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

[BetBlowWhistler]

Well done on the apology Alex, it comes across very well. I especially liked the sabre-rattling comment

So, after all's been said and done, let's see if I understand what they did.

* Purchased ads two weeks prior to the trial in order to drop cookies for use in the trial
* Purchased ad space that would present a 'default' charity advert
* Sold ad space which would be used as part of the 'two-week ad-serving phase of the trial" and when a cookie was detected and a profile could be matched, the default advert was replaced with one from the 3rd parties who purchased the ad space.

Question - The list of agencies that were listed on p7 of the report - were they made aware the nature of the advertising space they were sold and were they appraised of the legal situation regarding the trial ?
(based on the assumption that BT/Phorm had legal advice they could quote at this point which has not yet been proved)

If the trial is proven to be illegal, then BT/Phorm would also have a case to answer regarding involving these other companies in an illegal act.

Have I misunderstood?

[AlexanderHanff]

I don't think the companies involved could be deemed as complicit given that they had no direct part in the act and were presumably unaware. But the report is vague on this so I can't say one way or the other.

Alexander Hanff

[jelv]

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3...orm-trial.html

---------- Post added at 08:51 ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 ----------

Their next move?

Trying to get a court order to ban the protest outside the BT AGM?

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by jelv

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3...orm-trial.html

---------- Post added at 08:51 ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 ----------

Their next more?

Trying to get a court order to ban the protest outside the BT AGM?

I would be very surprised if they tried this and even more surprised if they succeeded. I can't think of any legal argument they could use to try and stop a protest.

Alexander Hanff

[phormwatch]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I would be very surprised if they tried this and even more surprised if they succeeded. I can't think of any legal argument they could use to try and stop a protest.

Alexander Hanff

You did the right thing, Alex, and we're all behind you! Keep up the good work!

[jelv]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I would be very surprised if they tried this and even more surprised if they succeeded. I can't think of any legal argument they could use to try and stop a protest.

Alexander Hanff

I think you're right - but the publicity we'd get would be great! We can only hope.

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I don't think the companies involved could be deemed as complicit given that they had no direct part in the act and were presumably unaware. But the report is vague on this so I can't say one way or the other.

Alexander Hanff

I agree, I didn't think the companies would be complicit, but BT/Phorm would have brought them into disrepute by involving them (assuming that the trials get negative publicity related to an illegal act).

[ilago]

This comment from another forum

Amazing, legally BT under its Terms and Conditions, could not drop the cookie to enable tracking so instead they let 121Media to do it stealthily

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/D...l-Leaked-95058

[vicz]

Alex hopefully you won't continue to beat yourself up over this. It has managed to smoke out information and admissions that previously were not forthcoming. And it has hopefully given google et al a heads up - if they needed it - that people are after their lunch. All in all a great outcome.

[BetBlowWhistler]

I've just had a thought (just the one :P) If BT couldn't drop the cookie due to their T's & C's, what would be the legal viewpoint of engaging someone else to drop the cookies for you? Wouldn't that be a breach of T's & C's as it was part of a BT trial?

<hypothetical situation>
In other (very old) news..

Re-wind 8 years..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12..._right_to_spy/

fast-forward 8 years to current scenario
* ISP's have stated they *cannot* store this level of data
* ISP's have now proved they *could* store this level of data
* Government let's ISP's track users data connections without legal recourse
* Government makes ISP's *keep* the data they intercept
* Government gains access to ISP's stored data

Far fetched? It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy.

</hypothetical situation>

Alex : you mentioned a couple of times that Chris@El Reg had mentioned the leaked document in an article already published, could you let us know which one please? Ta.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

I've just had a thought (just the one :P) If BT couldn't drop the cookie due to their T's & C's, what would be the legal viewpoint of engaging someone else to drop the cookies for you? Wouldn't that be a breach of T's & C's as it was part of a BT trial?

<hypothetical situation>
In other (very old) news..

Re-wind 8 years..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12..._right_to_spy/

fast-forward 8 years to current scenario
* ISP's have stated they *cannot* store this level of data
* ISP's have now proved they *could* store this level of data
* Government let's ISP's track users data connections without legal recourse
* Government makes ISP's *keep* the data they intercept
* Government gains access to ISP's stored data

Far fetched? It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy.

</hypothetical situation>

Alex : you mentioned a couple of times that Chris@El Reg had mentioned the leaked document in an article already published, could you let us know which one please? Ta.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...rm_2006_trial/

Alexander Hanff

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by ilago

This comment from another forum

Amazing, legally BT under its Terms and Conditions, could not drop the cookie to enable tracking so instead they let 121Media to do it stealthily

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/D...l-Leaked-95058

i think that is because the cookie in question was a 121media cookie (i.e third party) and not a bt.com cookie.

i am sure someone will correct me if i am wrong

peter

[Florence]

Originally Posted by popper

hmm, is a rewrite in order there, or are they intentionally re-writing the facts to suit their personal stance?

"
During the trials adverts were stripped out of web pages served up to BT customers and replaced with more targeted ads, if available.

If none were available, adverts for one of three charities were inserted. "

Does it matter how it is put the fact it is on record BT told ICO that no adverts were placed before the customers this report shows this is incorrect this needs to be corrected and BT need to face the music over it. How can the ICO trust reports from BT from now on if they still hide behind they I don't know, we didn't, it was small scale, no data was kept or processed. They need to work on regaining trust and one step in right direction is like Alexander be honest and admit your faults..

I do get the feeling Ian wil have made himself safe so it could be Emma's head on the chopping block since she was the one on TV still spinning the half truths publicly.. Sorry but before I would have lied on air would have got a sick note and made someone else go in my place I just can't lie and hate those who constantly do to improve their lifestyle or bank balance....

Originally Posted by ilago

This comment from another forum

Amazing, legally BT under its Terms and Conditions, could not drop the cookie to enable tracking so instead they let 121Media to do it stealthily

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/D...l-Leaked-95058

MPO BT wanted to stealthily move webwise into the network and then fool those who are easily taken in those who have tenencies to paranioa over security without telling them they are being stalked all over the interent every page they read is logged and harvested, we only have kents and BT's word this information isnt stored going from recent events is this word trustworthy?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

To be honest I would rather be financially bankrupt than morally and/or ethically bankrupt.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 02:51 ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 ----------

OK I have compiled a list of posts from this forum which reference the charity ads and asked Mick to remove them. They are not all my posts so I want to put a list here for people so if they object to one of their posts being removed they can contact Mick and ask him not to.

Alexander Hanff

alex i have posted the comment below over on III in both the phorm and BT forums i posted a link to the doc

*********
alex hannff has corrected a statement in response to a request by phorm's / BT's legal team

see http://nodpi.org/?p=11

this is posted in accordance with the request by alex that we post this update as requested by the legal communication he recieved
*********

no one can say we are not playing fair and by the rules, shame others are not though

peter

[dav]

BT/Phorm need to be very careful that they don't generate even more adverse publicity for themselves by targeting "the little guy" (sorry Alexander, but you know what I mean).
The press loves it when corporate lawyers hassle ordinary people. Loads of column inches can result and it never looks good for the suits.

They should respond graciously to the apology and everyone move on.

However, that doesn't let them off the hook. The content of the leaked document obviously contradicts what they told the ICO and they now have some explaining to do.