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

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I need a nap, will be back this evening.

Alexander Hanff

[X Chris X]

New member, sorry if you may have answered this question before:

As an VM/Xbox Live user, am I right in assuming that this may cause 'lag' within my games?

Will Phorm be collecting this data, and worse, will this impact on my expierence?

What are the chances of MS offering us Live users an anti-phorm patch?

[CaptJamieHunter]

So we currently have 800 who won't be opting in versus 37 who will.

And Kent claims "everyone wants Phorm"? or should that be "everyone who doesn't know the full facts and illegality wants Phorm"?

An old mate of mine reminded me that "form" is also slang for having a criminal record.

[popper]

X Chris X

Originally Posted by X Chris X

New member, sorry if you may have answered this question before:

As an VM/Xbox Live user, am I right in assuming that this may cause 'lag' within my games?

Will Phorm be collecting this data, and worse, will this impact on my expierence?

What are the chances of MS offering us Live users an anti-phorm patch?

from the network POV, there can be NO patch, as the facts as they are means every single bit of your datastream passes to the ISP/Phorm DPI kit.

a simplifyed layout looks something like this:

your CM<===>the VM UBR<===>Phorm Gifted Deep-Packet-Inspection-Kit-For-Profit<===>the website you asked for.


as you can see, you might not know it, but your being intercepted at all times once it goes live even if they dont pass your copywrited datastream on to the anonymiser kit and instead divert it to were you wanted to go in the first place, after setting and storing/reading an illegal cookie without permission etc.

[OF1975]

I have received another response from another two MEPs of mine.

Dear Mr Freeman,

Thank you very much for your email outlining your concerns about how the Phorm system could represent a serious breach of privacy of internet users. I am also responding on behalf of the office of ******* ******** MEP. (obscured by me because of permission/privacy issues)

Please be assured that your concerns have been noted. Thank you once again for contacting this office and for bringing this information about Phorm to our attention.
Yours sincerely

************************************************** ************************

Its not as good as I would have hoped but from the closing paragraph I take it to mean that neither of the two MEPs had been aware of the issue previously but now are. That at least is something positive.

I am still most reassured by the response I got from the Earl of Northesk and will be working to complete letters that have been on the backburner lately so that I can get them into the post this evening. We need to keep the pressure on.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWashngo

Regarding the Early Day Motion 1311 (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...px?EDMID=35552).

Have we got a template or standard letter which we are sending our MPs to bring this EDM to their attention?

Originally Posted by jelv

Can someone remind me of the website to use for contacting your MP which tracks if they respond please.

Originally Posted by roadrunner69

http://www.writetothem.com/

Thankyou, I've now sent a letter to my MP.

[NTLVictim]

On the subject of Amazon et al using phorm/oix, is there a list somewhere, i.e. a "name and shame"?

Gardening direct dropped a tracking cookie on me the other day (been a customer for ages), so I told them where to go using short sharp jerking movements.

[Cogster]

there is a list on badphorm....

[Rchivist]

letter sent via writetothem.com to my MEP's,
Neil Parish MEP
Graham Booth MEP
Glyn Ford MEP
Roger Knapman MEP
Graham Watson MEP

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Cogster

there is a list on badphorm....

which you can find here
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...ewforum.php?21

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

On the subject of Amazon et al using phorm/oix, is there a list somewhere, i.e. a "name and shame"?

Gardening direct dropped a tracking cookie on me the other day (been a customer for ages), so I told them where to go using short sharp jerking movements.

Most all shopping cart software will drop a cookie on you so they can manage your shopping cart. Just like this site has dropped a cookie to enable you to keep your login state active between sessions, it is a knee jerk reaction to expect the internet to carry on functioning as it does with no cookies.

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by Cogster

there is a list on badphorm....

Where? Badphorm doesn't work properly under Firefox.

If I try and download the sample letter for VM for example, I get;
"Download Error

You do not have the correct permissions to download this file."

I contacted them weeks ago about that one...


Also, where are the sample letters for other ISPs?

I get a row of noughts, that weasel kent must be having a right laugh.

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.14 with noscript , dephormation and adblock running.

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Most all shopping cart software will drop a cookie on you so they can manage your shopping cart. Just like this site has dropped a cookie to enable you to keep your login state active between sessions, it is a knee jerk reaction to expect the internet to carry on functioning as it does with no cookies.

I said TRACKING cookie...there's a difference.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Where? Badphorm doesn't work properly under Firefox.

<snip>

List is here http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...ewforum.php?21

although if its only these seven we have nothing to worry about

[popper]

wouldnt it be just a nice slice of cake with cream topping to issue a named person injunction on these same directors and managers ,as iv been saying for a while now ,alexander, did those books by any chance clarify those howto points, and about potentially using the SC to do it?.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...vice-on-phorm/
"
FIPR calls on Home Office to withdraw misleading advice on Phorm

Posted by Becky in Computer Law, Data Protection, Net Neutrality, Privacy, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act at April 23rd, 2008
The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) has today sent the Home Office in-depth legal analysis [pdf] of the Phorm behavioural advertising system.

The analysis has been produced by FIPR’s General Counsel (and ORG Advisory Council member) Nicholas Bohm, and complements the technical analysis produced by Richard Clayton earlier this month [pdf]. The analysis shows that Phorm’s systems involve interception of communications contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, fraud, contrary to the Fraud Act, and therefore unlawful processing of personal data, contrary to the Data Protection Act.

It states that individual directors and managers of the Internet Service Providers involved could be criminally liable for these offences, if roll out of Phorm goes ahead.

FIPR want the Home Office to withdraw informal advice they issued in February, which FIPR say wrongly concluded the system is lawful, creating “an obstacle to the just enforcement of the law”.

At the public meeting attended by Phorm and their critics last week, Simon Davies of 80/20 Thinking Ltd identified the legality of Phorm under RIPA as a legitimate issue, but urged participants not to get bogged down in a question which, in the end, can only be decided in a court of law.

Hopefully, FIPR’s legal analysis will bring UK citizens one step closer to an answer to the question “Is Phorm legal?”.

As Richard Clayton observes:

“The Home Office’s superficial analysis said that the system would be lawful.

Given their batting average at the High Court, relying upon their opinion was always unwise - this new paper spells
out the errors they have made, and makes it essential that their report is withdrawn.”

Previous posts on Phorm:

• Phorm: public meeting announced for next Tuesday
• Phorm analysis out
• ORG and FIPR meet with Phorm
• Phorm update
• The Phorm storm "

[OF1975]

Ok I am back. I just posted two letters one of which is a letter to the Computer Crime Unit of the Metropolitan Police. I intended to send that letter a few weeks ago but for various reasons never got around to finishing it. This afternoon I finished it and they should receive it in the morning hopefully. This is what I wrote:

Dear Sir

I write to you today to fulfill my civic duty and report a crime to you. You may or may not be aware of the recent controversy regarding an ex-spyware company called Phorm and the deal it has signed with BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk which are the UKs 3 largest Internet Service Providers.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) makes intercepting internet traffic without a warrant or consent an offence. Recently BT has admitted to carrying out secret trials of Phorms technology in 2006 and 2007 which may have involved up to 108,000 users.. They have admitted to not having asked for consent or permission from those users involved in these trials and therefore have potentially committed a minimum of 108,000 criminal offences under section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

This is not just my view but also the view of the Foundation for Information Policy Research who are advisors to the government. Relevant links giving background information can be found at the bottom of this letter.

An acquaintance has already tried to report these crimes once in a phone call to Scotland Yard last month but the telephone operator refused to issue a Crime Reference Number. Given that this criminally illegal interception was on a huge scale such a refusal is unacceptable. As far as I am aware BT is not above the law of the land and therefore should not be subject to protection against appropriate investigation/prosecution.

In my opinion these offences should be investigated urgently but so far this issue has been handled like a cynical game of pass the parcel with the Information Commissioners Office saying that RIPA is the responsibility of the Home Office and the Home Office saying it is the responsibility of the police to investigate contraventions of RIPA.

Given that the Home Office insists that its the responsibility of the police to investigate, I look forward to your reply detailing what actions you will be taking to investigate the BT/Phorm trials of 2006 and 2007. Useful links to background information can be found on page two of this letter and if you require more information please do not hesitate to contact me. Please note that, unless explicity asked not to do so, I intend to publish online any response I get from you.

Yours sincerely

************************************************** **************
At the bottom of the letter I included 4 links for background information.

If others wish to use what I wrote as a very basic template then rewrite it and improve upon it then post their own letter to the computer crime unit then please feel free to do so

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by vicz

List is here http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugi...ewforum.php?21

although if its only these seven we have nothing to worry about

...Why do I get the nasty feeling that "seven" is merely the crystalline flake on the very peak of a sodding big iceberg???