View Full Version : [Merged] Virgin Media say no to Phorm - Probably
Florence
12-11-2008, 00:08
Virgin Media has today said today at the investor meeting they are not going to use Phorm.
http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-virgin-media-cutting-2200-jobs-to-save-120-million-not-caused-by-econom/
CEO Neil Berkett, speaking at Virgin’s investor meeting in New York...
-- No Phorm?: Virgin has identified behavioural ad targeting as a growth strategy. Though Phorm has long claimed Virgin and Carphone Warehouse are due to join BT (NYSE: BT) in trialling the controversial behavioural targeter, Berkett said: “Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.”
Sorry if this was posted somewhere else just thought those worried stil on VM might like to have their minds eased.
MovedGoalPosts
12-11-2008, 00:15
I think you need to re-read that quote - I see the word "probably" features which, if my understanding of the dictionary is correct, leaves the door open :(
Tue 11 Nov 2008
CEO Neil Berkett, speaking at Virgin’s investor meeting in New York:
Virgin Media announces further Cutting of 2,200 Jobs in the UK by 2012 - that’s 15 percent of its workforce - To Save £120 Million.
Berkett said: “These changes are critical to ensuring Virgin Media is positioned to compete effectively and deliver on our customers’ changing expectations.”
Where is Virgin Media going?
Appointed in March, Berkett has pretty much sidelined the “quad-play” strategy for which the company was formed, concentrating instead on building fast broadband infrastructure.
The “third screen
VMED is investing more and more in mobile. Plans are already in place for mobile/TV collaborations....
VOD improvements
a key plank of VMED’s strategy is it’s VOD offering, which got 45 million average monthly views in Q308, boosted in no small part by the addition of the BBC iPlayer.
No Phorm?
Virgin has identified behavioural ad targeting as a growth strategy. Though Phorm has long claimed Virgin and Carphone Warehouse are due to join BT in trialling the controversial behavioural targeter,
Berkett said: “Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.”
Full article - paidContent:UK (http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-virgin-media-cutting-2200-jobs-to-save-120-million-not-caused-by-econom/)
Edit: double post -
Florence
12-11-2008, 00:23
You have won this with VM then over on BT beta forusm is a totally different matter.
But I think you will see he has noticed the trouble caused for BT with this then the ilegal interception of a none BT customer being offered the BTwebwise invitation page shows just how insecure this system is..
But with BT losing customers daily the loss of revenue for BT might be enough incentive for VM to move on in another direction which is phormfree.
MovedGoalPosts
12-11-2008, 00:32
Threads merged ;)
I think you need to re-read that quote - I see the word "probably" features which, if my understanding of the dictionary is correct, leaves the door open :(
Well at least "probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.” is better than "probably will be with the Phorms of the world.”
Incidentally, NebuAd, the controversial company that was trying to sell Phorm style deep-packet inspection technology for delivering more relevant ads with US ISP's, was named in a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco yesterday (Nov 12th).
VMED could probably be aware of that. It could put the final nail in the coffin...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10774
Here is a PDF (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/135485/reports/Analyst_day_november112008.pdf) of the investor meeting 'Analyst Day' agenda
Slides 8 and 74 are interesting...
Behavioural advertising
– Monetising our customer relationships
Virgin Media has today said today at the investor meeting they are not going to use Phorm.
Sorry if this was posted somewhere else just thought those worried stil on VM might like to have their minds eased.
So glad i did not jump ship now.
Jeremy Harris
12-11-2008, 19:22
Having now cancelled my VM contract, primarily for reasons more to do with them causing me a sustained nuisance for the past couple of years than anything related to performance or cost, one of the selection criteria for my new ISP was a firm pledge not to adopt Phorm, or Phorm-like, snooping.
I would suspect that many others would feel the same. Certainly VMs aparent tacit agreement to adopt Phorm was a contributory factor to my decision to switch.
It'll be interesting to see how other ISPs react to the apparent customer backlash against snooping.
Jeremy
So glad i did not jump ship now.
UPDATE on Neil Berkett's statement.
A Virgin Media spokesperson told ISPreview: "Whilst we are still investigating the use of Phorm's technology under our existing agreement with the company, due to the complexities of the proposition we do not have any timescales on when, or if, we will progress to trial or full launch."
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkyuluuVlHmsGXWfQ.html
UPDATE on Neil Berkett's statement.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkyuluuVlHmsGXWfQ.html
Means to me they are not using it at the moment, Thats more than can be said of a certain major telco. And as i have always said if VM introduce it i will dump ALL my services with VM and move to a none phorm providers.
Ignitionnet
12-11-2008, 21:03
I have to admit my indifference to this. If my ISP is really that interested which porn site I spank my monkey to they are more than welcome to see.
This is not new technology, the existing Allot platform on ntl areas is more than capable of recording this data, from that point of view Phorm would add nothing new. The same goes for any ISP that has DPI equipment on their network, be it enforcing traffic policies or monitoring traffic, DPI equipment can easily profile customer browsing habits.
I have to admit my indifference to this. If my ISP is really that interested which porn site I spank my monkey to they are more than welcome to see.
The main argument about Phorm was collecting of users data. it wasn't so much about knowing where you're going.
No for now as VM probably can't afford to pay them LOL
Florence
13-11-2008, 09:43
Virgin Media update
UPDATE - New Statement from Virgin Media @ 13:15pm:
A Virgin Media spokesperson told ISPreview: "Whilst we are still investigating the use of Phorm's technology under our existing agreement with the company, due to the complexities of the proposition we do not have any timescales on when, or if, we will progress to trial or full launch."
Sadly this statement seems even less definitive than yesterdays quote from VM's CEO, Neil Berkett.
Taken from a reply Mark.J had from them. (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkyuluuVlHmsGXWfQ.html)
So VM talk two ways still on the fence on this so wouldn't start to feel to comfortable yet.
So it would appear that the CEO of VMED is saying one thing to investors over in the USA and customers here in the UK are being told the usual "we are still considering" statement.
Was this intended to prevent further churn over Phorm? or simply Mr Berkett attempting to please investors?
Would it be possible for someone at Cable Forum to contact VMED for an official statement on what was said regarding behavioural advertising at the investors meeting and what exactly was meant by the phrase "Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.”
Thank you in advance.
batchain
13-11-2008, 18:13
So it would appear that the CEO of VMED is saying one thing to investors over in the USA and customers here in the UK are being told the usual "we are still considering" statement.
Was this intended to prevent further churn over Phorm? or simply Mr Berkett attempting to please investors?
Would it be possible for someone at Cable Forum to contact VMED for an official statement on what was said regarding behavioural advertising at the investors meeting and what exactly was meant by the phrase "Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.â€
Thank you in advance.
The paidContent:UK article is selective in its quoting to the point of being misleading.
He told US investors that they are working on several new initiatives,that the next one to see the light of day "probably won't be with the Phorms of the world†and that they were awaiting the results of the BT trial before making a decision on Phorm.
If so, paidContent are'nt the only ones to miss-quote...
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkyuluuVlHmsGXWfQ.html
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3631695
So again...
Would it be possible for someone at Cable Forum to contact VMED for an official statement on what was said regarding behavioural advertising at the investors meeting and what exactly was meant by the phrase "Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.”
Just for clarity.
batchain
13-11-2008, 22:48
If so, paidContent are'nt the only ones to miss-quote...
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkyuluuVlHmsGXWfQ.html
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3631695
ISPreview's source is the PaidContent article. The reponse from VM confirms what Virgin Media told US investors.
ClickZ says "Neil Berkett told investors at a meeting in New York on Monday the company was unlikely to roll out ad technology from firms such as Phorm." He said no such thing, what he actually said was "Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.” He said they had several initiatives in the pipeline and that they were awaiting the results of the BT trial before deciding where to go [with Phorm]. So it seem not only are ClickZ quoting an already selectively edited quote but editing it further to distort the truth even more.
So again...
Would it be possible for someone at Cable Forum to contact VMED for an official statement on what was said regarding behavioural advertising at the investors meeting and what exactly was meant by the phrase "Our next initiative probably won’t be with the Phorms of the world.”
Just for clarity.
Why not just listen to it yourself on the Virgin Media web site.
http://investors.virginmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=135485&p=irol-EventDetails&EventId=2005060
Just for clarity.
Florence
27-11-2008, 11:56
I was reading a PDF file about a meeting in Soho was interesting to read that Nick Barnett UK commercial director for Phorm say they are having weekly meetings with VM. This was announced at the targeted advertising the fire and the fury.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkZZZZZpAajdKlJzT.html
I was reading a PDF file about a meeting in Soho was interesting to read that Nick Barnett UK commercial director for Phorm say they are having weekly meetings with VM. This was announced at the targeted advertising the fire and the fury.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkZZZZZpAajdKlJzT.html
Pinch of salt I'd say, Phorm having "more or less weekly meetings" with VM isn't indicative of a decision to go or not to go with Phorm. :shrug:
Phorm have never stopped stating that VM will use them. VM haven't stated anything beyond that they are looking at the technology. Who is right? VM's statement doesn't mean they will use the technology, but doesn't specifically say they won't either.
However, it is in Phorm's interest to make people believe that VM will use it (that way, when selling the tech to smaller ISPs, they can mention that the two biggest ISPs are using it), regardless of whether VM will or not.
However, I would hope that VM do come down off the fence and state at least if they are actually trialling the technology or not, even if they haven't made a decision whether they will use it or not.
I live in the north west of england and i can now confirm that virgin media have rolled out phorm / webwise, you can check your ip address at http://phormcheck.co.uk/query-database/.
i first became aware of it when a few joomla (CMS) websites that have the anti phorm plugin installed stated that my isp has been blacklisted...
this is the message i get -
Warning! Your ISP holds your privacy in contempt
Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is known to either run, or be considering to run, a Deep Packet Inspection advertising system. What this means is that all of your internet browsing could be intercepted and spied upon, and information about your interests sold so that adverts can be sent to you.
ISPs running such systems are known to have been underhand in their dealings, and to have no regard for the privacy or interests of their customers. For instance, why not read about BT's terrible track record.
The website you were trying to visit has decided that it does not trust your ISP not to abuse its content, which is why you are seeing this page. Sorry.
when checking my ip address against there database i get -
Query results for xx.xx.xx.xx
This IP address is present in the database. It is associated with the isp:Virgin Media:WebWise spyware.
I found a page on virgin medias site that said they would contact all customers before they rolled this out...yet i have received no information from them... there frontline support know nothing too.
That is a really good joke
Lol whys that a joke? i kid you not....the sites i visited were ok on the 27th of this month, started getting these 'phorm warning' pages yesterday evening.
http://phormcheck.co.uk/query-database/
So they say don't trust Phorm, but want you to trust them?
who are they, where are they, how they have got hold of the information in the database? Is the information verified?
ok i see your point there, but i hold a lot of faith in the opensource community, and im sure they wouldnt misuse users trust. There are actually a few phorm checkers out there (all opensource) its actually not that hard to find out (with a bit of coding) whether youre internet activity is being logged.
Lets say i have more trust in multiple sources confirming that i am now on this phorm scanning then i do with virgin
http://badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?8710
the link above is another user who has or will be releasing his version of the phorm checker called bad phorm
It's not difficult at all to work out if an IP block is associated with Virgin Media.
It is even less difficult to put 'Phorm' on the end of any query associated with that company.
if it was feasable for BT to dupe there customers when they rolled out phorm why is it not feasable for Virgin to do the same, they have stated that they are actually trialling it, and yes it is easy to find out a virgin media address, my hostname contains the first initials of my name and even an abbreviated location,
http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php
Ive been with virgin now for almost 10 years and i know how devious they can be.
If your so doubtful - whats the best way then to confirm they have or havnt rolled it out?
They have not said they are trialling it. They said they ran a techincal trial. Which was done on an internal network not connected to the internet
---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------
You can't have been with Virgin for 10 years as Virgin only has existed since Feburary 2007. You have been with cable, but that's not the same.
---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------
So how can you tell from an IP address whether Phorm is being used?
jcardiff
29-11-2008, 11:02
You can't have been with Virgin for 10 years as Virgin only has existed since Feburary 2007. You have been with cable, but that's not the same.
but as is pointed out many, many times, it is the same company
only the name has changed
And I have asked many many times, if that is the case, which company is it still the same as? ntl, telewest, Virgin.net or Virgin Mobile?
I live in the north west of england and i can now confirm that virgin media have rolled out phorm / webwise, you can check your ip address at http://phormcheck.co.uk/query-database/.
Nonsense, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. If they have released Phorm/Webwise, I would expect to see a tracking cookie. That so called database commits itself to the premise that any network running Deep Packet Inspection - a known network tool - must be associated with Phorm, what a completely nonesensical view.
All that database seems to do is run an nslookup on the IP you enter, and if its associted with Phorm, tell you so. To say that they have implemented it just because this "database" says so is laughable.
BenMcr i take it you got out of the wrong side of the bed tooday, i know virgin havnt been around for ten years, maybe i was just presumptious in thinking you would know what i meant by that, i joined when NTL was just being bought out by Telewest...but im not going to go into the history of that.
Any ignore my posts and sorry for signing up to do so in thinking that i may of been able to provide a bit more information on Virgin rolling out Phorm and BenMcr just to inform you i have just got off the phone after spending almost 2 hours trying to speak to a network engineer, (ive got his name but do not want to post it here) he has confirmed that my area has been rolled out with 'webwise' and i should talk to frontline support to ask to 'opt out' of the trial....
toto -
Phorm gets around these restrictions by piggybacking its cookies on the backs of those left by other sites. Phorm installs equipment at the I.S.P. that intercepts the user’s browser when it visits a Web site for the first time. It redirects the browser to Phorm’s own site. That way it can place and read its own cookie with a Phorm identification number. It then appends this number onto the cookie of the other site, say Google or Yahoo. It does this without the permission of that other site.
The point of this odd exercise is to be able to monitor users but not slow them down. Once a user’s cookie from a given site, say Yahoo, is marked with Phorm’s own number, the next time the user visits Yahoo, Phorm can record that information without having to read its own cookie. (By the way, Phorm strips this extra number off of the cookie before it is sent back to Yahoo, so sites don’t know their cookies are being used this way.)
If you follow all this, it raises troubling and heretofore unexplored questions about who has rights to do what with cookies. Is it acceptable for Phorm to ride, almost like a parasite, on a cookie set by another company without its permission?
Taken from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/phorms-all-seeing-parasite-cookie/?apage=2
plus it has already been confirmed that Phorm doesnt HAVE to rely on cookies to track internet usage....a tthe place i work i monitor a mirrored port on my core switch to affectively capture all throughput not going into the details why or even what my job entails but deleting or disabling cookies aint going to save you if this new equipment is in place of course it could and probably is all speculation but the possibility that they will push it out nationwide , especially for the extra income it will generate for Virgin is quite high ....
toto -
Phorm gets around these restrictions by piggybacking its cookies on the backs of those left by other sites. Phorm installs equipment at the I.S.P. that intercepts the user’s browser when it visits a Web site for the first time. It redirects the browser to Phorm’s own site. That way it can place and read its own cookie with a Phorm identification number. It then appends this number onto the cookie of the other site, say Google or Yahoo. It does this without the permission of that other site.
The point of this odd exercise is to be able to monitor users but not slow them down. Once a user’s cookie from a given site, say Yahoo, is marked with Phorm’s own number, the next time the user visits Yahoo, Phorm can record that information without having to read its own cookie. (By the way, Phorm strips this extra number off of the cookie before it is sent back to Yahoo, so sites don’t know their cookies are being used this way.)
If you follow all this, it raises troubling and heretofore unexplored questions about who has rights to do what with cookies. Is it acceptable for Phorm to ride, almost like a parasite, on a cookie set by another company without its permission?
Taken from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/phorms-all-seeing-parasite-cookie/?apage=2
Excuse me, I know how phorm works, I was responding to your simple claim that VM have implemented it, when they clearly have not, and that web site you quoted as source of your argument does not appear to support your claim.
I am no fan of Phorm, and have said so on this site, and have followed the subject with great interest. Your points are well known to followers of this saga, but again, for the record, VM have not implemented it. They may do in the future, and then the arguments can start.
Toto what exact evidence do you have that they havnt....especially when after speaking to a well informed engineer that it is being trialled and im in an area that is trialling it?
And where is your evidence that they have?, beyond the site you posted (that doesn't prove anything) or an unverified call.
Toto what exact evidence do you have that they havnt....especially when after speaking to a well informed engineer that it is being trialled and im in an area that is trialling it?
Sorry, an engineer, by which I assume you mean the guys who come out and install/fix stuff for VM with due respect is hardly qualified to make that claim. That is not meant to be disrespectful in any way to any engineer contracting or workig for VM.
Provide explicit proof that VM are conducting public trials, not that website you quoted and I will openly apologise, but until then I believe your comments will be taken at face value, in that you have provided no supporting evidence.
Toto what exact evidence do you have that they havnt....especially when after speaking to a well informed engineer that it is being trialled and im in an area that is trialling it?
Which area of the company does he work in? If he works for the department that controls the cable networks, he *may* be in a position to know. If he is just a local installer (who do refer to themselves at Network engineers as well), then he is unlikely to know.
I live in the north west of england and i can now confirm that virgin media have rolled out phorm / webwise, you can check your ip address at http://phormcheck.co.uk/query-database/.
i first became aware of it when a few joomla (CMS) websites that have the anti phorm plugin installed stated that my isp has been blacklisted...
this is the message i get -
Warning! Your ISP holds your privacy in contempt
Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is known to either run, or be considering to run, a Deep Packet Inspection advertising system. What this means is that all of your internet browsing could be intercepted and spied upon, and information about your interests sold so that adverts can be sent to you.
ISPs running such systems are known to have been underhand in their dealings, and to have no regard for the privacy or interests of their customers. For instance, why not read about BT's terrible track record.
The website you were trying to visit has decided that it does not trust your ISP not to abuse its content, which is why you are seeing this page. Sorry.
when checking my ip address against there database i get -
Query results for xx.xx.xx.xx
This IP address is present in the database. It is associated with the isp:Virgin Media:WebWise spyware.
I found a page on virgin medias site that said they would contact all customers before they rolled this out...yet i have received no information from them... there frontline support know nothing too.
Complete bullpoo
moaningmags
29-11-2008, 18:38
BenMcr Any ignore my posts and sorry for signing up to do so in thinking that i may of been able to provide a bit more information on Virgin rolling out Phorm and BenMcr just to inform you i have just got off the phone after spending almost 2 hours trying to speak to a network engineer, (ive got his name but do not want to post it here) he has confirmed that my area has been rolled out with 'webwise' and i should talk to frontline support to ask to 'opt out' of the trial....
I am frontline support and I know nothing of any webwise trial.
Toto what exact evidence do you have that they havnt....especially when after speaking to a well informed engineer that it is being trialled and im in an area that is trialling it?
The engineer is WRONG
Tech_Boy
29-11-2008, 18:47
I am frontline support and I know nothing of any webwise trial.
same here
The engineer is WRONG
Or more like his original argument was pulled apart for what it is, and he is trying some lukewarm attempt to add some credibility before it completely comes apart in his hand.
I wouldn't mind so much if he had posted the question such as:-
"Does this site (insert link to that database) prove that VM are running phorm trialls?"
At least the merits of the site could be discussed, but no, it was used as de facto evidence of trial's run by VM, when right minded people know that's not the case.
Dephormation
30-11-2008, 00:02
Complete bullpoo
I'd disagree, the owner of that site said;
"Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is known to either run, or be considering to run"
Virgin Media are Phorm Partners. In April, on their own site in the Customer Zone they stated;
"We are currently at the early stages of working to deliver the Webwise solution and will be writing to you nearer the time to advise when the solution will be ‘switched on’"
The Virgin Media Phorm FAQ included the question
"Why has Virgin Media partnered with Phorm?"
So the statement on the Joomla site is accurate. If the owner wants to deny copyright protected content to an ISP which is partnered with Phorm, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I currently block BT Group customers with a polite message. (BT employees get to enjoy the Muppets on Youtube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh_aG5MzPVM)). If Virgin switch Phorm on, I'll block Virgin customers too.
Its not about detecting Phorm; its simply determining that you don't trust the ISP to respect your copyright and communication privacy.
I'd disagree, the owner of that site said;
"Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is known to either run, or be considering to run"
But then later on it implies that Webwise/Phorm has already been rolled out
This IP address is present in the database. It is associated with the isp:Virgin Media:WebWise spyware.
isp: This is an address owned by an ISP that is running an implementation of a DPI spyware system.
You can't have it both ways.
Virgin Media are Phorm Partners. In April, on their own site in the Customer Zone they stated;
"We are currently at the early stages of working to deliver the Webwise solution and will be writing to you nearer the time to advise when the solution will be ‘switched on’"
The Virgin Media Phorm FAQ included the question
"Why has Virgin Media partnered with Phorm?"
And since then Virgin have clarified the situation. Please show on the current information (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php) where it says Virgin have agreed 100% to roll the technology out?
So the statement on the Joomla site is accurate. If the owner wants to deny copyright protected content to an ISP which is partnered with Phorm, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I currently block BT Group customers with a polite message. (BT employees get to enjoy the Muppets on Youtube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh_aG5MzPVM)). If Virgin switch Phorm on, I'll block Virgin customers too.
AFAIK, even if someone who is running Phorm connects to a website, the site owner is not affected at all.
So you deny access to people who might want to complain about Phorm? When it affects them and not you?
Its not about detecting Phorm; its simply determining that you don't trust the ISP to respect your copyright and communication privacy.
If it not about detecting Phorm, why is that site called 'Phormcheck' and as a Welcome says
This site is intended to provide a service to webmasters, allowing them to more easily detect whether Phorm or other DPI spyware is likely to be active
---------- Post added at 02:07 ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 ----------
I would like to point out that I hope Virgin don't roll out Phorm. But I'm just as annoyed with the misinformation that is starting to appear, which personally I think is just as bad.
I'd disagree, the owner of that site said;
"Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is known to either run, or be considering to run"
Virgin Media are Forum Partners. In April, on their own site in the Customer Zone they stated;
"We are currently at the early stages of working to deliver the Webwise solution and will be writing to you nearer the time to advise when the solution will be ‘switched on’"
The Virgin Media Phorm FAQ included the question
"Why has Virgin Media partnered with Form?"
So the statement on the Joomla site is accurate. If the owner wants to deny copyright protected content to an ISP which is partnered with Form, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I currently block BT Group customers with a polite message. (BT employees get to enjoy the Muppets on Youtube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh_aG5MzPVM)). If Virgin switch Form on, I'll block Virgin customers too.
Its not about detecting Pform; its simply determining that you don't trust the ISP to respect your copyright and communication privacy.
I stand by my statement
It's complete bull plop
VM are not using Phorm and are not testing it on there network. I cannot say why i know that or who told me but i have far more trust of the person who told me in VM and his position within VM than some guy i don't know who has posted a couple of times on this forum.
One of the reason's i have decided to stay away from this forum is Phorm. There is no reasoned debate on here and every new thread is some sort of tinfoil hat statement followed by hysteria about why or why not there is to be any talk of phorm. Meanwhile we have a coming soon :LOL: about some thread that will gather all the info together but that has never materialised. Reminds me of the NTL coming soon when it came to Community :)
However i expect this to be deemed off topic jumped on quickly and removed
:rolleyes:
cya
Sir John Luke
30-11-2008, 09:50
The main problem here is that Phorm continue to insist that the deployment by Virgin is still on track (recent quote from Phorm that they continue to meet with Virgin on an almost weekly basis) , and Virgin continue to refuse to deny these claims. I'm not claiming that VM are actually trialling the system, far less that they've actually deployed it - just that until they actually come down off the fence, people are entitled to believe that they still INTEND to deploy it if/when BT do.
---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------
AFAIK, even if someone who is running Phorm connects to a website, the site owner is not affected at all.
I'n not sure how you justify this statement. If I have spent money setting up a web site to sell widgets, and a phormed user visits that web site, MY content will be profiled. If that same user then visits ANY site which contributes to Phorm, they will be fed adverts for any widget selllers (my competitors) who also contribute to Phorm.
In any case, as a matter of principle, why should Phorm be allowed to use web sites' copyrighted intellectual property for their own (and the conspiring ISP's) commercial gain?
The main problem here is that Phorm continue to insist that the deployment by Virgin is still on track (recent quote from Phorm that they continue to meet with Virgin on an almost weekly basis) , and Virgin continue to refuse to deny these claims.
Who are you most likely to trust here, Phorm or VM?
Remember this, Phorm need credibility for the sake of their shareholders, who basically own the company. They only have one ISP officially testing in the whole of the EU, and two, possibly three who have agreed to look at the technology, one of whom is VM.
If you don't trust either then fair enough
Sir John Luke
30-11-2008, 10:07
All it would take to put this to bed would be for VM to say they've agreed to look at the technology, they've looked at it, and they've decided not to deploy it.
Dephormation
30-11-2008, 10:30
All it would take to put this to bed would be for VM to say they've agreed to look at the technology, they've looked at it, and they've decided not to deploy it.
Quite.
If VM are not "Phorm partners", if VM are never going to deploy Phorm or anything like it, the solution is in their hands.
Say so.
Until then, VM are, in their own words (taken from their own web site, not Phorm): "Phorm partners". I don't care very much about quibbles over "clarifications" VM made since. They could clarify it by saying "We are not Phorm partners and never will be", that would be sufficient.
Personally, I am not aware that VM are trialling Phorm (and currently I don't block VM for that reason) but the fact that they would even consider it for longer than 5 minutes was enough for me to close every account I had with them, and I never expect to return.
I'n not sure how you justify this statement. If I have spent money setting up a web site to sell widgets, and a phormed user visits that web site, MY content will be profiled. If that same user then visits ANY site which contributes to Phorm, they will be fed adverts for any widget selllers (my competitors) who also contribute to Phorm.
And that is different to Google Ads how? If I were to visit a website about widgets that ran Google Ads, I may or may not get adverts for your site.
If I type in your website into Google, I would get other widget sellers as both a search and google ads.
Dephormation
30-11-2008, 12:30
And that is different to Google Ads how? If I were to visit a website about widgets that ran Google Ads, I may or may not get adverts for your site.
If I type in your website into Google, I would get other widget sellers as both a search and google ads.
Its different because the web site owner voluntarily chooses to participate in the Google Ads campaign. Its different because Google gives free listings to web sites in exchange for their content. Its different because Google do not intercept communications.
Google brings traffic TO your site. Phorm takes it away.
Despite what Phorm may have told you, ads don't fund the internet. The internet is a communication network, which is sometimes used to carry private web communications (as well as email, VoIP, etc).
Web content may be
- Ad funded, like some online newspapers
- Altruistic, like Wikipedia
- Product/sales funded, like online groceries
- Services/sales funded, like online banking
- Public funded, like government sites
Intercepting private commercial/personal communications, stealing content without a licence, thats simply industrial espionage and content theft.
That's why web masters don't want Phorm.
The main problem here is that Phorm continue to insist that the deployment by Virgin is still on track (recent quote from Phorm that they continue to meet with Virgin on an almost weekly basis) , and Virgin continue to refuse to deny these claims. I'm not claiming that VM are actually trialling the system, far less that they've actually deployed it - just that until they actually come down off the fence, people are entitled to believe that they still INTEND to deploy it if/when BT do.
It's entirely possible that Virgin and Phorm could be meeting every week and VM have no intention of using Phorm. After all, if Phorm are having meetings to try and sell their service to VM, they *are* technically having meetings with VM. Phorm have also been known to twist the truth slightly in this way.
Sir John Luke
30-11-2008, 13:10
Quote from Phorm's interim results statement on 30th September. As far as I know, it is an offence to make misleading formal statements to shareholders, and VM have done nothing to contradict the statement.
"Currently, we expect that Virgin Media and TalkTalk will commence their own consumer trials in due course."
Quote from Phorm's interim results statement on 30th September. As far as I know, it is an offence to make misleading formal statements to shareholders, and VM have done nothing to contradict the statement.
"Currently, we expect that Virgin Media and TalkTalk will commence their own consumer trials in due course."
Saying "we expect" could be implying that they don't guarantee that either will start trials.
Sir John Luke
30-11-2008, 13:47
Agree, but it certainly doesn't imply that 'VM have no intention of using Phorm'
Anyway, this is probably not the best forum on which to debate these issues, so I'll leave it there.
Agree, but it certainly doesn't imply that 'VM have no intention of using Phorm'
I agree. All it says is that they expect the trials to take place. It could be argued that this is true regardless of whether or not the trials actually do.
Google brings traffic TO your site. Phorm takes it away.
As much as I'm not keen on Phorm, I still don't understand what you mean.
Surely if you don't sign up to Google Ads, just as you don't sign up to Phorm, then Google Ads will take business AWAY from your own site to competitors that have signed up to Google Ads.
Intercepting private commercial/personal communications, stealing content without a licence, thats simply industrial espionage and content theft.
That's why web masters don't want Phorm.
Again, please can you point me at the techinical breakdown where Phorm is going to be stealing content.
AFAIK the way Phorm works is that is works out the types of site you visit, and then offers ads appropriate to your browsing habits.
---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------
Google scan content on webpages, and cache it. Surely that is stealing content without a licence?
Florence
10-12-2008, 11:10
Originally Posted by BenMcr
AFAIK, even if someone who is running Phorm connects to a website, the site owner is not affected at all.
If you have a website with T&C which are explicit that they are not to be copied for commercial gain. You pay for items to review and sell a BT customer/visitor reads the reivew looks at the items for sale. Phorm/webwise will copy this site harvest keywords about the products viewed then direct adverts tot he visitor that would be your competitors. The visitor then goes of to the other sites possibly buying from the targeted advert. The site owner has paid for items tested reviewed and paid to build plus server costs but loses the sale. Now tell us how the site owner is not affected.
All websites have a copyright attached to them if the companies who plan to use Phorm do not contact all site/domain name owners requesting a licence to copy then thye are infringing on copyright.
All ISPs are getting tough on P2P people downloading copyright programs. songs films etc what phorm will do is no different and has the same copyright atached since the are not the ISPs to use for commercial gain.
To continue the path if VM follows BT then you will start to see more encryption on webistes where even products will be displayed on https.
---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------
As much as I'm not keen on Phorm, I still don't understand what you mean.
Surely if you don't sign up to Google Ads, just as you don't sign up to Phorm, then Google Ads will take business AWAY from your own site to competitors that have signed up to Google Ads.
Again, please can you point me at the techinical breakdown where Phorm is going to be stealing content.
AFAIK the way Phorm works is that is works out the types of site you visit, and then offers ads appropriate to your browsing habits.
---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------
Google scan content on webpages, and cache it. Surely that is stealing content without a licence?
Phorm does not work out the type of site they scrape the site visited taking a copy to harvest the keywords. :( you really need to read the patent on this program plus perhaps contact a few webmasters who have logs to prove before phorm added them to the BT blacklist they actually scraped the website from russian IP and phorm IP addresses. Easch and every pages was checked long enough to hold a complete copy of the website.
The difference between Google and Phorm is like cable and ADSL.
Google will check pages you allow in the robots,txt file log info from them pages then use this info to bring visitors to your site.
Phorm will copy your site ignore robots.txt if google is allowed harvest keywords log url, build a user profile with this info to take the user to other websites that are within phorm/oix platform.
Again google will help visitors to visit any site regardless of if on any advertising platform Porm will only take visitors to their own so you end with less choice possible higher prices as competitiveness is removed and many smaller companies could lose and fold.
Google completes the search for items over 100% of internet platforsm phorm a small percentage who ever signs upto them.
AndyCambs
10-12-2008, 11:10
As much as I'm not keen on Phorm, I still don't understand what you mean.
Surely if you don't sign up to Google Ads, just as you don't sign up to Phorm, then Google Ads will take business AWAY from your own site to competitors that have signed up to Google Ads.
Again, please can you point me at the techinical breakdown where Phorm is going to be stealing content.
AFAIK the way Phorm works is that is works out the types of site you visit, and then offers ads appropriate to your browsing habits.
---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------
Google scan content on webpages, and cache it. Surely that is stealing content without a licence?
My thoughts are along the same lines. If it means I get my internet connection cheaper, just because I have some adverts on selected web pages which are supposedly tailored for my use - does it matter? I'm benefiting from the saving - I don't have to read the adverts.
It's precisely the same as Googlemail - which I use.
Florence
10-12-2008, 11:25
My thoughts are along the same lines. If it means I get my internet connection cheaper, just because I have some adverts on selected web pages which are supposedly tailored for my use - does it matter? I'm benefiting from the saving - I don't have to read the adverts.
It's precisely the same as Googlemail - which I use.
Not the same Googlemail cannot see everything you do Phorm have said they can see everything you do on screen.
You logout of googlemail you can never turn phorm off as regardddless of opt out or in you will still go via profiler, the hidden servers that phorm jump you through to harvest the websites you plane to visit that comes back through phorms servers to you. Any unhappy or possible employee of phorm could slip another hop in harvest personal details from your pc and you wouldnt be able to spot it as the browser is already hijacked so the warning of hijacking is ignored.
The securities that have been inbuilt into browsers to wanr us of hijacking when visitng websites will be useless since you are already hijacked.
So cheaper internet you will surrender your privacy, human rights to surf unintercepted. In that case you would not object to the government asking you to be tagged with a camera to monitor your everymove?
That is what phorm will do to your browsing you will not be able to visit any website, lok at any item without them looking at it first. You might find some countries bannign your IP ranges to stop the intrusion. Yes it is an intrusion accept this the next step is every call will be listened to te give you cold calling for products, letters opened to send you targeted adverts on letters.
Plus once Phorm has webwise firmly in place there will be more of the recent messup by IFW as Hugo sees himself as the editor of the internet already quoted in news last year.
..you can never turn phorm off as regardddless of opt out or in you will still go via profiler, the hidden servers that phorm jump you through to harvest the websites you plane to visit that comes back through phorms servers to you.
Thats hardly unusual, or uncommon, almost everything you do online these days is logged by something.
For many years all web browsing on the old ntl network was via their transparant proxy servers, which logged every page you visited - and yet I dont recall a single complaint about the invasion of privacy (just the performance).
BT/VM log every phone call you make, all mobile calls are logged (in fact much more is logged, hence they can tell where in the country you were at any given time), yet everyone just seems to accept this.
AndyCambs
10-12-2008, 11:48
Thats hardly unusual, or uncommon, almost everything you do online these days is logged by something.
For many years all web browsing on the old ntl network was via their transparant proxy servers, which logged every page you visited - and yet I dont recall a single complaint about the invasion of privacy (just the performance).
BT/VM log every phone call you make, all mobile calls are logged (in fact much more is logged, hence they can tell where in the country you were at any given time), yet everyone just seems to accept this.
Not to mention the number of times I am spied upon when travelling to work via CCTV cameras. (It's another conspiracy!! ;))
Thats hardly unusual, or uncommon, almost everything you do online these days is logged by something.
For many years all web browsing on the old ntl network was via their transparant proxy servers, which logged every page you visited - and yet I dont recall a single complaint about the invasion of privacy (just the performance).
BT/VM log every phone call you make, all mobile calls are logged (in fact much more is logged, hence they can tell where in the country you were at any given time), yet everyone just seems to accept this.
Isn't it all about what’s done with the info after it’s collected. Calls are logged because most of time they are chargeable items and you have to be able to give these details out if you any queries about costs. As for logging where I'm going, good luck to 'em. As long as I don't get adverts from T-mobile selling me holidays in London just because I was there last week, it's fine by me.
If you have a website with T&C which are explicit that they are not to be copied for commercial gain. You pay for items to review and sell a BT customer/visitor reads the reivew looks at the items for sale. Phorm/webwise will copy this site harvest keywords about the products viewed then direct adverts tot he visitor that would be your competitors. The visitor then goes of to the other sites possibly buying from the targeted advert. The site owner has paid for items tested reviewed and paid to build plus server costs but loses the sale. Now tell us how the site owner is not affected.
That makes no sense. If I go to a site and read a review about a product, if I want to buy it from that site (and make the site owner money) I will. If I don't I would either put the product name into google and look for other people that sell it, or click on a banner ad on the review site (probably Google Adwords) to find an alternative seller if appropriate
AFAIK all that Phorm would change with that would be the banner ads displayed, unless someone can prove different.
Now this may make the site owner less money as they wouldn't get click through advertising, but it wouldn't change the site visit experience, or decrease the direct sale potential.
Sites like Amazon or Dell.com for instance, wouldn't suddenly lose sales on their site, as they don't use banner advertising.
Thats hardly unusual, or uncommon, almost everything you do online these days is logged by something.
For many years all web browsing on the old ntl network was via their transparant proxy servers, which logged every page you visited - and yet I dont recall a single complaint about the invasion of privacy (just the performance).
BT/VM log every phone call you make, all mobile calls are logged (in fact much more is logged, hence they can tell where in the country you were at any given time), yet everyone just seems to accept this.
Several differences.
1) There are laws governing what all telecoms companies can log, and also it may not be practical to store actual recordings of the calls. It's relatively easy for Phorm to store every byte of what you browse (in fact, they freely admit they do for up to two weeks).
2) The transparent proxies if properly configured did not cache SSL pages, and I don't think they offered any direct mechanism by which people could view the cached pages. Phorms servers do, as far as I understand it, cache SSL pages, and while SSL is difficult to decrypt without the correct key, given someone's browsing history, I suspect it would be possible to retrieve that key. The data is certainly held long enough that someone could have a good go at brute force decryption. With the Phorm servers holding the browsing habits for 10's of thousands of people (if not millions), even if it is just two weeks of browsing, the servers will be a magnet for hackers.
3) Phorm is a company that in a past incarnation (121media) offered a toolbar that did a similar thing to the network they are installing now, but IIRC were not aware that that toolbar included a root kit. Would you trust your security to a company that apparently didn't know that it's product installed a root kit?
I know that there are various logs that show at least some of my browsing habits, but these are either in different places (therefore hard to access unless someone is planning a mass hack of every server I might visit) or just contain details of where I have been (such as a URL). They do not contain details of what the pages contained (although this is accessible via the URL), and they don't contain copies of any data I send back.
Follow up to my previous post:
This also applies to site that don't sell anything. The only time they are going to be affected with Phorm is if they use banner ads/click through advertising for revenue.
That, however, I think is a completely seperate issue to the copyright/cache thing
I'm not at all defending Phorm, and I don't like it, but if you going to have a informed debate, then the facts need to be right.
Obviously if I've misunderstood how Phorm works, and I'm completely wrong, I apologise
As much as I'm not keen on Phorm, I still don't understand what you mean.
Surely if you don't sign up to Google Ads, just as you don't sign up to Phorm, then Google Ads will take business AWAY from your own site to competitors that have signed up to Google Ads.
Unfortunately it isn't that simple... but we'll try and simplify it.
Whether or not you agree with what Phorm have created with their webwise technology (and i'm not suggesting you do agree), the fact remains that communications between ISP cusomers and the websites they visit is intercepted for a 3rd parties commercial gain.
If the ISP customer has accepted webwise AND the website has signed up to the OIX then there is no interception and no copyright infringement. both parties have agreed.
An owner of a website that contains intellectual property can decide to sign up, or not, to google ads. If you sign up to google ads, visitors will see your ad and are likely to go to your site if that is what they are interested in.
Irrespective of whether, as a website owner, you sign up to the OIX, a person of a Phorm partnered ISP can come along and visit your website. Webwise will then take a copy of that website and profile it's content for keywords etc and the URL is logged (http://www.out-law.com/page-9090)...
That 'data digest' as Phorm likes to call it, is then used to channelise the ISP customer to target the adverts.
When the ISP customer then visits an OIX partner website he will be served adverts based on the sites he visited. So a site selling widgets that does not wish to be part of Phorm or OIX will help any OIX partnered widget sellers.
Copyright is infringed because every website that carries intellectual property will no doubt carry a copright notice to protect that content, and most sites that are in business will also state that their site content cannot be used by a 3rd party for commercial gain.
Unfortunately Phorm and the partnered ISP totally ignore these copyright notices simply because they scrape ALL sites for keywords.
My thoughts are along the same lines. If it means I get my internet connection cheaper, just because I have some adverts on selected web pages which are supposedly tailored for my use - does it matter? I'm benefiting from the saving - I don't have to read the adverts.
It's precisely the same as Googlemail - which I use.
If you decide you are happy to use webwise, that is your choice. I certainly won't browbeat you for it.
Unfortunately the ones who stand to lose out the most are the websites. They may not realise it simply because the website owners don't fully understand it.
BT/VM log every phone call you make, all mobile calls are logged (in fact much more is logged, hence they can tell where in the country you were at any given time), yet everyone just seems to accept this.
I don't believe the 'all calls are logged' analogy has any bearing here. The calls are not logged for commercial gain.
I'm sure you would be less than pleased if, during your telephone conversations, you had to wait while an advert was played to you, based on the discussion you were having, before you could continue with your conversation.
Interception of communications should never be allowed for commercial gain. That is what Phorm technology does.
The whole argument against Phorm is based on interception of communications and the infringement of copyright.
Remember the legal Analysis (http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf)
* Interception of communications
* Fraud - forging of cookies (this may obviously change if cookies are no longer used)
* Civil wrongs - copyright theft
Exactly how Phorm does all of this profiling is hard to understand. As Ertugrul said , "It's difficult to convey in a sound-bite what it does and doesn't do."
I really do hope that Virgin Media say an absolute no to Phorm.
At the moment the VM website does say "Virgin Media has signed a preliminary agreement with Phorm to understand in more detail how this technology works but we have not yet decided if it will be introduced." They also say they are currently not, and have not, trialled Webwise.
Until they do (and I expect to be fully informed) I will continue to be a customer. At that point I will consider my options, one of which will be leaving.
Florence
10-12-2008, 19:40
Follow up to my previous post:
This also applies to site that don't sell anything. The only time they are going to be affected with Phorm is if they use banner ads/click through advertising for revenue.
That, however, I think is a completely seperate issue to the copyright/cache thing
I'm not at all defending Phorm, and I don't like it, but if you going to have a informed debate, then the facts need to be right.
Obviously if I've misunderstood how Phorm works, and I'm completely wrong, I apologise
No Ben you just not getting it Phorm can edit what you see the system has the ability to change the website you wanted.
Banner adverts many already block as they do not wish to waste bandwidth on them like I do. On one site I visited because I block banner adverts I didn't get infected with a image hidden virus which others did who allowed banner adverts.
Phorms banner adverts will be shown unable to block, if you block the webwise domain you will lose the ability to surf the internet.
Phorm can even change a websites click thorough adverts to their own OIX platform ones the website will get nothing.
All adverts are supplied from companies that are willing to pay more to advertise on the OIX platform. Phorm say they do not know where you have been yet an advertiser can stipulate you visit the link the words matched a certain number of times,
Unless you look at this system carefully then do not take what is said on Phorms website but then go and search deeper into it check what advertisers can request in exchange for placing adverts to the target.
There is even mention of function creep in Phorms webwise patent for customers to surrender more of their privacy.
If you wish to surrender your privacy so cheaply the ISP will gain £21 per year per accepting customer if it was not opt-in.
No matter how much people say this will not affect website owners, or ISP customers do need to start at the beginning and research the system. Then research the T&C on websites they visit more so those in countries like Canada where the similar company is already facing class action for copyright infringement.
The internet is not owned by the ISPs, the advertisers or the website owners the internet has grown from all. Website owners pay hosting bills, some regain a little from advertisements others just pay the bills and welcome visitors as long as copyright rules are followed. ISPs charge the customers to access the WWW also covering bandwidth charges so unless the company is really incapable of planning a proper business plan there should be funding for growth. Advertisers normally are larger companies that have websites plus selling they seem to be getting greedier and wanting to own the internet. Unless we all stand form companies like BT who have followed a business plan of higher wages fat cat bonuses while trying to attract customers with prices too low. Tiscali have already followed the sell it cheap pull them in and give bad support due to not enough funding route and show it fails. Now BT and VM are heading the same way but again they will fail unless they trick customers into giving up their privacy, security to be pimped for adverts.
Yes I do feel strongly on this as there is a lot said about transparency but the word was meant to be slipping it in without customers knowing.
What you all have to remember if you login on your online banking or read an email from your bank in your browser which has your banking login details and your account gets emptied the banks will not cover this loss if you agreed to be phormed knowing the way it works..
That then brings you to the informed consent which ICO said would possibly make it legal if the ISP does not mention how it gathers the data to profile you then you cannot make an informed decision.
I am really suprised at how many still have their heads stuck in the sand thinking it wil not happen to me, everyone who has concerns about their private life being invaided needs to wake up before it is to late.
Wild Oscar
12-12-2008, 13:23
Leaving aside the Phorm argument for a minute .. I still find it quite puzzling that we, as a country seem to have rolled over en masse with regard to personal surveillance in this way.
If someone had told me fifteen, twenty years ago that everywhere I go I would be photographed or filmed and that every phone call I make would be recorded (potentialy!) ... I think I would have been horrified!!
and yet we seem to accept it almost without question .. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about is the mantra often quoted .. where's it all going to end I wonder!
Mick Fisher
12-12-2008, 22:21
Leaving aside the Phorm argument for a minute .. I still find it quite puzzling that we, as a country seem to have rolled over en masse with regard to personal surveillance in this way.
If someone had told me fifteen, twenty years ago that everywhere I go I would be photographed or filmed and that every phone call I make would be recorded (potentialy!) ... I think I would have been horrified!!
and yet we seem to accept it almost without question .. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about is the mantra often quoted .. where's it all going to end I wonder!
No we don't but what can we do about it apart from wearing a balaclava and a hood or emigrating. Don't say exercise our democratic rights or complain to our MP's as we know what a fruitless exercise that is.
Dephormation
16-12-2008, 10:07
No we don't but what can we do about it apart from wearing a balaclava and a hood or emigrating. Don't say exercise our democratic rights or complain to our MP's as we know what a fruitless exercise that is.
Its not so bleak. In this instance, there is power is in our hands.
It is vital to complain to the police about illegal interception (even so called 'invitation' pages).
Penalising the ISPs that implement Phorm by moving accounts to Phorm free ISPs is instanteously effective.
As a web master, blocking or limiting content to ISPs that operate Phorm is a strong incentive to customers to move. Who would want to feel excluded from even a small percentage the internet?
And, should it launch, turning the tables on the ISPs and tracking their copyright abuse (as much as they track illegal file sharing) opens the possibility of a blizzard of copyright infringement cases.
Whatever you do, don't ignore Phorm.
Recognise this as the thin end of the wedge; there's little to differentiate web traffic from email, VoIP, SMS, voice and any other method of private personal/commercial data communication.
Phorm has to be stopped.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/phorm-internet - This will put the cat amongst the pigeons. Out of date thread title me thinks ...
zing_deleted
16-12-2008, 10:15
I see the Danes have no idea what the word free means
In Denmark, for instance, telecoms company TDC has introduced a "free" unlimited music download service for its internet access customers. The cost of the service is bundled as part of a customer's monthly subscription.
I see the Danes have no idea what the word free means
And how is that any different from the 'Free' stuff we get inclusive as part of X/Y/Z in the UK?
Sir John Luke
16-12-2008, 19:38
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/phorm-internet - This will put the cat amongst the pigeons. Out of date thread title me thinks ...
The Guardian has now removed the reference that Virgin Media is "to press ahead with its targeted online advertising technology". CEO Neil Berkett said the firm made no such promise.
Its not so bleak. In this instance, there is power is in our hands.
It is vital to complain to the police about illegal interception (even so called 'invitation' pages).
Penalising the ISPs that implement Phorm by moving accounts to Phorm free ISPs is instanteously effective.
As a web master, blocking or limiting content to ISPs that operate Phorm is a strong incentive to customers to move. Who would want to feel excluded from even a small percentage the internet?
And, should it launch, turning the tables on the ISPs and tracking their copyright abuse (as much as they track illegal file sharing) opens the possibility of a blizzard of copyright infringement cases.
Whatever you do, don't ignore Phorm.
Recognise this as the thin end of the wedge; there's little to differentiate web traffic from email, VoIP, SMS, voice and any other method of private personal/commercial data communication.
Phorm has to be stopped.
How does reporting this issue to the police help, it didn't work for the "secret" trials BT were running, how can it work for open trials?
Dephormation
17-12-2008, 10:41
How does reporting this issue to the police help, it didn't work for the "secret" trials BT were running, how can it work for open trials?
If you pay a subscription for a private communication service, that service should remain private and free from interference.
The grounds for complaint about the 2008 trial are as follows. If a third party to a communication between you and a web site alters that communication (by intercepting your communication for a purpose unrelated to onward delivery, then redirecting you to a web page you were not expecting to receive) your communication is being illegally intercepted.
I've reported the 2006/7 BT trials to police, and given them circumstantial evidence that Virgin were operating similar equipment at the same time.
It is necessary to report it because if you don't report criminal offences, they don't get investigated, and criminals don't get prosecuted.
Did it work? Not immediately. I was never given an adequate explanation by the police. 'Someone higher up told us not to investigate'.
But the fact that the police didn't investigate my complaint was one of a number of similar complaints to the European Commission about the failure of the government to enforce the law.
So can it work? The Crown Prosecution Service are now investigating BT's trials in 2006 and 2007. The EC have asked the government to account for their inaction. And if more people make similar complaints it will only add to the pressure.
I sincerely hope and expect directors of the telcos responsible for Phorm trials will soon face prosecution. Otherwise we will effectively lose the right to private commercial/personal unencrypted data communications in this country (and you're going to see encryption become a very hot topic).
If you pay a subscription for a private communication service, that service should remain private and free from interference.
The grounds for complaint about the 2008 trial are as follows. If a third party to a communication between you and a web site alters that communication (by intercepting your communication for a purpose unrelated to onward delivery, then redirecting you to a web page you were not expecting to receive) your communication is being illegally intercepted.
I've reported the 2006/7 BT trials to police, and given them circumstantial evidence that Virgin were operating similar equipment at the same time.
It is necessary to report it because if you don't report criminal offences, they don't get investigated, and criminals don't get prosecuted.
Did it work? Not immediately. I was never given an adequate explanation by the police. 'Someone higher up told us not to investigate'.
But the fact that the police didn't investigate my complaint was one of a number of similar complaints to the European Commission about the failure of the government to enforce the law.
So can it work? The Crown Prosecution Service are now investigating BT's trials in 2006 and 2007. The EC have asked the government to account for their inaction. And if more people make similar complaints it will only add to the pressure.
I sincerely hope and expect directors of the telcos responsible for Phorm trials will soon face prosecution. Otherwise we will effectively lose the right to private commercial/personal unencrypted data communications in this country (and you're going to see encryption become a very hot topic).
Interesting, well if your hope fails, and the crown doesn't go after BT, then it could be a green light for Phorm for the UK, and possibly Europe too.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.