but I was surprised to see my CF reputation actually grow rather than shrink despite the public bashing, because, during the heated debate, some people out there actually agreed when I said we need to choose our battles.

Find the weakest points in the ISPs defence and stick to that.

They can't distinguish between protected and published web content therefore their system can never be legal.

To respond to some of you, the implied consent argument is not instead of the informed opt-in argument. Informed opt-in relates to users and the "implied consent" argument relates only to web publishers. RIPA needs consent of both parties so the implied consent argument coupled with user op-in together, arguably, get that consent.

It may or may not be valid in law, no-one knows, but it is irrelevant to the debate, since more powerful arguments exist once you establish that there is no sound way of ignoring all web based email services without an opt-in from website owners too. And there is no way a sender of an email implies his or her consent for that email to be intercepted and profiled en-route.

You may not see the subtlety of what I am saying, but again I can't do anything else but assure you it is vitally important to the debate.

The copyright argument will garner no support from MPs or regulators. It's a dead duck.

I've taken my time to explain this in great detail over the last 2 sessions of posting to hopefully pursuade some of you to think about how you present arguments to the likes of MPs

I'll repeat again what I said earlier, again I can't prove it but take it on face value. Someone very close to BT told me they were confident that nothing would come of the trials, because of a confusion [amongs protestors, amongst authorities] over what sections of the law had been breached.

Help clean up the confusion.

I've been reading this thread from the start but I posted to spread a specific message about tightening up your legal arguments.

Alex may tell you that all the legal experts he's spoken to agree on all the points, which would be excellent news, but unfortunately if all legal minds did agree then I very much doubt any of the ISPs would have signed up to Phorm.

Lawyers exploit loopholes. Focus on defending against this.

It will be a battle even getting anything to court and an even bigger battle thereon in.

I feel strengthened by the messages of support from some of you. I'm not a Phorm shareholder and some people UT obviously think it's good sport to prod the "grumpy bear" but honestly, why would a Phorm shareholder rip apart the system:

How Webwise Works: Sun Mar 09 2008, 05:58PM
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...wtopic.php?548

With a lot of help from other Badphormers we established how bad the system was in terms of performance and redirects a full month before Clayton published his report. Special thanks to Phormic Acid for working out also that phorged cookies would be planted in other people's domains, as well as many other contributors.

It's time to leave, I have work today. Have a nice day everyone.

[vicz]

When will phorm open up there kit fully and be transparent and open CAN WE SEE THE SOURCE CODE FOR THE PROFILER,ANONIMISER and AD CHANNEL KIT we know the process is already illegal and i bet that the source code for 1 if not all the items i listed is illegal too.

A professional IT organisation would ONLY accept the source code, which would be compiled and deployed in-house. A copy would be held 'in escrow' in case the supplier went bust and for audit purposes in case of unexpected processing outcomes. I would imagine the BT IT/Network people are deeply unhappy with having a 3rd party system inline with their network without full control over its behaviour, and I expect that there would be some internal tensions with the marketeers in BT Retail. Unfortunately the BT Board seem to be asleep on the job and blissfully unaware of the legal and financial liability risks they are running.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

...

We know what your opinion is, you have made it quite clear. However, we (as in everyone on this forum who has responded to your opinions) don't agree.

So as I said yesterday, why can't you just agree to disagree and leave it at that instead of obfuscating the thread with the same things over and over again.

If you guys at BadPhorm want to only concentrate on email and private sections of sites, that's fine you are welcome to do that and you have your own forum for it. Please stop deteriorating this thread on this forum though; you have stated your opinion you don't need to keep doing it over and over again when it is clear we are not going to agree.

All it does is antagonise people here and turn the thread into the steaming pile of irrelevance that it became yesterday.

Alexander Hanff

[dav]

What the fudge?!
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...IM+B1WTNC4PHRM

How can the trade of (edit)7000 shares bump the price up by 20-odd%?

[AlexanderHanff]

Rampers. Notice how they are all small trades. We might see a lot of selling this afternoon.

Alexander Hanff

[dav]

Is that not against the rules, if not the law?

Is it likely to be Phorm people artificially inflating their stock value, or other mugs (sorry) investors?

EDIT: I know nothing about stocks.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by dav

Is that not against the rules, if not the law?

Is it likely to be Phorm people artificially inflating their stock value, or other mugs (sorry) investors?

EDIT: I know nothing about stocks.

Ever been to a car boot sale? Same dynamics at work.