OK, last night's meeting. I'm sorry I couldn't stay long enough to chat more with Simon and Alexander in particular. Had to run like a nutcase to get the trains as it was, so I have only the presentations I mentioned before. Sadly I don't have the Q&A session or Marc Burgess's talk. As I mentioned before I place a high value on being able to see people in the flesh and hear what they do and don't say on a particular issue.
These are
my perceptions on last night's meeting. The footage here is unedited and offered as a way of getting some informed discussion going on.
Simon gave an introduction to the meeting. He believes that there is a way forward with Phorm and, as 8020T are contracted to undertake a PIA with Phorm then 8020T are being asked by Phorm if there is a way forward. That's a statement of fact as I see it. I don't doubt Simon's earnest beliefs either generally or on this issue. He said that Phorm are being open and honest with him. They haven't really been open and honest with us though. That's why I doubt Phorm.
Kent's presentation, well you'll see it for yourself. I was struck by what I felt to be a definite lack of class on his part. This isn't about Google, Yahoo or FIPR, it's about his company and what he wants to do with my (and our) data. He repeatedly said "That's an interesting question" and wandered off - His slating of FIPR over RIPA was not the act of someone going out to persuade a rightly cynical public that Phorm is deserving of anyone's trust. Spin, PR and gloss but nothing that changes my perception that Phorm has nothing to offer me or the people who are my clients. 10-15 minutes was supposed to be allocated for each speaker. Kent went on for 20 minutes.
Let me also say that I have worked alongside managers, directors, MDs, CEOs and COOs whose mantras are openness, honesty and respect. I know their beliefs, opinions, general attitudes and behaviours. What I saw from Kent doesn't match those people.
There has been mention of a "letter of comfort" from the Home Office. Perhaps Alexander can clarify what a "letter of comfort" really is and whether it has any status as legal opinion in law?
Richard Clayton's presentation was about as technical as things got during the time I was there. One heckler persisted and was eventually put in his place. I wonder who that person was and what his interest was? Richard and Alexander seem to have a far better comprehension of the law than Kent and Marc. If Phorm are to be as open and honest as Simon expects them to be then all of Richard's points will be addressed openly and honestly in the public domain. I managed to get some of
Richard's Q&A session.
Marc didn't give a presentation as such, just spoke from notes. If only I had bought one more set of batteries! The point that "If a search engine can index a site we take that to mean we [Phorm] can too" grated with me. The user agent string enables website owners to specify who can and cannot index their site. Phorm is not a major search engine.
Alexander's speech was excellent, putting these events into social, legal and historical context and speaking for itself.
Sadly I had to dash at that point.
A reminder -
here we were told that
"please do bring along vid cameras if you wish, just to be on the safe side."
In conclusion...
Phorm have not convinced me that they are in any way deserving of my trust or that of my clients. I'm not talking about Google, Yahoo, MSN or anyone else, I'm talking about Phorm. Their persistence in saying "well G does this" is nothing more than attempting to evade questions. Stop doing that and peoples' perception might just start to improve. Phorm have not convinced me that they offer anything of value to me or my clients. Anti phishing is a redundant offering. Firefox has that capability anyway.
Phorm's entire approach has been arrogant from the start. Assuming that it will be mandatory for all users (until the backlash started), the use of manipulative language via overzealous and unbelievably accident-prone PR, and only engaging with people when the product is almost ready to roll.
The arrogance continues over the user agent. My clients want to be able to be found by search engines but not to be indexed by an advertising company. Talk about opt-out has had to happen
because of the backlash. Phorm would rather nobody knew about any kind of opt-out because the more people who do opt out the less likely they are to succeed.
If Phorm are to be as open and honest as they are claiming and as Simon Davies wants them to be then here are a few starting points for them, all to be published in the public domain. Consider them "interesting questions" to use Kent's favourite phrase.
There are issues about the legality of Phorm. Publish the full QC's opinion and also the QC's details as well. Phorm say they are legal and are confident of it - publish the legal opinion. Why hasn't it been published? Is the QC scared that their association with Phorm will harm their reputation? Does the QC suddenly lack confidence in their opinion?
There are claims about the data they record. Publish it - verified by an independent security expert and let the community explore and test Phorm's claims.
Allow ISPs and independent IT security auditors (
not accountancy houses) access to the Phorm provided equipment on the ISP's infrastructure. Allow ISPs to monitor and report on it for audit purposes. Anything less makes it an alien presence on the network for which the ISP should not accept any responsibility (and which they should refuse point blank IMHO).
Create a user agent string so website owners can say yes to search engines but no to Phorm.
Ultimately this may (and perhaps should) end up in the courts, the final legality of Phorm being decided on by legal minds for once and for all. And the sooner the better.
BT certainly should be taken to task for its (IMO) illegal trials in 2006 and 2007.
We as ISP customers and website owners should make our arguments to 8020T for the PIA process (especially our refusal of permission for our sites to be "Phormed"), judge the PIA when it is published and then make our own decisions.
Personally I'd love to see Phorm told its system is illegal, BT dragged through the courts and VM actually speaking out and saying "Thanks but no thanks". That needs people to do things over which I and maybe we (as VM customers) have no control. We need to keep this story going, spreading the word and pressing for government action.
Thanks again to Simon for organising the meeting, Dr Richard Clayton and Alexander for speaking so well. If anyone did get a recording of the group discussion I'd love to see it.
Join CF
You are here: 
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
