PDA

View Full Version : Phorm - Coming Soon!


Albie
07-04-2009, 17:03
Just take a look at this. :td:


Phorm eyes launch after hard year

Online advertising firm Phorm is pressing ahead with plans to launch more than a year after it first drew criticism from some privacy advocates.
Phorm executives will meet with members of the public on Tuesday, following a similar meeting in 2008.
The service has proved controversial for some campaigners who believe it breaks UK data interception laws.
The firm received clearance from the Home Office and police closed a file on BT trials of the technology.
"We have been supported or endorsed by all of the leading stakeholders," Phorm chief executive Kent Ertugrul told BBC News.
"Ofcom, the Information Commissioner's Office, the Home Office, leading privacy advocates like Simon Davies, the advertising industry and publishers have all backed our service," he said.
He added: "We are very, very happy with where we are one year on."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7988154.stm

Gary L
07-04-2009, 17:17
"We have been supported or endorsed by all of the leading stakeholders," Phorm chief executive Kent Ertugrul told BBC News.
"Ofcom, the Information Commissioner's Office, the Home Office, leading privacy advocates like Simon Davies, the advertising industry and publishers have all backed our service," he said.

Just needs one of them people to say they didn't say they supported or backed them.
they keep making statements about Virgin media and how they're part of Phorm, but Virgin media never challenge them. if you ask Virgin whether they will be using phorm, that just say they don't have any plans on what they're doing yet.

which is fair enough I suppose, but I'm only going to think you were being deceitful and dishonest to me if the day ever came that you suddenly said we've finalised a deal and we are now part of Phorm. your modem will reboot in minus 45 seconds.

Stuart
07-04-2009, 17:22
The EC? Oh, wait...

Albie
07-04-2009, 17:31
Have VM said what they'll do with the money they'll recieve if they go ahead with Phorm? Cheaper BB prices or better speeds for us? :confused:

Gary L
07-04-2009, 17:32
Have VM said what they'll do with the money they'll recieve if they go ahead with Phorm? Cheaper BB prices or better speeds for us? :confused:

Pay off the bank loan?

Mick Fisher
07-04-2009, 17:34
Just more spin and PR from a desperate Company that is bleeding away it's capitol fast.

Take no notice of what Mr Ertugrul says, it's what he doesn't say that is significant. The Guy missed his calling, instead of becoming the SpyWare Master he should have been a Politician. :rolleyes:

AndyCambs
07-04-2009, 17:36
Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.

Milambar
07-04-2009, 17:37
<speculation>So, how long until VM announces the introduction of Phorm? Now this story has run, I have no doubt that it will happen sooner or later.</speculation>

In the meantime, I predict this thread will become a flamefest and go wildly offtopic as Phorm threads always do. I'm off for popcorn and to watch the show.

AndyCambs: You can choose not to use OpenDNS or googlemail. You won't be able to choose not to use Phorm.

TheNorm
07-04-2009, 17:43
.... You won't be able to choose not to use Phorm.

Doesn't your computer have an "off" switch?

Anonymouse
07-04-2009, 17:52
Oh, frak.

Next thing you know, MI6 are going to be having words with Virgin:

"It seems a lot of your subscribers - what few you still have - are encrypting all their internet traffic, using IronKey, SSL, VPNs etc. This is very suspicious and we believe there may be a terrorist conspiracy at work here."

What could they say? "No, no, they're just worried about Phorm..."

Pathetic. They will not, of course, see the difference between a desire to keep private affairs private and having something to hide. Nor do they want to.

Hey, Alexander, come out of hiding! The campaign needs reviving! :shocked:

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

Doesn't your computer have an "off" switch?
Of course it does. But...and forgive me for pointing out the obvious flaw in that logic...how the hell are you going to browse the Internet if your computer's off? :p: Do please remember the Phorm stuff is installed at the ISP end - you can't not go through your ISP.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.
The difference is not in what is done, but how. You have a choice as to whether or not to use OpenDNS or Googlemail. You won't have a choice with Phorm except to switch ISP. Plus the information they collect may not be - and probably is not - anonymous, as they claim.
As to it being less intrusive, that's debatable...and has been debated, at great length, elsewhere.

Sirius
07-04-2009, 18:03
LOL:

Were is my deck chair.

there it is


Now waits for the tin foil hat brigade to arrive. ;)

Milambar
07-04-2009, 18:13
Its already here. Want some popcorn?

Barton71
07-04-2009, 18:14
LOL:

Were is my deck chair.

there it is


Now waits for the tin foil hat brigade to arrive. ;)

Dunno about the tin foil hat brigade, but i am not about to make Kent rich, through my web surfing. If there is money to be made through me visiting web sites, then i want a cut of it. A big cut. Either than or VM can kiss goodbye to one more customer who subscribes to their BB, TV and phone packages. Switching suppliers is no big deal for me.

Stuart
07-04-2009, 18:18
Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.

The difference being that you choose to use those services. If you choose not to, your info does not go anywhere near their systems. Even Google AdWords (which is one of the various Phorm Minions favourite comparisons) can be blocked relatively easily (just block the Javascript).

The problem with Phorm is that depending on how it is implemented, your data will go through the system regardless, and we have only their word that they disregard the data. AFAIK, the ISP does not get access to the system, so they cannot check.


Have VM said what they'll do with the money they'll recieve if they go ahead with Phorm? Cheaper BB prices or better speeds for us? :confused:

Dunno, but I am sure I read somewhere that BT (who are planning by far the largest deployment) are only expecting to get around £80 million a year. With Virgin's costs, that is not going to go far.

Sirius
07-04-2009, 18:20
Dunno about the tin foil hat brigade, but i am not about to make Kent rich, through my web surfing. If there is money to be made through me visiting web sites, then i want a cut of it. A big cut. Either than or VM can kiss goodbye to one more customer who subscribes to their BB, TV and phone packages. Switching suppliers is no big deal for me.

Don't get me wrong i hate Phorm with every fibre of my sole however there are those that will link them to the most extremes of things just to keep the name Phorm in the news. There has been some crazy accusations in the old Phorm thread on this site :LOL:

---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 17:19 ----------

Its already here. Want some popcorn?

Yes please, i will provide the beer

Stuart
07-04-2009, 18:23
Don't get me wrong i hate Phorm with every fibre of my sole however there are those that will link them to the most extremes of things just to keep the name Phorm in the news. There has been some crazy accusations in the old Phorm thread on this site :LOL:



I seem to remember people trying to organise a boycott of some company because their website was on the same server as a company very loosely linked with Phorm (I think Kent once had shares in it).

Sirius
07-04-2009, 18:31
I seem to remember people trying to organise a boycott of some company because their website was on the same server as a company very loosely linked with Phorm (I think Kent once had shares in it).

The tin foil hat brigade did ruin a lot of the good work that was being done to highlight Phorm.

for those not sure of who Phorm are here's a link you should read HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm)

AndyCambs
07-04-2009, 21:10
The difference is not in what is done, but how. You have a choice as to whether or not to use OpenDNS or Googlemail. You won't have a choice with Phorm except to switch ISP. Plus the information they collect may not be - and probably is not - anonymous, as they claim.
As to it being less intrusive, that's debatable...and has been debated, at great length, elsewhere.


I can't stop the goverment prying into my emails or SMS either. At least with VM there is nothing tangible that connects it to me.

In any case, it says here (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php) that:

It may be that, as part of the evaluation process, we want to test the technology among some of our customers but we are not currently doing so and we will not conduct any such tests without individual customers' prior consent. Moreover, should Virgin Media eventually decide to roll out Webwise, customers will not be forced to use the system.

Ed2020
07-04-2009, 22:46
I can't stop the goverment prying into my emails or SMS either.

You may not be able to prevent them from prying into your SMS but you can cetainly prevent them getting anywhere near your emails.

Ed.

Mick Fisher
08-04-2009, 14:55
Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?
If you object to Google's or OpenDNS's practices then simply do not use them. Unfortunately it is not so simple with Phorm as they use DPI equipment sited at your ISP so you have absolutely no way to avoid it. There will be a way to opt out of the adverts but you will be profiled by Phorms Kit anyway.

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.
No Phorm are just as intrusive because they are completely unaccountable and like HM Gov they give you no choice in the matter and just take waht they want.

Ravenheart
14-04-2009, 12:53
Hope Kent had a nice long weekend... ;)

The European Commission has started legal action against Britain over the online advertising technology Phorm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7998009.stm

Sirius
14-04-2009, 12:57
Hope Kent had a nice long weekend... ;)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7998009.stm

That has SOOOOO made my day. :clap::clap:

telfordcable
14-04-2009, 12:59
We don't want PHORM ! say NO !!!!

Sirius
14-04-2009, 13:03
We don't want PHORM ! say NO !!!!

Do you have any friends who works for them, Come on spill the beans :)

Ignitionnet
14-04-2009, 13:04
For all the dislike of the EC Viviane Reding has done more recently for UK broadband services than Ofcom have. It's what happens when the agency is run by a power horny wannabe politician who has never had a job in telecomms and the government are advised by a career PR man whose main link to comms was BS'ing people when ntl were going down the poop chute.

Tarantella
14-04-2009, 13:17
I remember seeing, Ertugul I think, on a mainstream news programme, describing how using phorm it was possible to see the 'whole internet' working.

His mien at the time reminded me of this clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwaPRvpXjDQ

Ignitionnet
14-04-2009, 13:24
I remember seeing, Ertugul I think, on a mainstream news programme, describing how using phorm it was possible to see the 'whole internet' working.

His mien at the time reminded me of this clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwaPRvpXjDQ

This is possible via any decent DPI, indeed the existing DPI monitoring on the ex-ntl network would show you this.

Mick Fisher
14-04-2009, 14:26
Hope Kent had a nice long weekend... ;)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7998009.stm
Some Wonderful news for a change.

Don't you just love it when a plan comes together. :D

Milambar
14-04-2009, 14:40
How sad that the EU has to protect us from the machinations of our own government though.

Ignitionnet
14-04-2009, 14:46
How sad that the EU has to protect us from the machinations of our own government though.

Not the first time recently - they also stepped in regarding Whacky Jacqui's DNA collection as well:

http://cosmodaddy.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/jacqui-smith-attacks-european-court-of-human-rights/

We have more CCTV cameras per head than any other country in the world (1 for each 14 people), and more people on DNA databases than any other country in the world (over 1 in 10 of the adult population are on there).

Sadly our own government couldn't give two hoots for our privacy or rights so why should the Phorm issue be any different. Government are probably more interested in using it to assist with interception.

The UK is classed by Privacy International as an endemic surveillance society, in the same class as Russia and China.

rogerdraig
14-04-2009, 14:53
Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.


because its easy to avoide google and its far more intrusive than the governments snooping which will just keep who you contact not what you say to them or do on any given site

phorm can see exactly what you do and keep it if it wants

Mick Fisher
14-04-2009, 14:57
How sad that the EU has to protect us from the machinations of our own government though.
It seems we have an Administration that collectively values their own and Corporate wellbeing higher than the wellbeing of the Population.

Just another reason to dump them ASAP with a resounding kick up the jaxi. They will then, hopefully, wallow in Political Purgatory for 50 years.

Ignitionnet
14-04-2009, 15:02
The UK as a whole is one giant advert for emmigration at the moment to be honest. I'm amused to note there are more personal privacy protections in Scotland though.

Kursk
14-04-2009, 17:49
Alexander Hanff is understandably in positively jubilant mood at his site :).

I wonder if there could be an amnesty for those who 'departed' Cable Forum on this very heated issue?

Now there's progress, heads will be cooler all around! :)

Tarantella
14-04-2009, 18:08
BBC link


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7998009.stm

Chris
14-04-2009, 18:26
Alexander Hanff is understandably in positively jubilant mood at his site :).

I wonder if there could be an amnesty for those who 'departed' Cable Forum on this very heated issue?

Now there's progress, heads will be cooler all around! :)

People join and depart this site all the time, for many reasons. Our members are welcome here whether they post often or never or whether they visit regularly or rarely.

People who get banned for breaching the forum rules on the other hand ... well, let me know next time you see Satan throwing snowballs, and we'll think about it.

Sirius
14-04-2009, 19:25
well, let me know next time you see Satan throwing snowballs,

Never heard that before :LOL:

Kursk
14-04-2009, 20:14
People join and depart this site all the time, for many reasons. Our members are welcome here whether they post often or never or whether they visit regularly or rarely.

People who get banned for breaching the forum rules on the other hand ... well, let me know next time you see Satan throwing snowballs, and we'll think about it.

That's a 'no' then? :D

I dunno Chris, life's too short. Privacy is an emotive issue and it was a good debate.

Well anyway, I thought I'd ask.

Raistlin
14-04-2009, 20:33
I dunno Chris, life's too short. Privacy is an emotive issue and it was a good debate.

Actually, a debate is where both sides of an argument can be heard and discussed in a civilised and adult manner - a fact that seemed lost on a number of people involved in that thread.

Russ
14-04-2009, 20:35
Privacy is an emotive issue and it was a good debate


Truly a matter of opinion if ever I heard one.

Stuart
14-04-2009, 20:39
Truly a matter of opinion if ever I heard one.

Indeed..

It was interesting. Not sure I'd call it a debate though, It sometimes seemed more a place where those who weren't rabidly anti-phorm got shouted down.

I am in the unusual position of being called pro-phorm by the anti-phormers and anti-phorm by the pro-phormers in that thread.

rogerdraig
14-04-2009, 21:33
Actually, a debate is where both sides of an argument can be heard and discussed in a civilised and adult manner - a fact that seemed lost on a number of people involved in that thread.

could end up with a company being found guilty of breaching the law, putting people in that thread to wind-up people to create the feelings that might cause the hassle to cover up or at least create enough smoke to hide what they were doing

i left the thread before it got locked because i wasnt well enough for a while to get online and i dont know who or why any one got banned but i did see a lot of pro ( though they often claimed they were not ) doing a lot of winding up

i am normaly for the enforcement of rules often thiking they ( not here ) are not enforced well enough often enough to be efective ! but i would say that where people have been deliberately provoked that sometimes that should be take into consideration .


well i am off to try that arcade again now lol i will have a top score at something ( well maybe by the end of they year any how ;) )

basa
14-04-2009, 23:09
Not the first time recently - they also stepped in regarding Whacky Jacqui's DNA collection as well:

http://cosmodaddy.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/jacqui-smith-attacks-european-court-of-human-rights/


Yep and that did much good ..... NOT!!

Today was a good result, but bear in mind she hasn’t committed to changing the law as a result yet.

You still can't get innocent DNA removed (yes I DO know that for a fact);)

Kursk
14-04-2009, 23:14
Actually, a debate is where both sides of an argument can be heard and discussed in a civilised and adult manner - a fact that seemed lost on a number of people involved in that thread.

Truly a matter of opinion if ever I heard one.


Indeed..

It was interesting. Not sure I'd call it a debate though, It sometimes seemed more a place where those who weren't rabidly anti-phorm got shouted down.

I am in the unusual position of being called pro-phorm by the anti-phormers and anti-phorm by the pro-phormers in that thread.

Well, that's definitely that then! I dunno, it was a good thread and a majority of rule-abiding contributors lost out when it was permanently closed.

Temporary 'cooling off' bans might be a future moderating option? Having said that, it looks like 'temporary' could be a long, long time in certain cases :)!

mark777
15-04-2009, 00:34
The old thread needed to close IMHO.

It started as a "pros and cons" discussion. It attracted a lot of people who were against the ideas behind webwise - I made my first ever forum post there.

It then inevitably became something of a campaigning thread and attracted more people who were only there to wind others up, pro or anti.

As a campaign it needed to move on, elsewhere. I am still grateful to CF for giving the campaign a leg-up, as that thread was key to forming a critical mass that did go elsewhere.

Kursk
15-04-2009, 00:57
The old thread needed to close IMHO.

It started as a "pros and cons" discussion. It attracted a lot of people who were against the ideas behind webwise - I made my first ever forum post there.

It then inevitably became something of a campaigning thread and attracted more people who were only there to wind others up, pro or anti.

As a campaign it needed to move on, elsewhere. I am still grateful to CF for giving the campaign a leg-up, as that thread was key to forming a critical mass that did go elsewhere.

Good post. I suppose I'm just hankering for ye olden days :D .

Sir John Luke
15-04-2009, 09:02
I see a growing number of web site owners, including LiveJournal and Amazon, have opted out of having their visitors 'phormed', should the 'service' ever be introduced. Will CF please follow suit (if they haven't already)?

(Email website-exclusion{at}webwise.com to request exclusion)

rogerdraig
15-04-2009, 13:11
Yep and that did much good ..... NOT!!



You still can't get innocent DNA removed (yes I DO know that for a fact);)

you can but you will most likely have to either go to court or threaten to the European court ruling means that if they didnt you would win ongoing damages if they then didnt comply

basa
15-04-2009, 23:06
you can but you will most likely have to either go to court or threaten to the European court ruling means that if they didnt you would win ongoing damages if they then didnt comply

Hmmm, let me see. Me taking GM Police to court. And expect a life without police harrassment afterwards? Maybe not :rolleyes:

And exactly what damage have I actually suffered by my DNA being held on record?

I am just ****ed off at the intrusion when there was no case to answer and to add insult to injury keep the damn records :mad:

bw41101
15-04-2009, 23:39
For Firefox users, you may wish to have a look at the link below. It's not a cure for this particular cancer, but it's better than nowt! :erm:

https://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=3

I've got a feeling that this link may have already been posted somewhere within this forum - if it has, then every credit to the originator.

Si thee :Sprint:

rogerdraig
16-04-2009, 00:12
Hmmm, let me see. Me taking GM Police to court. And expect a life without police harrassment afterwards? Maybe not :rolleyes:

And exactly what damage have I actually suffered by my DNA being held on record?

I am just ****ed off at the intrusion when there was no case to answer and to add insult to injury keep the damn records :mad:

no idea but there have been a few who have lost jobs because of other stuff held on them even though they were not convicted or even found not guilty

i expect they will once its quiet comply with this hidden away in some piece of legislation when something else is going on but as with everything it will take time

merc2001
16-04-2009, 00:14
GIVE a cheer for amazon they say NO!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7999635.stm

rogerdraig
16-04-2009, 13:20
i think more will follow they are starting to understand exactly how much phorm will be able to see and how much that information will be useful to competitors for thier trade and advertising revenue

whether or not phorm says they will use it it will still be possibleand they no if some ones willing to pay for some one with the information will sell it

mark777
17-04-2009, 01:58
Well Wiki do not want them either.

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/wikimedia-opting-out-of-phorm/

Wikimedia covers the whole wiki empire.

This might hit the news sometime during Friday. ;)

Sirius
17-04-2009, 08:38
Well Wiki do not want them either.

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/wikimedia-opting-out-of-phorm/

Wikimedia covers the whole wiki empire.

This might hit the news sometime during Friday. ;)

Absolutely fantastic news, Well done Wiki.

As soon as all websites realise what a parasitical company phorm is the better

Sir John Luke
17-04-2009, 09:19
Still waiting for THIS site to state they have opted out.... please!

Stuart
17-04-2009, 10:07
For all the dislike of the EC Viviane Reding has done more recently for UK broadband services than Ofcom have. It's what happens when the agency is run by a power horny wannabe politician who has never had a job in telecomms and the government are advised by a career PR man whose main link to comms was BS'ing people when ntl were going down the poop chute.

Sadly, it seems that OFCOM (like the rest of the current government) is a little reluctant (even frightened of) trying to control big companies.

Paul
17-04-2009, 13:26
Still waiting for THIS site to state they have opted out.... please!
There is nothing to opt out of yet, its all just theory atm.

Russ
17-04-2009, 13:32
Still waiting for THIS site to state they have opted out.... please!

This site will never be involved with phorm.

Sir John Luke
17-04-2009, 13:38
With respect, you don't have to be involved with Phorm for users to have their interaction with the site scanned by them. I was asking for the site to request Phorm NOT to scan visitors interactions.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/block-phorm-letter/

Frank
17-04-2009, 17:52
Yes, we will request opt-out.

Sirius
17-04-2009, 17:55
Yes, we will request opt-out.

Frank

Thank you :tu:

Mick Fisher
17-04-2009, 22:00
Yes, we will request opt-out.
A Wonderful Note to end the working week on.

Thankyou. :)

Sir John Luke
18-04-2009, 08:45
Yes, we will request opt-out.

Thank you!:)

GeoffW
18-04-2009, 11:13
Well Wiki do not want them either.

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/wikimedia-opting-out-of-phorm/

Wikimedia covers the whole wiki empire.

This might hit the news sometime during Friday. ;)

I'm confused, I thought the profiler was under ISP control, so you opt out from BT Webwise not Phorm. This is one of the key distinctions Phorm keep making about how all the personalised data is kept within the ISP. So why is the Webwise opt out email response referring to Phorm checking the legitimacy of domains, surely this should be BT doing this.

(Unless of course BT has no idea of what this box does or how to operate it so Phorm do it for them)

Sirius
18-04-2009, 11:27
(Unless of course BT has no idea of what this box does or how to operate it so Phorm do it for them)

And there is just one of my concerns. Should it be that the ISP has no control over this spyware box then it opens the door for 121 media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm) sorry Phorm to do what they ruddy well want.

If it is that Phorm have control of the box and not the ISP how can we possibly trust Phorm to do what we have asked, There track record says they will do what ever they want.

If this is the case then any ISP that allows this to happen is open to a massive lawsuit if you ask me.

Kursk
18-04-2009, 14:23
To quote Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbour, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Phorm seem to have done the same thing...

Rchivist
18-04-2009, 17:36
Glad to hear that CF will be banning Phorm from scraping your users. Do keep an eye on your logs for visits from Phorm IPv4 Assignment IP addresses as they seem to still scrape after the notice has been sent. But at least then it is easy to sue them.

Phorm hit the front page of the Independent this week, and have had bad headlines virtually every day for about a fortnight. They are in deep doo doo and it even looks like BERR may be getting a bit fed up with their exaggerated claims - we had a FOI response from BERR within about 3 days or so, refuting Phorm's claims that BERR had said they were "fully compliant" with UK legislation and the FOI response was very specific and went further than requested in very clearly denying having given Phorm any such reassurances. Read more like a lawyers letter really. Looks like Phorm have rather burnt their boats in that department.

Best wishes to all, from "another place" (as they say in Parliament)

warescouse
18-04-2009, 18:10
To quote Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbour, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Phorm seem to have done the same thing...
That's a very good quote and one I wish I had thought of. I feel a bit that way myself.

I was probably meandering through life, content, ignorantly trusting of all authority and all of a sudden Phorm came into the horizon. Since then a lot of water has gone under the bridge but it resulted in my own re-education. Now very concerned with many privacy issues, although to be truthful mainly Phorms invasive DPI product at this moment in time.

The Cableforum did a massive job in getting the anti-phorm campaign off the ground and I realise because of the impartiality needed in the webwise thread that it probably became a little too difficult for the moderators to moderate. The end was sad and when the WebWise thread got locked I was a little concerned that the nodpi and badphorm campaign sites would not provide a balanced view to the detriment of the campaign. I was actually proved wrong because the group of people posting within those threads were interested in the truth and in many cases arguments were respectfully destroyed to be rebuild again. Because they are campaign sites, the disruptive paid PR teams that used to visit here are less in evident but they do chance their arm from time to time.

I am glad to see the Cableforum are going to opt out from Phorms scraping of webcontent. It is a pity they just cannot put in Robots.txt in the root of the website ie. PhormDoNotVisit.

Actually this can be done using robots.txt but it also would prevent Google visiting as well. The choice you currently get is that you can opt out of Google driving traffic to this site to also prevent Phorm visiting your site (If honoured). Or you can allow Google to visit this site and allow Phorm to scrape content and possible drive traffic away from this site. simply put, Phorms WebWise interception will drive traffic from a site while Google drives traffic to a site.

Using the same user agent in robots.txt is I think is ludicrous but a clever ploy by Phorm, hence the need to opt out.

The short term opt-out solution is required while phorms webwise legal status is challenged. I am hoping for a few more big companies to opt out as well.

Kursk
18-04-2009, 18:42
Best wishes to all, from "another place" (as they say in Parliament)

Same to you Robert lol :). It's a bit like Macbeth/The Scottish Play isn't it? Oh well.

That's a very good quote and one I wish I had thought of.

Me too :) !

Incidentally, I was pleased to note the change of focus at 80/20 Thinking (http://www.8020thinking.com/news/2-latest-news/24-8020-announces-changes-in-company-focus.html). Well done Simon! :)

icsys
18-04-2009, 21:48
Nice to see a new thread containing reasoned discussion on Webwise.

The Cableforum did a massive job in getting the anti-phorm campaign off the ground and I realise because of the impartiality needed in the webwise thread that it probably became a little too difficult for the moderators to moderate. The end was sad and when the WebWise thread got locked I was a little concerned that the nodpi and badphorm campaign sites would not provide a balanced view to the detriment of the campaign. I was actually proved wrong because the group of people posting within those threads were interested in the truth and in many cases arguments were respectfully destroyed to be rebuild again. Because they are campaign sites, the disruptive paid PR teams that used to visit here are less in evident but they do chance their arm from time to time.
I wholeheartedly agree. And cableforum should be thanked for that.


The news this week from the EU Commission may just be the ticket to get Phorm to at least comply fully with EU regulations if not stopped completely.

Requesting to be opted-out of Phorm profiling is currently the only way a site can protect its users, by requesting that user interactions are not scraped.
To be operated legally, one of the many requirements is that Phorm's webwise has to be operated as explicit opt-in (A point that was made clear by the ICO).
That means the ISP customer has to give informed consent to be profiled and the website whose pages are being scraped also has to give informed consent for the scraping to take place.

At the risk of legitimising Phorm's opting out method, if dozens of sites send opt-out notices it will send a clear message to Phorm that their product is not wanted.

Sirius
19-04-2009, 10:35
The news this week from the EU Commission may just be the ticket to get Phorm to at least comply fully with EU regulations if not stopped completely.
.

That's my wish

AdamD
19-04-2009, 17:18
Submitted my site, as well
Isn't there an IP that can be blocked to?

warescouse
19-04-2009, 18:41
Submitted my site, as well
Isn't there an IP that can be blocked to?
Unfortunately there is no single IP that you can block without blocking every customer within a Phorm enabled IP from visiting your site. This is the nature of Phorms WebWise DPI. You cannot block 'it' without blocking all visitors, because every http session by a customer in a Phorm enabled ISP is physically intercepted at the ISP. As an example, if your site is a commercial site and a potential customer on that WebWise enabled ISP visits your WebSite, your content is copied and 'scraped'.

If for instance you are selling shoes on that website and a potential customer has looked at shoes deep within the content of your site, when that potential customer browses next to a website associated with Phorms advertising system, they may get another advert for shoes and this is the important bit. That link will not go to your website. Phorm have now driven traffic away from yours to another rival Website selling shoes. This is one little part of my objection to Phorms DPI advertising system, you cannot escape from it unless you do something positive. They have effectively discovered on your site and without permission used it to drive business to another site.

Obviously there are many other far reaching privacy aspects involved and if your interested you could visit one of the 'say no to deep packet inspection' sites. Opting out in the manner of Amazon, Wikipedia, Drupal and Cableforum (and others) is not the proper solution, but the only one currently available for WebSite owners to keep their Website free of Phorm.

Wild Oscar
19-04-2009, 21:31
Phorm gettng a bloody nose is always welcome news!

Thanks for the heads-up and links folks ..

madslug
19-04-2009, 22:14
Pardon my ignorance, and I am sure someone will point out to me, but I can't see any difference in Phorm collecting anonymous information, and OpenDNS or Googlemail which tailors on-screen advertising?

And certainly less intrusive than HM Gov insisting that all my communication records are kept.

I stopped using OpenDNS because at least my ISP does not sell my traffic data to earn an income.

Googlemail is not a UK business and those who use it should read the privacy statement. Most businesses will not send marketing to profiled email services. Both sender and receiver have a choice and know that whatever is written is being profiled - the price you pay for a 'free' service. Now that VM is putting all its email through gmail it is a question which a lot more people will be asking.

The Gov't database will only store traffic data (outside the envelope) and not the contents of the envelope. This is like 1% of what Phorm collects so if you find this intrusive you must be falling over yourself with rage at what Phorm collects.

Most of the major ISPs are already selling the traffic data that the Gov't will be collecting. Where else do you think that Hitwise and Neilsen Ratings get their data? They just promise that their scripts remove your IP address before they look at it. If that shocks you, read the privacy policy and somewhere you will find that your data may be shared with other businesses for marketing purposes.

The main reason I protest against Phorm is that it gets access to a website's visitor data. It is rather like a hacker getting hold of the server logs and selling that data to the competition.

We all complain when a business sells its customer details to another business so that they can use the data for marketing. Phorm comes along and helps itself to that data and does not pay the business. Which is rather like industrial spying and stealing customers for the competition.

Can you offer anything good about any of the 3 businesses you compared?

Chris
19-04-2009, 22:40
I stopped using OpenDNS because at least my ISP does not sell my traffic data to earn an income.

That's a little unfair. OpenDNS is providing a very useful service that's free at point of use. It's also entirely, and clearly, opt-in-voluntary whether you use it or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to even mention OpenDNS in the same post as Phorm.

TBH for the value I get out of the OpenDNS service I am more than happy for them to sell on my *anonymized* traffic data.

madslug
19-04-2009, 23:34
That's a little unfair. OpenDNS is providing a very useful service that's free at point of use. It's also entirely, and clearly, opt-in-voluntary whether you use it or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to even mention OpenDNS in the same post as Phorm.

TBH for the value I get out of the OpenDNS service I am more than happy for them to sell on my *anonymized* traffic data.

I agree - I hoped that my explanation of why I was not using it was sufficient. And I did ask the original poster to offer something good about the 3 services that were being compared. If I was using 'unsafe' DNS servers then I would prefer to use OpenDNS or one of the many proxy services.

There are also some VPN services that earn income from selling anonymous traffic data while providing a secure connection.

I don't expect a service for nothing.

Rather like the way in which I use search engines and sometimes click on an advert, just to help keep the search engine in business. Although so many of the adverts just lead to directory or price comparison sites so they rarely offer the information I am looking for and I either go back to the search engine or have to click another advert that some poor business is paying for.

---------- Post added at 22:34 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

Submitted my site, as well
Isn't there an IP that can be blocked to?

I have all my sites permanently blocked to all the Phorm controlled IP addresses including the addresses which were scraping sites shortly after sites requested to be excluded.

I also had all my sites blocked to all BT's IP ranges during the 2008 trial. The dephormation site carries some server side scripts that any site can use, host permitting, with various IP address ranges depending on whom you wish to block.

https://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=17

cook1984
20-04-2009, 15:38
There does not appear to be a simple opt-out form for web sites on the Phorm web site. I contacted them directly and asked for my site to be removed. The form they use requires you to give your name and phone number, but I just put dummy information in since I do not use my real name in relation to the site and don't want them to have my personal details.

We shall see if they respond. A lot of major web sites like Amazon and Wikipedia have already asked to be removed too.

Sir John Luke
20-04-2009, 16:19
There does not appear to be a simple opt-out form for web sites on the Phorm web site. I contacted them directly and asked for my site to be removed. The form they use requires you to give your name and phone number, but I just put dummy information in since I do not use my real name in relation to the site and don't want them to have my personal details.

We shall see if they respond. A lot of major web sites like Amazon and Wikipedia have already asked to be removed too.

Let us know how you get on. Phorm claim that they require proof that you own the web site(s) before they will opt you out (e.g. by checking the site registration), so I'm not sure providing dummy info will work.

cook1984
21-04-2009, 00:20
"proof"? How exactly would I do that? Even if my name is on the WhoIs record (which it isn't, the registrar puts theirs on to protect privacy) it seems like a pretty hard thing to do.

Sir John Luke
21-04-2009, 08:36
This is Phorm's standard response to an opt-out request (as posted by Wikipedia)

"Subject: Publisher Exclusion Request Autoreply
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:28:30 -0700
From: website-exclusion
To: xxxxxxxx

Thank you for your submission to the Phorm website exclusion list. If
there are no obvious grounds to doubt the legitimacy of the request the
URL will be blocked as soon as possible, usually within 48 hours.

Requests must be made by the legitimate owner of the domain. If we have
questions regarding your domain Phorm may take a number of steps,
including attempting to contact the domain administrator by email for
confirmation of this request. If the request remains questionable and is
not confirmed within 10 days, the URL will be removed from the exclusion
list and an email will be sent informing you of this decision.

Where applicable, please ensure that the Administrative Contact details
for this domain are up to date. If you need to update them, please
resubmit your request when the amended details are visible in the WhoIs
database - (use a public whois service such as
_http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx_ if you are unsure it has been
updated)"

cook1984
21-04-2009, 22:30
For anyone else who wants to opt-out (since Phorm decided to opt the entire internet in without consent) send an email to: website-exclusion@webwise.com

Don't bother using the web form on their web site, they seem to ignore it. I sent an email to the above address and got the same form reply as Wikipedia.

Ravenheart
22-04-2009, 12:30
Some good news ? ;)

http://www.nma.co.uk/virgin-media-steps-away-from-phorm-as-top-sites-opt-out/3000272.article

Edit: Phorm are denying this, I wonder if it's the same denial as "The Guardian are still onboard"

AndyCambs
22-04-2009, 12:34
That's a little unfair. OpenDNS is providing a very useful service that's free at point of use. It's also entirely, and clearly, opt-in-voluntary whether you use it or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to even mention OpenDNS in the same post as Phorm.

TBH for the value I get out of the OpenDNS service I am more than happy for them to sell on my *anonymized* traffic data.

So (and this is just an open question), would you be happy with a two-tier system whereby you had a discounted cost for signing up for Phorm?

Stuart
22-04-2009, 14:31
Some good news ? ;)

http://www.nma.co.uk/virgin-media-steps-away-from-phorm-as-top-sites-opt-out/3000272.article

Edit: Phorm are denying this, I wonder if it's the same denial as "The Guardian are still onboard"

Apparently that article is only partially accurate according to VM http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/virgin_media_phorm_nma/

Kymmy
22-04-2009, 15:22
The article is being discussed more closely HERE (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33648994-virgin-media-steps-away-phorm-top.html)

Stuart
22-04-2009, 18:52
Seems Parliament may finally start asking questions..http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/apcomms_traffic_inquiry.

One possibly major thing Phorm (and other DPI technology) has going against it is liability when the law is broken.

At the moment, ISPs actually get some protections against legal action caused by their users actions simply because they have no way of tracking accurately what their users are up to. With DPI, that excuse is gone. Take, for example, a user who (say) downloads illegal porn. At the moment, if he/she is caught and prosecuted, their ISP can argue that they have no real method of ascertaining what is going through their network, and they stand a good chance of escaping any action.

With DPI, they may not be able to argue this and (I believe) under certain circumstances may therefore be done for distributing illegal material (such as porn).

cook1984
23-04-2009, 01:09
So (and this is just an open question), would you be happy with a two-tier system whereby you had a discounted cost for signing up for Phorm?

I'd agree to a discount if I run my own DNS server. In fact, I don't need email or web space either. Cheaper broadband and no spying sounds good to me.

The short version of the Virgin/Phorm spat is that Virgin realised virtually all sites are going to opt out, since if they don't their own ads will be replaced by Phorm ads and they will loose all their ad revenue income. Also, no commercial site wants visitors to it's site monitored, and then that data sold to competitors. Phorm is basically going to be useless so they want to change to a less evil system which just works with data individual sites choose to collect, rather than just monitoring everything.

rogerdraig
23-04-2009, 16:27
So (and this is just an open question), would you be happy with a two-tier system whereby you had a discounted cost for signing up for Phorm?

no

one because that would seem to preclude being able to switch it off for a session

two again because i wouldnt want it to profile or serve ads to my kids nor do i think it should be allowed to with any children !

despite thier assurance all data is available and just because they dont use it now doesnt mean they wouldnt or that they could guarantee to keep it safe

plus any isp that uses it in a manner where all trafic goes though thier kit with just thier promise that yours will be ignored wont be used by me either see above point

if the system is so good they can do it like google and let me choose whether its of use to me for that sesion and they could always give me credit when / if i use it !

now i am off to do the school run ;)

Stuart
23-04-2009, 17:28
I'd agree to a discount if I run my own DNS server. In fact, I don't need email or web space either. Cheaper broadband and no spying sounds good to me.

The short version of the Virgin/Phorm spat is that Virgin realised virtually all sites are going to opt out, since if they don't their own ads will be replaced by Phorm ads and they will loose all their ad revenue income.

Not true. First, Virgin have made no commitment to whether they will use the system or not. Despite the recent article in that marketing magazine, they are still taking the view that that they may or may not implement the system.

Also, to get their ads replaced, sites do have to sign up for the webwise programme. As such, they do need to opt in. Think about it for a second. While they probably don't give a fig for the rights of the owners of the smaller sites (like this one), if they replace the ads on the sites owned by large companies (such as the newspapers), then they risk a potentially expensive legal action being taken against them. Even assuming the companies don't start legal action, they are unlikely to want to deal with a company that damaged their revenues by nicking their ads. Remember: Phorm need the big websites on their side *if* they are going to succeed. The big sites will not be on Phorm's side if Phorm are stealing their revenue.

Also, no commercial site wants visitors to it's site monitored, and then that data sold to competitors.
True, and there is some evidence to suggest that Phorm will profile users of commercial sites that have not specifically opted out, whether they are opted in to the ad scheme or not.

cook1984
23-04-2009, 18:53
Also, to get their ads replaced, sites do have to sign up for the webwise programme. As such, they do need to opt in. Think about it for a second. While they probably don't give a fig for the rights of the owners of the smaller sites (like this one), if they replace the ads on the sites owned by large companies (such as the newspapers), then they risk a potentially expensive legal action being taken against them. Even assuming the companies don't start legal action, they are unlikely to want to deal with a company that damaged their revenues by nicking their ads. Remember: Phorm need the big websites on their side *if* they are going to succeed. The big sites will not be on Phorm's side if Phorm are stealing their revenue.

That isn't what has been happening so far. Take a look at this damning report on Wikileaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/British_Telecom_Phorm_PageSense_External_Validatio n_report

They replaced ads on major charities' (Oxfam etc) web sites without any kind of consent. This is one of the areas where the legality of Phorm has been questioned, since it may amount to copyright infringement by creating a derivative work (the modified web site) and using it to harvest data, which is then sold for a profit. That appears to be commercial copyright infringement on a massive scale.

Sir John Luke
23-04-2009, 21:02
True, and there is some evidence to suggest that Phorm will profile users of commercial sites that have not specifically opted out, whether they are opted in to the ad scheme or not.

"Some evidence"! I thought it was 100% clear that is precisely how Phorm works, and that's why so many web site owners are against it. The only way to stop Phorm scraping your site is to either specifically opt out (as Frank indicated this site would be doing), or have a robots.txt file which bans Google!

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

That isn't what has been happening so far. Take a look at this damning report on Wikileaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/British_Telecom_Phorm_PageSense_External_Validatio n_report

They replaced ads on major charities' (Oxfam etc) web sites without any kind of consent. This is one of the areas where the legality of Phorm has been questioned, since it may amount to copyright infringement by creating a derivative work (the modified web site) and using it to harvest data, which is then sold for a profit. That appears to be commercial copyright infringement on a massive scale.

To be fair to Phorm (much though it pains me), that is not quite the case. They showed charity ads on OIX member sites, which were replaced by 'more relevant ads' for those users who were covertly 'phormed'.

cook1984
24-04-2009, 15:58
To be fair to Phorm (much though it pains me), that is not quite the case. They showed charity ads on OIX member sites, which were replaced by 'more relevant ads' for those users who were covertly 'phormed'.

A major part of their business plan is to replace ads on all sites with their own.

Aside from the copyright issues, it's bandwidth theft. The victim web site still has to server up the page and all the images, but doesn't get any of the revenue from the replaced ads.

Stuart
24-04-2009, 17:09
A major part of their business plan is to replace ads on all sites with their own.


You have a link for that? It would pretty much torpedo their chances of dealing with several large companies if they did, so they'd be likely to destroy their own business plan (and therefore their business) if they did.

As for actively denying charities funding, can you imagine the bad publicity generated by that?

Sir John Luke
24-04-2009, 21:33
A major part of their business plan is to replace ads on all sites with their own.



No. Their plan is to analyse what sites people visit, and what they look at, then, when those same people visit Phorm partner sites, they will be shown ads from Phorm partners based on what they have been looking at on non-partner sites, i.e. to use copyright info from the non-partner's sites to show competitor's ads ON PARTNER SITES. Still copyright theft, but we don't want to over-egg the legal objections to Phorm. The objections are strong enough as it is.

cook1984
25-04-2009, 00:19
Well, it was initially reported that they would replace ads on all web sites (search Google for references), but perhaps they have realised how stupid that would be and backed down now.

PS. They are still evil.

Sirius
28-04-2009, 09:57
This just shows how complicit this Government is in pushing Phorm through.

In an e-mail dated August 2007, an unnamed Home Office official wrote to Phorm's legal representative and said: "My personal view accords with yours, that even if it is "interception", which I am doubtful of, it is lawfully authorised under section 3 by virtue of the user's consent obtained in signing up to the ISPs terms and conditions."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8021661.stm

This shows the Government wants this technology introduced if you ask me.

pentode
28-04-2009, 13:09
Phorm is as shady as can be..... they really do want you to believe it's about adverts.

See this link... Home Office Colluded with Phorm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8021661.stm)
E-mails between the ministry and Phorm show the department asking if the firm would be "comforted" by its position.

It wasn't long since EU and British government required clarification See this link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7619297.stm)

With big brother and spy cameras and then Google antics, I really wonder what is going on when reading between the lines.... at least there is one consolation Amazon has rejected Phorm. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7999635.stm) Sorry about the links, far better than quoting where and when.

And Firefox is at it in their own way Firefox tracking data (http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/05/13/mozilla-firefox-data/), better get back on topic here.

My guess rightly or wrongly is that it isn't just about adverts but about big brother and security, wonder why they want the ISPs to keep their customers Emails for a period and cell phone calls when it comes to that and what about land line calls and you're worried about tracking cookies isn't what you say in your emails and cell phone calls more important?

Would having cookies disabled not counteract this, the Anti Phorm add-on that Firefox uses, I did use for a short while and took it off because I felt it was as useful as a chocolate fireguard.... can anyone advise here?

Davy

joglynne
28-04-2009, 19:02
I couldn't see this blog mentioned any where so as Phorm have decided to put the facts straight I thought I would post a link.
The website that hits back at the "privacy pirates'" smear campaign against Phorm.

http://www.stopphoulplay.com/

Stuart
28-04-2009, 19:18
I've been reading through the "facts" on that site. Some interesting reading, but they don't answer one question I have.

All these "smears" have clearly had an impact on Phorm. Even ignoring the share prices (which last time I checked had gone through the floor, and were busy burrowing into the basement), which would cause any company to react, the fact that Kent seems to be actively criticising the anti-phormers rather than just ignoring or suing them seems suspicious.

After all if Phorm are legally in the right, why not sue? Their reputation is clearly being damaged and companies have sued for a lot less than that.

I am no lawyer, but I suspect the real fact is that while the UK Government may have decided that Phorm is legal, the fact that the EU have questioned whether the law is correct means that the legality of Phorm's system is actually unclear, and as such, they may well lose any case they bring. As such, they *know* they are on legally dodgy ground so won't take action.

joglynne
28-04-2009, 19:29
The one thing that site made me realise was how desperate Phorm must be getting to stoop to using a blog to try to make out they are the victims of the big bad antiphormers.

I guess that with the amount of money they have lost there is no other way than forward if they want to keep themselves afloat in what could be a competitive arena.

Sirius
28-04-2009, 19:39
There is one overriding factor in all of this that will make me never trust them EVER.

They were and still are in my eye's 121media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm), That is all i need to distrust them for life.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

I've been reading through the "facts" on that site. Some interesting reading, but they don't answer one question I have.

All these "smears" have clearly had an impact on Phorm. Even ignoring the share prices (which last time I checked had gone through the floor, and were busy burrowing into the basement), which would cause any company to react, the fact that Kent seems to be actively criticising the anti-phormers rather than just ignoring or suing them seems suspicious.

After all if Phorm are legally in the right, why not sue? Their reputation is clearly being damaged and companies have sued for a lot less than that.

I am no lawyer, but I suspect the real fact is that while the UK Government may have decided that Phorm is legal, the fact that the EU have questioned whether the law is correct means that the legality of Phorm's system is actually unclear, and as such, they may well lose any case they bring. As such, they *know* they are on legally dodgy ground so won't take action.

:clap:

Sir John Luke
28-04-2009, 20:07
If you want a good laugh

http://www.pcplus.co.uk/content/blog-phorm-phails-phight-back

joglynne
28-04-2009, 20:20
If you want a good laugh

http://www.pcplus.co.uk/content/blog-phorm-phails-phight-back

I enjoyed reading that. I especially liked the first 2 pieces of advise that the writer gave to Phorm blogger.First: Delete this site. Entirely. Open up FTP, and zap the files. Forever.

Second: Back Away Slowly From The Internet. And take a deep breath.:)

cook1984
28-04-2009, 21:07
I still have not had confirmation of my site's opt-out.

Sirius
28-04-2009, 21:23
I still have not had confirmation of my site's opt-out.

Why do i think you will be waiting till hell freezes over :shocked:

simply your dealing with 121 media

Stuart
28-04-2009, 21:54
Phools..

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Another question, which I don't expect to be answered because it wasn't when I asked it on the original Phorm thread..

*If* as they claim, Google are able to do the same as Phorm using just a lot of server horsepower (which they have anyway) and some client side javascript, why on earth are Phorm spending millions on hardware (both in their own data centres and at the ISPs)? Not very good economics there.

Sirius
28-04-2009, 22:00
Phools..

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Another question, which I don't expect to be answered because it wasn't when I asked it on the original Phorm thread..

*If* as they claim, Google are able to do the same as Phorm using just a lot of server horsepower (which they have anyway) and some client side javascript, why on earth are Phorm spending millions on hardware (both in their own data centres and at the ISPs)? Not very good economics there.

I think it the amount of data then intend to snoop on and the data they will be asked to collect by the Government. Why else would the Government risk being taken to court to have this spyware system implemented. ????

Ed2020
28-04-2009, 22:20
I think it the amount of data then intend to snoop on and the data they will be asked to collect by the Government. Why else would the Government risk being taken to court to have this spyware system implemented. ????

I'm not even sure the government care about being taken to court over this. Even if they are, and they lose, and they're slapped with a big hefty fine who is actually going to be paying it? The ministers who failed to carry out their jobs properly? Their officials? Nope, *we* will, including all the poor sods who were spied on in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I'm glad the EU is doing something about this, but I strongly suspect the punishment is actually going to be borne by the victims of the original crime.

Ed.

Kursk
28-04-2009, 22:29
With apologies to H G Wells and Jeff Wayne for the slight amendment:

No one would have believed, in the early years of the twentyfirst century, that human affairs were being watched from the timeless world of cyberspace. No one could have dreamed that we were being scrutinized as someone with a microscope studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Few men even considered the possibility of a developing, covert pondlife on this planet. And yet, across the gulf of cyberspace, minds immeasurably greedier than ours regarded our data with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us.

But then they blew it.

Phorm has become a dirty word. It is a 5-letter swear word with frustrated blogging execs virtually telling the customers of their potential clients to "Phorm Off!". You couldn't make it up.

Frankie says Relax, Phorm is surely no more.

Sirius
28-04-2009, 23:32
With apologies to H G Wells and Jeff Wayne for the slight amendment:



But then they blew it.

Phorm has become a dirty word. It is a 5-letter swear word with frustrated blogging execs virtually telling the customers of their potential clients to "Phorm Off!". You couldn't make it up.

Frankie says Relax, Phorm is surely no more.

I hope that what we are seeing from phorm is there last ditch attempt to drag themselves out of the cesspit they now find themselves sinking in. But as is the norm they have FAILED.

red502
29-04-2009, 02:07
P H U C K
P H O R M

I've been with Virgin (bY) for 7 years and currently pay £42 p/m for:

* Line Rental
* TV Large
* Broadband XL (20meg)

I can get a comparable package from BT/SKY/BE/O2 for £35-£40 p/m.

If I go with my mobile provider: o2, I can get Phone line and BB for £22 p/m and just get freeview.

BT (and SKY) are doing free line installation for 2 months from now...

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/377537/free-bt-line-connection-save-122-50/.

If Virgin adopt Phorm (or anything as bad) I will not hesitate to move.

p.s. I live within 1/2 mile of the ADSL2 exchange.

kirk1690
29-04-2009, 04:50
why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!

Tarantella
29-04-2009, 05:22
---------- Post added at 04:10 ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 ----------

why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!




Its not hysteria, its more cold blooded analysis that says companies that supply bandwidth should not be selling customers/company data passing through their systems to third parties.

These are two different business functions and should not be confused because there is nothing in our law that says a company from another country may not own an isp based in this country and there are no guidelines and no ability to prevent the data being passed on from the 3rd party to other companies and countries.

Allowing large amounts of our countries data into the hands of foreign companies or governments would at some point be damaging to our own country or the businesses operating here.

---------- Post added at 04:22 ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 ----------

why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!


Its also about allowing a single company unprecedented access to data from online companies and how their customers move around their websites.

Such data gathering would allow Phorm to offer website design services based not only on a single company website (the sort of thing that companies do now) but also on the website designs of their competitors. This would place Phorm in the position of being able to influence online markets.

frogstamper
29-04-2009, 06:58
When all's said and done, who on earth is going to sign up to be bombarded by bloody adverts?
I imagine most people have a pop up blocker to stop these annoying ads, so even if the privacy aspect doesn't bother you, who'd want this?

Sirius
29-04-2009, 07:44
why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!

Very simplistic view. May i suggest you READ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm) this and then make up your mind.

Chris
29-04-2009, 11:11
why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!

There now ... feeling better? ;) In a highly networked and information-dependent society such as ours, there are bigger issues at play than what adverts you see when you browse t'interweb. Some of those data privacy issues are what has got some people so passionate about the whole anti-phorm thing. To repeat what Sirius said, you should read the Wikipedia link he posted to familiarise yourself with the whole debate rather than simply assuming that it's just a storm in a teacup over online shopping.

Stuart
29-04-2009, 11:51
why all the hysteria about phorm ? if it leads to an individual market profile of YOU !! tell you what ignore the adverts and don't BUY ANYTHING !!!!!

OK. Getting a little bored of saying this. I personally am not worried about the ads. If people want to advertise to me, so be it. A large part of our economy is based on commercials (including this site). I don't even mind being profiled, as long as I gain something out of it (and I do not count the webwise service as an adequate gain as my the free products I use give more than adequate protection) and I have to opt in to use it.

No, it's the fact that they read (and temporarily) store every HTTP page you access (they can't currently read HTTPS pages). Yes, it *is* supposedly anonymous, but IIRC AOL tried a similar way of anonymising some of their logs. It took two weeks for their anonymising system to be broken, and the identity of every user on those logs to be found.

kirk1690
29-04-2009, 13:17
There now ... feeling better? ;) In a highly networked and information-dependent society such as ours, there are bigger issues at play than what adverts you see when you browse t'interweb. Some of those data privacy issues are what has got some people so passionate about the whole anti-phorm thing. To repeat what Sirius said, you should read the Wikipedia link he posted to familiarise yourself with the whole debate rather than simply assuming that it's just a storm in a teacup over online shopping.
we live in a different world now and you cant put the genie back in the bottle , aldous huxley .george orwell et al were not wrong , accept it and you'll feel better , your number will arrive soon. :dunce:

Maggy
29-04-2009, 20:46
Hmmm!

Just found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/04/home_office_answers_phorm_ques.html).

Down the Pub
29-04-2009, 20:54
I couldn't see this blog mentioned any where so as Phorm have decided to put the facts straight I thought I would post a link.


http://www.stopphoulplay.com/

beat me to it by 24hrs, must stop playing left4dead and pay more attention :D

rogerdraig
29-04-2009, 21:58
beat me to it by 24hrs, must stop playing left4dead and pay more attention :D


lol putting the facts straight i think they used a French curve instead of ruler ;)

Sir John Luke
29-04-2009, 22:29
beat me to it by 24hrs, must stop playing left4dead and pay more attention :D

In that case you're are looking at today's version of 'the truth'. Methinks Phorm have been the subject of some 'take-down' notices since yesterday.

(Articles which implied the BBC were part of the 'privacy pirates' conspiracy have been modified. The claim that Downing Street officials had apologised for letting the 'misleading' petition go ahead, and promised not to let it happen again has been removed).

joglynne
29-04-2009, 22:48
Thought I would revisit the Phorm blog to see the revisions for myself and was amused to see the safety rating now applied by WOT.

Rchivist
29-04-2009, 23:14
In that case you're are looking at today's version of 'the truth'. Methinks Phorm have been the subject of some 'take-down' notices since yesterday.

(Articles which implied the BBC were part of the 'privacy pirates' conspiracy have been modified. The claim that Downing Street officials had apologised for letting the 'misleading' petition go ahead, and promised not to let it happen again has been removed).

I am copying the SPP site daily, and monitoring the alterations. My post which gives a full word by word comparison of the smears day by day is somewhere else...

So - should I post the url here or would you like me to copy the content across? I'm feeling kind so here it is (but don't ask where it came from because I can't tell you) Oh well - here goes...

Actually there are more changes than that. Comparing the current front page with my saved copies:
(voracious appetite etc. Grin Grin Grin )

1 - Dephormation aliases altered as you say. Result!
2 - "Phorm has colluded with the government..." has appeared on the front page - so checking THAT page...
3 - The phrase "In it the usual suspects make outlandish claims to suggest that Phorm is somehow above the law because it has engaged with the Home Office."

has been replaced with

"The ORG are quoted and do not miss a chance to use this as a vehicle to make outlandish claims to suggest that Phorm is somehow above the law because it has engaged with the Home Office."
The alteration manages to be done without altering the edit date/time stamp.

Strange one that - its as if they couldn't stomach having to give in to the BBC lawyers so decided to give ORG a kick in the face on the way. Careful Kent, ORG can probably lay their hands on pro-bono lawyers for this sort of thing while you pay Schillings however many £££££s per hour they charge companies like yours.

4 - The phrase "Even the BBC engages with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to defend its legal right to be funded by imposing a licence fee, for example." disappears.

Whoops - BBC obviously been in touch?

5 - the phrase "A cursory look behind the BBC’s sensationalist headline will confirm what we have said all along: that our system complies with all the relevant laws.
This smear and others follow the same pattern:"

has been replaced by

"There is a familiar pattern here:"

6 - the next section, list item number 3 "3. Get the media to write about it (the BBC)"

has been replaced by

"3. Take every opportuniy to criticise Phorm when the media (the BBC) cover the story."

So it looks as if that attracted the BBC lawyers.

I wonder if they put it further back in the site yesterday because they knew it was even more dodgy than the others?

Sauce for the goose Kent, sauce for the goose. Did Schillings field the call for you?


I will save todays pages to another folder - this could be a daily task. I'll have a look at the other pages later. But it would appear that reverse gear has been partially engaged. But reluctantly.

How ridiculous this looks. Put up a scurrilous smear site, then instead of just canning it, let it die the death of a thousand legal cuts.

Score - Phorm 0
Dephormation 1
Bluecar1 1
BBC 2
ORG ?
Government 1


The page on the Downing St petition has been changed.

The phrase
"The website managers at 10 Downing Street recognised their mistake in allowing a misleading petition to appear on their site, and have since provided assurances to Phorm that they will not permit this to happen again."

has been replaced by:

nothing.

Whoops. Who has upset Downing St then?

I would recommend anyone wanting to follow this saga rips the site to disk each day at least, if they want to keep up with the changes. I imagine it will eventually disappear completely hopefully around the same time as Phorm itself does.

Stuart
30-04-2009, 16:22
Well, the PR genius behind the SPP site is a certain Patrick Robertson. A man who has represented Johnathon "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" Aitken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Libel_action), the Referendum Party (during their "Europe becoming a federal superstate" campaign) and orchestrated a campaign to prevent the extradition of General Pinochet..


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/30/phorm_patrick_robertson/

On the plus side, it seems Phorm may be rapidly running out of money..

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/30/phorm-software
But Phorm may have more immediate problems. Its accounts show that last year it lost $24.66m (£17m), and $16.3m in 2007, with no recorded revenue. Phorm is thus burning through its cash reserves (though it raised £32m last March); it urgently needs BT to roll out its technology across its broadband network and begin serving adverts. Otherwise there is the possibility that it will simply flame out, and a surviving company - perhaps BT itself? - may buy the technology on the cheap from the receivers.

Kursk
30-04-2009, 23:41
Deleted (by author). It was a tired comment, sorry :D

Pound
03-05-2009, 20:58
I don't know why Virgin or other ISPs are still throwing time and money at Phorm. It may well be safe and have adequate privacy guards but the reason people hate it will still exist, people just find it creepy.

That will never change and as soon as Virgin roll our Phorm people will go to another ISP.

Sirius
03-05-2009, 21:15
I don't know why Virgin or other ISPs are still throwing time and money at Phorm. It may well be safe and have adequate privacy guards but the reason people hate it will still exist, people just find it creepy.

That will never change and as soon as Virgin roll our Phorm people will go to another ISP.

Phorm = 121media need i say more.

Ed2020
03-05-2009, 22:31
I don't know why Virgin or other ISPs are still throwing time and money at Phorm.

Because they want to make lots of money from selling data that doesn't belong to them. :)

It may well be safe and have adequate privacy guards but the reason people hate it will still exist, people just find it creepy.

Well-informed people will find it creepy. Most if not all people on this site are well informed on the subject. I doubt this is the case for most of VM's customers though.

That will never change and as soon as Virgin roll our Phorm people will go to another ISP.

If Phorm's business case is accurate then the costs of lost customers will not outweigh the profits the ISP will get from allowing the kit in their network.

Ed.

cook1984
06-05-2009, 20:58
I have not yet had a response about the removal of my web site from the Phorm system. It appears they are simply lying about it, as I have not had anything more than an automated email from them.

Sirius
06-05-2009, 21:46
I have not yet had a response about the removal of my web site from the Phorm system. It appears they are simply lying about it, as I have not had anything more than an automated email from them.

Send them a letter from your legal team and a bill :)

murfitUK
03-06-2009, 16:07
An item about Phorm and webwise on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours today. They had the chief exec of Phorm trumpetting that PHORM IS NOW FULLY LIVE!!!

Apparently, Phorm is now up and running and about 76% of all internet users who were asked are fully supportive of it and can't wait to use it etc etc etc.

He reassured us all that our privacy is fully protected - we are an anonymous number on their system and all information is deleted as soon as ... you get the idea.

After a little prodding he admitted that the system is up and running BUT ONLY IN KOREA (didn't say if North or South!) and that no companies had yet signed up for it in this coountry.

I felt the interviewer did nothing to counter the claims he was making except to report that the online No10 petition had lots of signatures asking for it to be stopped.

You can probably still listen to Y&Y on the R4 website. The interview starts about 45 minutes into the programme.

Chris
03-06-2009, 16:18
I felt the interviewer did nothing to counter the claims he was making except to report that the online No10 petition had lots of signatures asking for it to be stopped.

That's not an uncommon problem with YAY I find. The reporters are well-meaning but they're not specialists in the subject under discussion and often don't seem to have done a lot of background reading beforehand.

Barton71
03-06-2009, 16:22
After a little prodding he admitted that the system is up and running BUT ONLY IN KOREA (didn't say if North or South!) and that no companies had yet signed up for it in this coountry.


It can only South Korea, as North Korea has virtually zero Internet connection. Unless of course you are the 3 foot tall, Kim Jong-il, in which case you will be a self professed Internet expert, and the only person in the world capable of using it without it corrupting your mind. :D

Stuart
03-06-2009, 16:59
OK, so 76% of people want it.. They'll have no problem if they make it opt in then...

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:57 ----------

That's not an uncommon problem with YAY I find. The reporters are well-meaning but they're not specialists in the subject under discussion and often don't seem to have done a lot of background reading beforehand.

TBH, that problem isn't specific to YAY, or even the BBC. A lot of the media has reporters reporting on subjects they have little or no knowledge of, and they don't all do a lot of background research..

Chris
03-06-2009, 17:23
It is unavoidable, and one of the acknowledged skills of a good reporter is the ability to sound like an instant expert on anything. However when you're doing a consumer affairs programme, with live (or as-live) interviews challenging people on specific, technical issues, I think they owe the listeners a little more.

tweetiepooh
03-06-2009, 17:26
TBH, that problem isn't specific to YAY, or even the BBC. A lot of the media has reporters reporting on subjects they have little or no knowledge of, and they don't all do a lot of background research..

Don't forget though that the vast majority of listeners are also clueless and some wouldn't hear what was really said anyway. Programmes like YaY are generalist consumer programmes that have a small slot to cover a complex topic and the bottom line is will it cost/save money.

Stuart
03-06-2009, 18:31
It is unavoidable, and one of the acknowledged skills of a good reporter is the ability to sound like an instant expert on anything. However when you're doing a consumer affairs programme, with live (or as-live) interviews challenging people on specific, technical issues, I think they owe the listeners a little more.

Oh, I agree.. After all, it would probably take them not much more than ten minutes and a couple of google searches to find out what the anti-Phorm people (such as me) think, and some PR fluff from Phorm.

Stuart
10-06-2009, 11:27
Well, Phorm have had to issue more shares... Sadly (for them) at a quarter of the price they did a year back..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/phorm_fundraising/

joglynne
12-06-2009, 20:52
How long can Phorm go on?

The answer would appear to come in a recently-published report from its brokers which identified the next six months as critical for the company. That is when Phorm has to turn BT's interest into a full rollout if it is to start generating *sufficient revenue to reward investors, who pumped £32m into the AIM-listed company last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/11/phorm-internet-advertising

Tightscot
17-06-2009, 13:25
apparently Virgin are telling customers they have dropped Phorm. even thought they haven't. Linkage (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/256633/virgin-tells-customer-weve-dropped-phorm.html)

icsys
17-06-2009, 15:23
"After much consideration, Virgin Media decided not signed up [sic] for Phorm because of amongst other things, the Webwise ad monitoring system,"

"The roll-out of Phorm's Webwise technology has been dogged by controversy following news that large well known telecoms company ran two trials using the software without seeking its customers' permission in 2006 and 2007,"

"Virgin Media would have offered an an [sic] 'Opt In' option to it's [sic] customers in relation to Phorm's Webwise but decided not to sign up in any way,"... the letter states.


However Virgin Media claims the letter has been sent out 'in error' and that the company's relationship with Phorm is unchanged.

Asked to explain why the company's customer services department was sending out such letters, the spokesman said: "we haven't issued any instructions [about Phorm] to customer care." Virgin said it would issue fresh guidance to its customer support staff.

Gary L
18-06-2009, 01:02
However Virgin Media claims the letter has been sent out 'in error' and that the company's relationship with Phorm is unchanged.

Asked to explain why the company's customer services department was sending out such letters, the spokesman said: "we haven't issued any instructions [about Phorm] to customer care." Virgin said it would issue fresh guidance to its customer support staff.

I bet they don't send fresh letters out to customers telling them that the last letter was untrue, and that they don't know what scam marketing is up to by saying otherwise.

BenMcr
18-06-2009, 01:05
I bet they don't send fresh letters out to customers telling them that the last letter was untrue, and that they don't know what scam marketing is up to by saying otherwise.
How do you know they won't? And what Scam?

The information here http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php hasn't changed at all

Gary L
18-06-2009, 01:25
How do you know they won't? And what Scam?

The information here http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php hasn't changed at all

I don't know if they will send out letters saying otherwise, but I guess they won't. I don't know what scam they're up to either. I can't see how a company was able to send out untruths about themselves and when asked say it was a mistake.

The information won't change if it's been confirmed that it was a mistake.

BenMcr
18-06-2009, 01:39
I can't see how a company was able to send out untruths about themselves and when asked say it was a mistake.
Because maybe it was a mistake?

Virgin employ staff to answer letters, just as they do to answer phone calls and e-mails. It would be reasonably be expected that those staff should know what they are doing and have the brain to clarify a company position if they don't know it before replying.

In this case its seem they didn't, and they will have been retrained.

Gary L
18-06-2009, 01:46
Because maybe it was a mistake?

Apparently, yes.

Virgin employ staff to answer letters, just as they do to answer phone calls and e-mails. It would be reasonably be expected that those staff should know what they are doing and have the brain to clarify a company position if they don't know it before replying.

But they took it upon themselves to tell the complaining customer that all ties have been cut with the bad people.

In this case its seem they didn't, and they will have been retrained.

Good job they were found out then. back to the training room.

BenMcr
18-06-2009, 02:05
But they took it upon themselves to tell the complaining customer that all ties have been cut with the bad people.
Indeed - but I can't work out why they did that. As was said in the follow up, there has been no guidance to any staff saying that ever.

Mick Fisher
18-06-2009, 22:06
Perhaps just, wishful, thinking out loud.

Kursk
18-06-2009, 23:17
Perhaps just, wishful, thinking out loud.

To be fair, VM have made a clear and published statement about Phorm. The statement is some months old and remains extant. The clarification it offers customers is appreciated except that because it is now some months old it has a 'Sword of Damocles' feel to it.

An updated statement would be a good idea imho.

broadbandking
18-06-2009, 23:29
I think until VM agree what hey are going to do they won't issue a upto date notice as more customer would become aware of Phorm.

Bonglet
19-06-2009, 00:06
Hope they hurry up and clairfy so i can renew contract, very tempted for adsl2 if they dont announce something soon.

Gary L
19-06-2009, 13:32
Controversial web advertising firm, Phorm, lost almost $1 million a week in 2008. The firm's operating losses for the 2008 financial year were $49.8 million (£30 million), according to Phorm's financial statement.



It's currently impossible for the company to make a profit, because it doesn't have any revenue coming in. Although the firm has three deals signed with British ISPs - BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse - all three have yet to roll out Phorm's Webwise technology.

They better hurry up and make their mind up. the companie's going bust.


http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/257260/phorm-loses-1m-a-week.html

tdadyslexia
19-06-2009, 13:48
the companie's going bust.

Good, let it go bust.

broadbandking
19-06-2009, 16:53
Good, let it go bust.

You took the words out of my mouth.

bluecar1
19-06-2009, 18:25
my take on VM is, lefthand don't know what the right hand is doing, brain does not engage easilly and the rear is full of splinters from sitting to long on the fence

very simple really, all departments need to talk to each other and agree so they can get off the fence , the brain engage to get the hands to get a pair of tweezer to pull the splinter out the rear

easy

peter

broadbandking
19-06-2009, 18:46
Virgin will sit on the fence aslong as they can regarding Phorm, as they will see how other companies are effect if they implentment phorm.

bluecar1
19-06-2009, 18:54
and those splinters will be harder to remove as they will be deeper embeded

easiest thing would be to say something like "we have looked at phorms technology and decided it is not applicable to our customers at this time, but we may re-evaluate it at a later date but will inform customers if this occurs"

peter

BenMcr
19-06-2009, 19:08
But then that wouldn't be the truth, because the preliminary agreement with Phorm is still in place.

bluecar1
19-06-2009, 19:16
they need to tell phorm the same and end the preliminary agreement, or as i have seen it called a "memorandum of understanding" a very different thing

peter

broadbandking
19-06-2009, 19:37
Virgin atm haven't done anything but look at Phorms tech and working so at the moment let it lie quiet and see what happen, let someone take the punch and see the effect and then weigh there options, it wouldn't suprise me if the do use Phorm.

Kursk
21-06-2009, 16:44
...it wouldn't suprise me if the do use Phorm.

There has been a recent furore over MP's expenses. Imho, it will be chicken feed by comparison should any Company decide that allowing a third party to spy on its customers is a good idea. At least VM clearly realise that their next move in regard to Phorm, or any system in similar guise, is crucial.

People will not accept Phorm; that must be crystal clear by now. Phorm may well be a sinking ship and it would be folly for VM to provide a life line. These are uncertain economic times; fortunes can change in days not years.

Let it go Virgin. Let it go. Phorm has had its (very expensive) 15 minutes of fame.

BenMcr
15-08-2009, 23:34
At the risk of kicking all of this again Virgin have put a new statement up about Behavioural Advertising

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/behavioural-targeting.php

Sirius
15-08-2009, 23:44
At the risk of kicking all of this again Virgin have put a new statement up about Behavioural Advertising

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/behavioural-targeting.php

Looks like they intend to deploy if you ask me. I think i better start looking for a new provider for my phone tv and broadband :mad:

webcrawler2050
15-08-2009, 23:46
Looks like they intend to deploy if you ask me. I think i better start looking for a new provider for my phone tv and broadband :mad:

Looks you are right! What a shame, lets hope they see some sense..

bluecar1
15-08-2009, 23:46
At the risk of kicking all of this again Virgin have put a new statement up about Behavioural Advertising

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/behavioural-targeting.php
that anouncment has been out a while

but the interesting points are (my bold below)
However, given the fast moving nature of the sector, Virgin Media intends to extend its review of potential opportunities with suppliers including Phorm prior to making any commitment to launch any of these technologies.

so phorm are still in the frame???

as an absolute minimum - the best practice guidelines contained in the Internet Advertising Bureau's recently published code of practice.

if you look at the IAB guidelines the stress opt-out, various EU /UK law requires opt-in, also look at the list of IAB member list and notice phorm are in there,

i would watch carefully, but phorm seem to be on the way down at the moment as their share price dropped to an all time low friday

but watch out for a new outfit called kindsight, (a spin off from alcatel lucent who provide routers and network kit to many isp's)

peter

Barton71
15-08-2009, 23:51
Phorm and the like are going to haunt us for many years to come, until it is deployed, or until the law and code or code of practice changes to make these "services" opt in, rather than opt out, and the only people who can offer us the proper protection are politicians and the government. We should really start to lobby our MP's, MSP's and MEP's to get the law changed.

Sirius
15-08-2009, 23:58
A quick google gives me

BT for phone.
sky for TV
BE for internet

all i need know is for VM to push the phorm suicide button.

Ben B
16-08-2009, 00:19
VM already have double click which is behavioural advertising. If it's an opt in I just wont opt in, if it's an opt out, I will opt out.

BenMcr
16-08-2009, 00:23
For those who want to see how much behavoral advertising they already get have a look here

http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp

See how many ad companies cookies you have

Sirius
16-08-2009, 00:33
For those who want to see how much behavioral advertising they already get have a look here

http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp

See how many ad companies cookies you have

Ben before you go into your full defence of VM and phorm. how many of the behavioral advertising companies and cookies are able to see every little thing i do because they have access to my data at the isp level. ??????

The problem with phorm is that they can see the data via your connection at the Exchange. i don't trust them as far as i can throw them remember they are 121 media. They own the kit in the exchange and they have access to it. Therefor how can we trust that they don't change the software. I would only stay with VM as a supplier of my phone tv and broadband if they could state in writing that if i opt out NONE of my data will touch ANY of the phorm kit at all.

Now if the information i have is correct BT could not get that to work and then dumped Phorm because of it.

Just so people understand this. The spying of your data is at exchange level, There for the ISP can do what the hell they want with that data and you cannot prove if they are doing the right thing or not.

BenMcr
16-08-2009, 00:35
Ben before you go into your full defence of VM and phormI have never and will never support Phorm

Peter_
16-08-2009, 00:43
This may have been posted before but here is a link to the Antiphorm website with many links http://www.antiphorm.co.uk/

Also here is the Dephormation website with more probably similar information. https://www.dephormation.org.uk/

This will save you having to trawl through the previous posts in this thread.

Sirius
16-08-2009, 00:49
I have never and will never support Phorm

Then i stand corrected Sir

Kursk
16-08-2009, 01:52
I may soon move to a non-cabled area. I assume 'no-more-cable-will-be-laid' is still the order of the day which is gutting as I've been satisfied with my cable connection for years?

Sirius
16-08-2009, 09:10
I may soon move to a non-cabled area. I assume 'no-more-cable-will-be-laid' is still the order of the day which is gutting as I've been satisfied with my cable connection for years?

My cable connection is fine, I just don't trust 121media (Phorm) never have never will and i am willing to loose my cable connection to ensure they get nowhere near my internet connection.

joglynne
16-08-2009, 09:47
I may soon move to a non-cabled area. I assume 'no-more-cable-will-be-laid' is still the order of the day which is gutting as I've been satisfied with my cable connection for years?

A quick answer to save the tread going off topic.

Have a look at this post and thread (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34852411-post53.html) which may, just, cheer you up if you are lucky.

Kursk
16-08-2009, 13:55
My cable connection is fine, I just don't trust 121media (Phorm) never have never will and i am willing to loose my cable connection to ensure they get nowhere near my internet connection.

Apologies Sirius, my truncated post appears off topic. I am, of course, of the same opinion as you when it comes to third party ISP level snooping. It gets deployed, I get gone (nice grammar huh :D).

A quick answer to save the tread going off topic.

Have a look at this post and thread (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34852411-post53.html) which may, just, cheer you up if you are lucky.

Thanks for that Joglynne :).

Mick Fisher
16-08-2009, 20:18
IMO that statement just implies that VM hasn't got a big enough pair to admit they got it wrong, that they will concede to the wishes of the Subscribers and to publicly DUMP Phorm as BT and Talk Talk have done.

Considering the cavalier regard that VM seem to hold for their Subscribers this attitude is hardly surprising.

So just more fence sitting from the Company that only ever follows trends, albeit, usually some years after everybody else.

Personally if a way can be found to COMPLETELY AND DEMONSTRABLY separate the opt-ins from the opt-outs and the system is presented as OPT-IN I don't give a fig what VM get up to.

Somehow, though, I doubt that scenario is possible or viable. Indeed I doubt any opt-in scenario would be viable. We can only hope the opt-in scenario is elevated from advisory to compulsory and that is will be rigorously enforced by an agency with teeth.

Stuart
16-08-2009, 20:39
Would it be possible to give OFCOM power to prevent this kind of interception?

Unlikely to happen with our current government, but still.

My reasoning is simple. Ten or Fifteen years ago, all you could really do on the Internet would be to send email, FTP stuff or view websites. That is a massive oversimplification, but that is all most people did. As such, it probably wouldn't have mattered much if interception had been possible and allowed.

Now, we have people managing all sorts of aspects of their daily lives (Bank accounts, online accounts with other companies and even most government departments allow people to conduct business with them online now). People also are increasingly using VOIP and IM services instead of phone lines for conversations (which may be important) and a lot are using email instead of Snail Mail.

Now, we have laws in place to prevent interception of communications via Phone (fixed and Mobile AFAIK) and Post. Why do we not have the same protections on communications via the Internet?

token
17-08-2009, 00:19
Now, we have laws in place to prevent interception of communications via Phone (fixed and Mobile AFAIK) and Post. Why do we not have the same protections on communications via the Internet?

We do.

Stuart
17-08-2009, 00:55
We do.

Which our government specifically said did not apply to private companies.

frogstamper
17-08-2009, 03:29
Just as VM are doing really well with new HD channels, 50mb BB and the like they once again lay this nightmare on us again...all this old pony about how they want to deploy Phorm for "our benefit" is total BS, the only reason they want it is "income" plain and simple.
It seems to me VM are literally the last company who is still making their mind up over this spyware:rolleyes: come on VM grow some testicles and tell us you want to deploy it, instead of this cowardly performance you insist on dragging out.:mad:

Mick Fisher
17-08-2009, 03:50
Just as VM are doing really well with new HD channels, 50mb BB and the like they once again lay this nightmare on us again...all this old pony about how they want to deploy Phorm for "our benefit" is total BS, the only reason they want it is "income" plain and simple.
It seems to me VM are literally the last company who is still making their mind up over this spyware:rolleyes: come on VM grow some testicles and tell us you want to deploy it, instead of this cowardly performance you insist on dragging out.:mad:
But VM are always the last to do anything. :D

boredband
17-08-2009, 10:12
I for one, do not welcome our new phorm overlords.

If VM get off the fence on to phorms side I will drop their broadband like a hot potato. In fact I'd probably drop all their services.

cook1984
17-08-2009, 23:32
Sometimes I wish they would start using Phorm. It seems like the only way anyone is going to go to jail for illegal spying, and that's a precedent we desperately need.

Sirius
17-08-2009, 23:48
I for one, do not welcome our new phorm overlords.

If VM get off the fence on to phorms side I will drop their broadband like a hot potato. In fact I'd probably drop all their services.

Same here

rogerdraig
18-08-2009, 23:00
Which our government specifically said did not apply to private companies.


they may have done but they are wrong on that

though the HRA doesnt apply in the way it does to a government department ( that is no direct route to complain via it ) it still applies to commercial companies as any judgement about the way they operate has to take the HRA into account and show how the decisioning complies with it

hence as interception is implicitly banned except for national security and law enforcement any one doing it will fall foul of the HRA

see

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/faqs/human-rights-act/how-do-i-bring-a-claim-under-the-human-rights-act.html

its only a short one i did have a link to a rather lengthy one lol but seem to have misfiled it or this new version of firefox lost teach me for using alpha software ;)

SelfProtection
28-08-2009, 20:44
Not only is it an infringement under the HRA Article 8 but this Administration is also acting contrary to Article 13 which is a separate abuse of the HRA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_of_Human_Rights#Article_8_-_privacy

QUOTE:
Article 13 - effective remedy

Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention.

BenMcr
22-09-2009, 11:30
I don't usually cross post but

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/439bc290-a6ce-11de-bd14-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Phorm leaves UK market (for now)

boredband
22-09-2009, 12:44
I don't usually cross post but

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/439bc290-a6ce-11de-bd14-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Phorm leaves UK market (for now)

Woo, thanks for that info. Good to hear that they were sent packing:D

Sirius
22-09-2009, 15:19
Excellent news

bonzoe
22-09-2009, 19:25
Good news for now :)..............but they indicate that they will be back:mad:

amorrd
24-09-2009, 00:15
It also seems that unless they find another financial backer or get adopted by a major ISP then their finances run dry within 12 months.

Personally I would probably abandon all VM services if they ever rolled out ANY kind of Phorm system

Sirius
24-09-2009, 07:52
It never stopped amazing me how Kurt and his spy-ware team seemed to think that we wanted them to sell all our private surfing habits to anyone willing to pay and then let them spam our connection with adverts ?????.

Lets face it no one in there right mind would have signed up for it, so they were doomed as soon as they were told that it had to be opt in not opt out.

Stuart
29-10-2009, 13:38
And, the EU have started the second stage of potential legal action against our government..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/eu_phorm/

Apparently our law violates the EU directive on interception of communications in 3 areas:
We have no independent authority to report any potential problems and complaints to. OFCOM would be the logical choice, but they will not act for individual people. Our law apparently allows the ISP to assume consent if they have reasonable grounds for believing consent has been given. The directive requires that consent must be "freely given specific and informed indication of a person's wishes". As such, the ISPs and Phorm (or any company involved) must be open and honest about what they are doing, and the system must be opt IN. RIPA only covers "intentional" snooping. The directive does not allow the law to distinguish between intentional or unintentional snooping.

ahardie
11-11-2009, 16:00
Seems that phorm, or something similar is coming soon... to Sky. Article here
(http://www.iptv-watch.co.uk/2009/11/10/targeted-ads-for-sky-player-subscribers/). It isn't compulsory but subscribers have to opt out. Once Sky have implemented this it wont be long before other companies including VM follow IMO.

rogerdraig
11-11-2009, 16:17
i think they will find themselves in trouble even with the warning the position Europe is now pushing is that you have to opt in not opt to opt out

BenMcr
11-11-2009, 17:11
Seems that phorm, or something similar is coming soon... to Sky. Article here
(http://www.iptv-watch.co.uk/2009/11/10/targeted-ads-for-sky-player-subscribers/). It isn't compulsory but subscribers have to opt out. Once Sky have implemented this it wont be long before other companies including VM follow IMO.Actually that sounds nothing like Phorm.

What it is likely to be is information on what programs people have watched on the Sky Player service to then taylor the adverts they see.

It also looks like it is only targeted at the Sky Player service and not the whole internet connection

No different that what most banner ad companies (along with Google and Virgin for Virginmedia.com) do already

ahardie
11-11-2009, 17:50
Actually that sounds nothing like Phorm.

What it is likely to be is information on what programs people have watched on the Sky Player service to then taylor the adverts they see.

It also looks like it is only targeted at the Sky Player service and not the whole internet connection

No different that what most banner ad companies (along with Google and Virgin for Virginmedia.com) do already

Fair enough. A couple of articles I read suggested it was similar to phorm.

Mick Fisher
11-11-2009, 18:17
Fair enough. A couple of articles I read suggested it was similar to phorm.
It is similar to Phorm in that it is an opt out offering that deposits unwanted tracking cookies on the subjects system whether he takes the trouble to opt out or not.

Incidentally I believe Audience Science is behind it, when I tried to opt out of all Audience Science tracking via some central opt out service it wasn't having any of it. Despite opting out and being told I had opted out, upon re-visiting the site to opt out of some other spyware, lo and behold I find I am still opted into the Audience Science scam.

Seems the only way is to completely BOYCOTT all sites that use Audience Science, at least until they clean up their act and offer their Spyware as an opt-in. :mad:

BenMcr
11-11-2009, 19:09
You mean this site? http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp

tdadyslexia
11-11-2009, 19:23
You can use a hosts file to block Audience Science, and other tracking companies.

Plus you can send a Section 11 Notice (https://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/) to SKY,


For anyone keen to issue Sky with a DPA Section 11 (no marketing) notice, Dephormation has updated his Wizard to include Sky's registered DPA address;

https://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Simply enter your Sky account info, address, generate the letter, print, post and send. (No data is stored once the letter is created, and if you use the SSL link above none of the information will be transmitted in the clear.

Script also covers BT, Virgin, TalkTalk, Orange, O2, Vodafone, 3, T-Mobile.

Feel free to share the Wizard link on other forums.

rogerdraig
11-11-2009, 19:38
You can use a hosts file to block Audience Science, and other tracking companies.

Plus you can send a Section 11 Notice (https://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/) to SKY,


For anyone keen to issue Sky with a DPA Section 11 (no marketing) notice, Dephormation has updated his Wizard to include Sky's registered DPA address;

https://www.dephormation.org.uk/dpa_notices/

Simply enter your Sky account info, address, generate the letter, print, post and send. (No data is stored once the letter is created, and if you use the SSL link above none of the information will be transmitted in the clear.

Script also covers BT, Virgin, TalkTalk, Orange, O2, Vodafone, 3, T-Mobile.

Feel free to share the Wizard link on other forums.

nice info but that still opting out rather than in

so though if i join sky i might do that it still needs to be addressed by the courts if needed

Mick Fisher
11-11-2009, 19:41
You mean this site? http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp
Yep, that was the place.

Thanks Ben.

Stuart
18-11-2009, 17:55
And, the UK MD of Phorm has quit.. http://www.nma.co.uk/phorm-uk-md-barnett-leaves/3006921.article

Anyone thinking of sinking ships here?

Sirius
18-11-2009, 17:59
And, the UK MD of Phorm has quit.. http://www.nma.co.uk/phorm-uk-md-barnett-leaves/3006921.article

Anyone thinking of sinking ships here?


:hyper::hyper: And another one bites the dust

Sir John Luke
11-01-2010, 23:22
:hyper::hyper: And another one bites the dust
...and another!

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn:PHRM.L&action=article&articleid=7700554

Sirius
12-01-2010, 07:29
...and another!

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn:PHRM.L&action=article&articleid=7700554

(with the voice of Mr Burns) Excellent