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

[unicus]

Interesting wording in that letter. I note he says ”will not until we are confident that it is compliant to do so “ which seems like a good indication that they are no longer sure on the legality of the system – well doh!

Overall it sounds like a bit of a stall with a hint of 'how do we get out of this in the best way', well I can tell VM – JUST DUMP PHORM

[Barkotron]

Yeah, to be honest I see that letter as a qualified backing off. They're no longer saying "yar boo sucks we're going ahead" - it's much more cautious and sober, even hinting that they may not go ahead with it.

It also looks like they're finally getting the message that sending out the "Webwise benefits you" form emails a lot of us got just winds people up instead of placating them.

I'd say they're spooked - people don't like having their company splashed on the Beeb next to the word "illegal", and they don't want to be next. So, keep up the pressure, looks like it might actually be making a difference.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by flashpaul

CaptJamie

Is this letter a reply to your DPA notice then ?

Does this mean that they have ignored you compliance letter ?

It does sound as though they are going to wait for all the fuss to die down before introducing Phorm if at all

Sorry, I inadvertently missed that para out. (Crikey, the post was going to end up longer? Hellfire!) Ian Woodham writes that he has acknowledged my compliance notice and amended my customer account details accordingly, and apologised for not acknowledging that point in his initial reply. Of course, with no Phorm implemented yet this isn't an issue for VM.

I'm sure we're having an effect but am disappointed that Sir Beardy hasn't said anything publicly about the damage his brand is taking. My comment to The Register about "Virgle" went thusly:

"While thousands of your customers are pressing for an answer on where Virgin Media stands on prostituting their customers' data to Phorm, Sir Beardy is making jokes (I didn't laugh) about going to Mars.

Let's joke about how Virgin Media's reputation is taking a hammering then shall we?

Q: What's the difference between BT, Virgin Media and Robert Mugabe?
A: Mugabe realises he's in the sh*t and losing. The other two either don't know or don't care."

[Barkotron]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Alexander, I have added another comment on the iii site to mention the High Court injunction possibility. Potential investors need to be aware that we arent going away and that we will examine all possibilities when it comes to fighting Phorm.

It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.

Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.

Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.

[EDIT: Saw your post - I think it's worth stressing that investing in Phorm looks like being bad business, never mind the legal and ethical aspects. Of course, it's the legal and ethical aspects that make it bad business, because it's the legal and ethical aspects that will either see it a) dropped by the ISPs it needs, b) reduced to an opt-in which hardly any customers will take up, or c) prosecuted. Any combination of the above would massively impact shareholder value.]

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.

Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.

Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.

Done. Thanks for the headsup as I hadnt noticed they had responded. I was busy helping a friend on IRC and responding to another thread. My guess is they are upset that their investment has crashed by 50% over the last month. Cant say that I blame her. I would be upset if I was in her shoes. Then again, I wouldnt invest in a company like Phorm in the first place.

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Barkotron

It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.

Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.

Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.

I'd go with Barkotron. Damn good idea.

We all have our own sets of values here, things that define us as who we are. That makes up peoples' perceptions of us. And as I've said before, the leaders with whom I've had the pleasure of working fervently believe that "perception is reality".

"Hi, we're Phorm and we've got this great idea for making you, advertisers, us and shareholders shedloads of money. What do you think?"

Due diligence always seems to miss the kind of information it should pick up. Dunno why but there you go. I've experienced it myself.

Then facts start coming to light. Not from due diligence as it should but from potentially affected parties - industry correspondents and customers. OK, shareholders might not care for the ethical stance of a company or brand but as more facts come to light and these become wider knowledge, questions start to be asked.

"Is this company all that it claims to be?"
"Can this company deliver on its technical claims? Many knowledgeable people think not. Why is that the case?"
"What are its clients doing about these concerns?"
"Why has one major client rejected it with a scathing announcement?"
"Why is the company so unpopular?"
"Why is the company getting bad press?"
"What is the company doing about these concerns?"
"Why is government getting involved here?"
"Why are there potential legal proceedings?"
"What is the potential impact on my brand in being associated with the company?"

I keep hearing that the markets are based on confidence. All of these questions should be aired so people can learn from our information and education (rather than Phorm's PR and spin) and then assess how confident they are in their investment. After all, it hasn't done so well recently.

[flashpaul]

Ive had a written reply to an email I sent to my MP about Phorm

He has written to John Hutton MP , Secretary of state asking for assurances about the Phorm system and the privacy of end users

I havent seen anything else that has gone to the secretary of state so maybe this is another angle of attack

I will post any further replies on this matter

[OF1975]

I notice alexander has been very quiet today. I wonder if hes been too busy with work or maybe he finally got to meet up with that friend of his that is a court clerk?

[kt88man]

Nicholas Bohm (FIPR) has said on ukcrypto that the BBC has interviewed him for tomorrow morning's BBC breakfast.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/083940.html

[Florence]

Originally Posted by CaptJamieHunter

TalkTalk have heard customers' feedback as discussed at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...hares_plummet/

(emboldening is mine)

"Company representatives have told users in forums that they are working on a way to ensure that traffic from people who opt out will never enter the Phorm system. "We had a meeting yesterday and based on customer opinion we decided to use a different method, yet to be decided, to split the traffic so it doesn't hit a Webwise server at all for those that opt out," one wrote.


In an email to a customer seen by The Register, Carphone Warehouse CEO Charles Dunstone confirmed that Webwise will be opt-in only on his firm's network. He wrote: "We have never stated what our policy was. This is the first clarification given. We are still many months before the system is meant to go live."


A post from TalkTalk admin "Matt" here adds more details. He writes: "There is no Phorm equipment in our network. We have never run any trials, nor implemented any aspect of this nor any of Phorm's previous systems in our network.


"By making the service opt-in, we feel the onus remains firmly with Phorm to make the service useful and compelling enough that subscribers will choose to join it. If it fails to do this, it will itself fail."

TalkTalk are listening to their customers and have made a public statement.

Yes I know all that but I also read this http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?2683

Thank you for your email regarding Phorm software.

I can confirm that as of June 2008 we will begin to offer our customers Phorm and Webwise services. This new service will help protect our customers from fraudulent websites and provides them with targeting advertising based on their web activity.

For further information please go to www.webwise.com.

Yours sincerely,

Heather Lunt
TalkTalk Customer Relations

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by kt88man

Nicholas Bohm (FIPR) has said on ukcrypto that the BBC has interviewed him for tomorrow morning's BBC breakfast.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/083940.html

Great news. I will make sure to tune in nice and early.

[Ravenheart]

LOL I've had another reply on my blog.. Gee what a wonderful job this PR team must have, surfing people's crappy blogs all day for mentions of Phorm, money for old rope

"Hi there
I work as part of the comms team for Phorm here in the UK. While the ongoing debate around privacy is healthy, and we welcome it, one or two points above need clarification.

Kent has been very transparent about the Adware – not Spyware - business he was previously involved with He has discussed this openly in media interviews and in conversations online. Adware is a software component designed to deliver ads as part of a legitimate, commercial product or service. The software was installed with the knowledge and consent of individual users, could be identified and uninstalled, and did not cause harm or ‘steal’ information.
However, it became clear that it was difficult for users to distinguish Adware from Spyware. 121 Media quickly decided that the model of providing downloadable software was a wrong turn for the business.

The company then took the unprecedented step of voluntarily shutting down the download business model - worth $5-6 million a year to the business. Instead, it decided to concentrate on its ISP strategy of providing more relevant ads and higher levels of user privacy. The move away from the old model to the ISP strategy was announced transparently to the market."

Now to ready my reply

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by Florence

Yes I know all that but I also read this http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...topic.php?2683

Hmm... someone spinning the standard Phorm PR. E-mailed to The Register. Anyone know any TalkTalk customers and if they've received any (mis)information about Phorm?

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

LOL I've had another reply on my blog.. Gee what a wonderful job this PR team must have, surfing people's crappy blogs all day for mentions of Phorm, money for old rope

"Hi there
I work as part of the comms team for Phorm here in the UK. While the ongoing debate around privacy is healthy, and we welcome it, one or two points above need clarification.
Kent has been very transparent about the Adware – not Spyware - business he was previously involved with He has discussed this openly in media interviews and in conversations online. Adware is a software component designed to deliver ads as part of a legitimate, commercial product or service. The software was installed with the knowledge and consent of individual users, could be identified and uninstalled, and did not cause harm or ‘steal’ information.
However, it became clear that it was difficult for users to distinguish Adware from Spyware. 121 Media quickly decided that the model of providing downloadable software was a wrong turn for the business. The company then took the unprecedented step of voluntarily shutting down the download business model - worth $5-6 million a year to the business. Instead, it decided to concentrate on its ISP strategy of providing more relevant ads and higher levels of user privacy. The move away from the old model to the ISP strategy was announced transparently to the market."

Now to ready my reply

Ravenheart make sure you add in your reply about them using the Apropos rootkit and how difficult it was for non-techy types to uninstall. That f-secure and other security companies categorised it as spyware etc.

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Ravenheart make sure you add in your reply about them using the Apropos rootkit and how difficult it was for non-techy types to uninstall. That f-secure and other security companies categorised it as spyware etc.

Funny you should mention that, I was just looking up a few links for my reply.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=820

http://www.f-secure.com/sw-desc/peopleonpage.shtml

So far