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

[Spleeny]

Good idea.

I have emailed BBC Watchdog, pointing out that both BT and VM are planning (or pro-actively) doing this. Can I strongly encourage others to do same, so that the BBC will take up the course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...ct_index.shtml

Originally Posted by Jon T

Mick I respect your position as a mod/admin, and I don't care about the in's and out of your dispute with TheBlueRaja, but do you not think that you both should return this thread to discussing the prospective ad deal?

Now thats the most sensible thing i have read on this thread for a while!

Shame the mod who was involved did not look at it that way.

Originally Posted by Spleeny

Good idea.

I have emailed BBC Watchdog, pointing out that both BT and VM are planning (or pro-actively) doing this. Can I strongly encourage others to do same, so that the BBC will take up the course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...ct_index.shtml

Very good idea, i for one will be doing that. They say their is strength in numbers so the more that do the better!

[Mick]

Originally Posted by UncleBooBoo

Now thats the most sensible thing i have read on this thread for a while!

Shame the mod who was involved did not look at it that way.

Um - I have been asking for a sensible discussion all along - so less of the blame the mod attitude when the person at fault is in the other direction.

[RizzyKing]

End of the day if user's of the mentioned company's accept this it would be folly for anyone to think their company won't follow the lead. This is a really bad idea on the part of VM and BT and they should think about how this is making their company's look right now because it isn't good. Reality is no matter what system phorm try and use most user's will not trust this company in anyway shape or form to abide by a damn thing it states.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

End of the day if user's of the mentioned company's accept this it would be folly for anyone to think their company won't follow the lead. This is a really bad idea on the part of VM and BT and they should think about how this is making their company's look right now because it isn't good. Reality is no matter what system phorm try and use most user's will not trust this company in anyway shape or form to abide by a damn thing it states.

The reason that VM, BT and Talk Talk, don't forget them, is discussing this is simple.

Profit, pounds, shillings and pence...simple as that.

Right or wrong, its capitalism at its best or worst depnding on your point of view.

[ahardie]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Interesting indeed and quite disturbing if true. However as no other reports discuss Sky in connection with this company im hoping its just speculation as opposed to anything concrete.

Interesting also that you have almost blown a gasket when a company you don't subscribe to is going to implement this but when you are shown that SKY is considering it, you just hope it wont happen. If as you say "its a blatant breach of privacy and akin to building up a personal profile of somebody's interests, hobbies, wealth and habits." Shouldn't you be actively campaigning against Sky doing it.

If you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen that the privacy aspects of this are regularly audited by Ernst and Young anyway. So your statement is just scaremongering .

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Toto

Indeed, I don't think Sky are that daft.....that said though they make hardly anything from their BB products, so they may well see it as a viable option if the current uproar dies down.

They may not make much but their churn has dropped through the floor - why would you drop the telly when you'd then have to go and buy that free BB for £15 a month?

I didn't get on with it at my house but I can see why it's a boon for them

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Shaun

They may not make much but their churn has dropped through the floor - why would you drop the telly when you'd then have to go and buy that free BB for £15 a month?

I didn't get on with it at my house but I can see why it's a boon for them

OK, but they didn't pay all that mmoney for easynet just to keep customers going to alternative suppliers.

That product will have to turn in a profit, targetted advertising could be the answer.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by ahardie

If you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen that the privacy aspects of this are regularly audited by Ernst and Young anyway. So your statement is just scaremongering .

Have you actually read the Ernst & Young so called "approval"? It's a complete red herring and not worth the electrons needed to download it.

Firstly they audit against USA accountancy standards. We are talking about a system the needs to meet the UK standards. There is no specific audit against the Data Protection Act, or other privacy rules.

Secondly the disclaimers used, make the "certification" worthless:

Originally Posted by Ernst & Young Phorm Audit

Because of inherent limitations in controls, error or fraud may occur and not be detected
Furthermore, the projection of any conclusions, based on our findings, to future periods is subject to the risk that the validity of such conclusions may be altered because of changes made to the Service or controls, the failure to make needed changes to the Service or controls, or a deterioration in the deree of effectiveness of the controls

The bold is my highlight of a statement that basically implies they've vetted it, but don't really know.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

I am very interested in this companies actions as i would like to see it crash and burn, its a blatant breach of privacy and akin to building up a personal profile of somebody's interests, hobbies, wealth and habits.

On that, we can agree.

By telling people to move away from VM (just move away was all i said remember, not necessarily goto Sky) it may encourage people to get wise to this and at the same time find themselves a better provider.

If they happen to goto Sky and leave VM then that just sticks it up VM even more.

While, again, I agree with what you say, I can see two problems: 1) Many people don't live near enough an ADSL exchange for it to be viable for them to use ADSL (admittedly, a lot can get broadband via mobile, but this often comes with heavy restrictions). The second problem is what happens when/if a lot of ISPs use this system?

[Traduk]

Therein lies the caveat that we all should be afraid of "error or fraud may occur and not be detected".

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that a number of friends and family have been defrauded out of thousands by online theft by partial identity theft. In the very few cases where somebody has been caught they have always been in a position of trust and able to view data which in itself is logical because without data they cannot commit identity crime. That falls under the definition of fraud and is not usually detected.

If data is never seen, scanned, collected or read then nobody can know what is contained within. If it is read but filtered then at some point pre-filter it is all there and that is where the risk of fraud is the greatest. Online fraud is unfortunately a fast growing criminal area and to such a degree that many I know within banking will not use the net for financial transactions. IMO any mass surveillance will not decrease risk and just creates new holes for data to leak from.

[Griffin]

If VM decide to press ahead with this idea i will use this as a way of foxing the system
http://tools.rosinstrument.com/cgi-proxy.htm
seems to work fine too.

[none]

Im making a list of clean ISP's so that if in the event that VM do go through with this ad scheme we as customers can vote with our feet.

Here are some ISP's that have been vocal about REJECTING the Phorm scheme

Aquiss - source

Zen Internet - source

NewNet - source


please add to this list if more are found

[ahardie]

Originally Posted by Rob

Have you actually read the Ernst & Young so called "approval"? It's a complete red herring and not worth the electrons needed to download it.

Firstly they audit against USA accountancy standards. We are talking about a system the needs to meet the UK standards. There is no specific audit against the Data Protection Act, or other privacy rules.

Secondly the disclaimers used, make the "certification" worthless:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst & Young Phorm Audit
Because of inherent limitations in controls, error or fraud may occur and not be detected
Furthermore, the projection of any conclusions, based on our findings, to future periods is subject to the risk that the validity of such conclusions may be altered because of changes made to the Service or controls, the failure to make needed changes to the Service or controls, or a deterioration in the deree of effectiveness of the controls


The bold is my highlight of a statement that basically implies they've vetted it, but don't really know.

Well on your first point, It probably has nothing to do with what country's laws apply because according to post 102 Ernst and Young are checking whether the systems safeguard total anonymity. Obviously the laws of the UK also act as a safeguard. That being the case I still think it is scaremongering to say they are building personal profiles.

Your second point is more of a concern but it maybe that they (Ernst and Young) are only saying that they were not asked to check out that aspect of it. I'm not being blasé, I would just like clarification what that means.

I should add that I am against Virgin doing this but I think that claiming that it is a major breach of privacy is an exaggeration. If it was that bad then as you have already implied it would be against the law of the land.

[RizzyKing]

No one pays for information that can't be verified i know there are some dumb people about but not that many. So how do phorm validate this information to their customers i might have missed this mentioned but i don't see how they can without invading privacy to some degree or another. Being honest we shouldn't be needing to have this discussion because VM shouldn't be thinking of doing it.