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

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by mark777

I quite agree.

What worries me is when i'm in a queue in Tesco's and someone at the front can't find their Clubcard and thinks the world will fall in because they are loosing out.

When I get to the checkout and am asked if I have a Clubcard and reply "You mean a bit of Satan's plastic?", I'm looked at if i'm from another planet (I can understand that), but then asked if I want one!

If I ask why Tesco's just don't give everyone the 0.5% discount i'm told on the checkout (as if it's way beyond my comprehension) that it's much more complicated than that. If I ask why, people behind get all uppy.

But that is the return you get for signing up. And the discounts can easily be in the 5% range if you convert the vouchers for other things. It also tracks your shop spending to your Tesco home shopping account which is a convenience, pick something up in store and you can see what it is next time you do a home shop.
Thats the big thing with many of the comparisons used here. The whats in it for me is not there for Phorm, better targeted ads, whoop de doo, anti phishing, well IE7 does that for me.

Snooping on all my IP packets (and while at the moment they say they will drop https and non 80 traffic there is nothing to stop them changing those rules in the future).

---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:45 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

yeah sure, we get that, but your average person using their Broadband computers must understand:

simple everyday Broadband users language is one thing, pre-school playgroup is another and serves no real purpose in understanding this subject.

how do you make sheeple care ?, by letting them know the facts as it effects them personally it would seem.

i like that sheeple we should adopt it 3x2

and how do the two most popular papers in the UK do that, by writing the paper with a reading age of 7.

---------- Post added at 21:57 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

(i) Phorm have also obtained a QC's opinion on whether they are performing illegal interception. I asked if anyone had ever told them their systems would be illegal to operate and if they had subsequently modifyed them, and was told that, "we didn't get any opinions that it was illegal".

"
it might be nice if PRPhorm etal were to give us the name and business location of this "A QC", so go on then PhormPRteam, tell us please....

It is not that hard to get a legal opinion agreeing with you if you ask enough lawyers.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

Thanks to everyone who contributed ideas for the "simple" website. I do intend to change its name to make it more acceptable to organisations such as the BBC, and will let you know once that's in place.

Though they have linked to www.badphorm.co.uk from this new article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7331493.stm

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------

Originally Posted by 3x2

From day one I have viewed RIPA as the protection we have. The DPA reads more like a memorandum of understanding and so naturally this is what Phorm have used to defend themselves.

But both cover completely different things.
RIPA on how you get the data in the first place
DPA what you do with your data.

Now I do agree with Phorm that the data they have is anonymised blah, blah and most likely complies with DPA in those respects.

What is wrong is that they are taking it without explicit authorisation of both parties and even when you ask them to stop they still get a copy they just say they don't look at it. Data like that is like a car crash, you can't help but slow down and take a look. I work with people who are employed to surveil the company email traffic. They know what to look for and what not to look for or at and despite best efforts not to end up knowing peoples personal business they do because you open a mail that looks like it should be subject to review and find the content is not what is expected. Knowing people are pregnant before they announce it, or never do and never develop a bump, they have seen everything.

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

According to Phorm PR they are not being passed the data by the ISP, it is their equipment doing the listening and the ISP don't have any access to it other than the fact they can physically touch it.

I guess it boils down to who the Layer 7 network technology belongs too, so far we have been led to believe (through their PR) that it is Phorm's.

Alexander Hanff

No we have been led to believe that Phorm have gifted it to the ISP as such it is the ISPs.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Though they have linked to www.badphorm.co.uk from this new article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7331493.stm

in fact Badphorm is another campaigner's site, not my original website which is now at
http://www.inphormationdesk.org

I've updated and tidied up inphormationdesk into a more-or-less final structure now. Anyone know who to contact at the BBC to get them to link to it?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

No we have been led to believe that Phorm have gifted it to the ISP as such it is the ISPs.

No, Phorm explicitly stated in one of their question and answer sessions that BT have zero access to any of the kit. They also stated that they themselves don't have remote access to the kit and then a few answers later revealed they do have remote access once they ask BT to let them into their network.

I will find the session later and cite it.

Alexander Hanff

[OF1975]

Ok this is interesting. My third petition has finally been rejected. First reason is the one i expected; duplication. The second reason is quite fascinating. Let me quote:

* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government

Since when has it been outside the powers of the Prime Minister to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to examine an issue?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Ok this is interesting. My third petition has finally been rejected. First reason is the one i expected; duplication. The second reason is quite fascinating. Let me quote:

* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government

Since when has it been outside the powers of the Prime Minister to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to examine an issue?

More importantly, since the head of the Home Office is part of his cabinet (at least that's my understanding correct me if I am wrong) how is it beyond the remit of the PM to question his cabinet members?

Alexander Hanff

[Florence]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Ok this is interesting. My third petition has finally been rejected. First reason is the one i expected; duplication. The second reason is quite fascinating. Let me quote:

* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government

Since when has it been outside the powers of the Prime Minister to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to examine an issue?

Why does this response not come as a suprise, well there is a voting session come May what if members of the public told labour their feelings with a no vote to loabour. Help us or we will move your power from local authorities. They forget that they need our votes to be in power.

[dav]

I see the PR robots have been booted up . Hello..

Anyway, I'd like to ask them a question...

What, in your opinion, gives you the moral right to look at what people are doing online and make money out of it?
Note that this is subtley different to the debate raging on whether the process is legal or not. I would contend that your system is morally bankrupt and indistinguishable from the actions of a hacker. How would Phorm defend this view? Maybe a quote from Kent would be useful?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by OF1975

Ok this is interesting. My third petition has finally been rejected. First reason is the one i expected; duplication. The second reason is quite fascinating. Let me quote:

* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government

Since when has it been outside the powers of the Prime Minister to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to examine an issue?

Ken Macdonald is reported as being the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions by the Cabinet Office website.

The CPS website has a complaints page at http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/c...omplaints.html but no mention of where to contact Mr Macdonald.

El Reg continues the coverage of the BT & Phorm alliance at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/07/bt_phorm_ico/ including a mention of the Wikipedia pages about Phorm.

[Florence]

WEll seems VM are clutching at straws. As you all know I have moved to BT line ADSL is now active so at present have both. Pleased to say even though I have long line I am syncing at over 7meg. Now to my call from VM today just had the nice person from VM on asking why I was moving my phone and BB away, I mentioned phorm and was supprised by his reply. He said he knew nothing about it and asked where I got my information from I mentioned BBC etc and he still said he hadn't seen anything about it...

Told him to look in the news.virginmedia.com, cableforum.co.uk/board since it is plastered all over both his reply was to tell me he is an employee of VM and this is all news to him. :O where do we stand on this VM have their heads stuck firmly in the sand if they don't surfice soon they will die from lack of oxygen.

[BeckyD]

Phorm posted a rather patronising comment on Richard Clayton's blog today, explaining that a linkback to his report was not originally included in their own blog due to a "tech glitch".

Richard,
Your last post is rather misleading. The link to your report is up on our blog (http://blog.phorm.com/) — it was added yesterday evening after a tech glitch (as we note on the comments page). There is no intention to not display your report in full.

Never heard anything so laughable in my life.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

No, Phorm explicitly stated in one of their question and answer sessions that BT have zero access to any of the kit. They also stated that they themselves don't have remote access to the kit and then a few answers later revealed they do have remote access once they ask BT to let them into their network.

I will find the session later and cite it.

Alexander Hanff

Which is very interesting. The latter part is appropriate you should not let someone through your firewall to access hardware within it without permission.

The former is most strange, to allow kit inside your network that you don't know or understand or have access to, wow, you could never get away with that kind of installation in any corporate environment I have worked in.

[mrjolly]

Hello again Phorm team!

Can I ask another few questions? (Please feel free to add it to the list of my other questions which you still haven't answered!)

In reading the technical writeup of your system (specifically points 20-24) it is obvious that any website could obtain my webwise UID as you forge the cookies it sends back to me and insert it into them. For example, by visiting a site that uses http and https, they'll be able to read it.

What is to stop other websites from using my webwise UID and profiling me?
What if these websites then share this data too, or publish it?
Did you know that some cookies might have personal data in them?

Bearing that in mind, do you still claim that your system 'creates a gold standard for user privacy' and 'fully protects user privacy'?

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Which is very interesting. The latter part is appropriate you should not let someone through your firewall to access hardware within it without permission.

The former is most strange, to allow kit inside your network that you don't know or understand or have access to, wow, you could never get away with that kind of installation in any corporate environment I have worked in.

Same here. If I can't monitor it, report on it and manage it then it doesn't go on my network.

I've asked ConservativeHome if they would consider giving the Phorm/BT issue some coverage on their site.

Talking of blogs, Political Penguin has reached his conclusions about Phorm at http://www.politicalpenguin.org.uk/blog/p,304/ and he's no supporter of them either.

[OF1975]

Apologies for this as its offtopic but I see bill gates has been involved in a late aprils fools joke claiming that windows 7 will be released within a year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7334123.stm

[unicus]

I've just had an email from my MP which was just a forward of the email he got from BT. It contained a short PDF entitled 'BT and Phorm - 4 April 2008' here's the text;

What is BT’s involvement with Phorm?
Earlier this year BT Retail, along with Virgin Media and Talk Talk, confirmed that it had entered into an
agreement with Phorm, a digital technology company. The agreement with Phorm enables BT Retail, and
the other ISPs that have signed up, to offer customers a new free internet feature called Webwise.

What is BT Webwise and how does it work ?
BT Webwise checks for known fraudulent websites and warns customers if they visit one, with no need
to download or install any software. It also replaces generic adverts on participating websites with
adverts more relevant to customers’ interests, based on the web sites they visit and the things they
search for. Prior to the announcement, BT thoroughly researched Webwise and was encouraged by the
very positive consumer response to the service.

What does this mean for customers’ privacy?
The privacy and security of our customers’ data is of the utmost importance to us. Any information on
users’ browsing is completely anonymous. The system does not store personally identifiable information,
URLs, IP addresses or retain browsing histories. Search information is deleted almost immediately and is
not retrievable. Webwise does not scan webmail pages so emails on Gmail, Yahoo mail or Hotmail are
not scanned. Secure pages such as banking websites and web forms, such as online registration or sign-
up forms, are not scanned. None of the personal information often contained in form fields is, therefore,
ever captured by the system. No data is passed outside BT's network.

Webwise privacy standards have been verified by an external auditor Ernst & Young and leading privacy
advocate Simon Davies, MD of 80/20 Thinking, has also carried out a Privacy Impact Assessment on
Webwise technology.

What next?
BT plans technical trials of the Webwise service in mid April. At no stage will any of our customers be
compelled to use the service, at trial or at any other point in the future. Any service we introduce will be
optional.

The date of the trial will be announced on our website 24 hours in advance. We will be inviting around
10,000 BT broadband customers to take part in the trial. The trial invitation will be presented through a
special web page that will appear when those customers start a web browsing session. At this point,
those customers invited have three options; they can choose to switch on BT Webwise in effect ‘opt in’,
choose not to take part, or choose to find out more information.

The www.bt.com/webwise site contains detailed information on the service, as well as a one-click
option to switch the service off, which can be activated at any point during the trial.

Has BT tested this product previously?
BT conducted two small scale technical tests of a prototype advertising platform in June 2007 and over
2 weeks in September-October 2006. These tests were specifically conducted to evaluate the functional
and technical performance of the platform. Absolutely no personally identifiable information was
processed, stored or disclosed during either trial. As with all Service Providers, it is important for BT to
ensure that, before any potential new technologies are employed, they are robust and fit for purpose.

BT Public Affairs Briefing Note: BT and Phorm Page 1 of 1
Contact Tim O’Sullivan on 020 7356 6593 for further information

It also has a picture of the house of parliament in the top right

This is only what I'd expect from BT (an attempt to obfuscate the truth where possible) but I want to know what my MP thinks - I shall reply...