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

[ShadowTD]

I've only been reading bits of this thread and not posting, but I'd like to echo the sentiments. Good luck!

[manxminx]

Yes, congratulations Alexander, and good luck.

We know the meeting will be recorded for later broadcast on the web, but do we know how long it will take for the video to be put on the web, and secondly, does this mean there will no longer be a live webcast?

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by manxminx

Yes, congratulations Alexander, and good luck.

We know the meeting will be recorded for later broadcast on the web, but do we know how long it will take for the video to be put on the web, and secondly, does this mean there will no longer be a live webcast?

The fact that its being professionally filmed gives me the impression that the webcast wont be happening although I have seen nothing to explicitly state that. I remember Simon Davies saying there were bandwidth issues to be resolved so my guess is that they decided on the professional filming instead.

[popper]

Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking

Hi all,

Apologies for the silence. I've been dealing (ironically enough) with another RIPA issue - local authorities abusing the covert surveillance provisions of the Act. All those people who'd called us complaining about unmarked vans at the bottom of their street are getting a little more attention from us now.

Anyhow, briefly, yes you are free to ask whatever questions you wish. I take the point about the Q&A panel just being Phorm. I'll ask the Chair to give Richard and I equal access, or be on the panel as well. We'll try to limit speakers to 15 minutes or less, so there should be at least an hour for Q&A.

You may have seen that we're filming the whole event for the Web. Unedited.

Sorry, but I can't keep up with the number of queries and points being made, so I'll just have to dip in whenever I can. Please don't take it personally if I miss you. I'll endeavour to come back later and answer as many points as I can.

Oh, and as for the person who compared me to George Best. Yes, well, maybe given the developments in the world now you should consider whether sometimes I too wake up after half a pointless lifetime and also ask "where did it all go wrong Simon".

forgive my Simon, but i m confused.... i take it you said the above about RIPA with your PI hat "ON" ?

it is also true that you said you cant deal with 80/20Thinking RIPA matters in regard the PIA tonight, is that right?

SO.... can we ask you tonight to put your PI Hat "ON" and then you CAN answer any RIPA questions put to you....

THEN... we can ask you to take your PI hat "OFF" and put your
80/20Thinking hat "ON" and we then stop expecting you to answer these RIPA questions... is that right?


OK...,so what do we do if you have your PI hat "ON" we ask a question and you answer, you swap hats then realise you didnt quite finish your PI response, do we have to wait until you have switched hats again


to us reading this CF thread, it might seem OK and understandable, but the same cant be said for the other people there

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

sorry i couldnt find any Monty Python - The Spanish Inquisition about hats to make it clearer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1iBbBL1040&NR=1

3 questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMxWL...eature=related

[OF1975]

According to the 80/20 thinking website it looks like Alexander is going to be speaking after Simon Davies.

http://www.8020thinking.com/events.html

[AlexanderHanff]

OK, just a quick post to say I am leaving Lancaster now, hope to see some of you there.

Alexander Hanff

[popper]

farewell traveler and beware those
(Monty Python) Knights who say Ni, you have good hats though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvzL56iSPH4

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

OK, just a quick post to say I am leaving Lancaster now, hope to see some of you there.

Alexander Hanff

Alexander, I'd like to contribute to your travel costs.

How about you set up something like an Amazon wish list, total value equivalent to your train fares/hotel bills/costs.

I'm willing to buy a book or two for your course, and I hope others might do likewise.

Pete.

[Florence]

I have had a reply to my email saent to Simon Watkin he was informed this would be posted here so here goes.

Florence,

Firstly, I should explain that the Home Office was approached by a number of
parties, both technology providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues
relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services,
particularly their relation to Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In response to those requests we prepared an
informal guidance note.

That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a
definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can
give. Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed
technical examination of any particular technology.

There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example
whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the
record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual,
and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user
is considered to be interested in a category of advertising.

As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it
**may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully - but it all
depends on how they are offered and how they work.

> > To me this is unlawful interception of my surfing habits on the second
> > point I already block all advertisements online never see them so why
> > would I want this company to snoop on my clicks to target me with
> > adverts from only companies signed upto their packages.

You will have read that we emphasised that targeted online advertising
services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by
the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the
highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the
protection of their personal data. Explicit consent should be informed
consent, informed by a clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do.

> > .... you are opening a whole Pandora's box with this ruling which might
> > come back later on and bite you back.

It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully.

> > I hope that you will review this and take a look at the illegal trials
> > undertaken by BT and Phorm in 2006/2007 where thousands of people where
> > intercepted without their consent.

My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale
technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks
during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable
information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".

Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE

[1]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ch/083561.html

I am about to reply to him just ned to decide which is most important... any suggestioins.

[SimonHickling]

It seems that a number of government departments are stepping on each others toes here. The reply from Simon Watkin with relation to the "illegal"(?) tests seems to make more of a point about the DPA than RIPA, but by all accounts the DPA is regulated by ICO. I think I would pressure him on the unconsented interception as opposed to the DPA implications as they are a question for ICO. Even if consent could be argued to have been implied, it certainly wasn't informed consent. I think the government needs to work out who should be saying what about which bits of the issue.

[Dephormation]

Congratulations Florence, getting something out of the Home Office. They've ignored everything I've sent them.

I think the key to unravelling this is the RIPA... according to the Police and ICO it is the Home Office who have responsibility for enforcing RIPA.

The BT trial involved tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. That's not a small scale trial (and I don't recall reading anything in RIPA that says 'as long as its a small scale trial that doesn't reveal anything publically').

BT and Phorm directors must be prosecuted by the Home Office.

[mikebibbings]

Originally Posted by Florence

I have had a reply to my email saent to Simon Watkin he was informed this would be posted here so here goes.



I am about to reply to him just ned to decide which is most important... any suggestioins.

I would go on illegal interception plus BT statements cannot be relied upon (BT previously denied everything about the trials). ICO has stated opt-in but I presume on the basis that the interception is legal. You could also go on Phorm impersonating the target website to set a cookie.

Mike

[fidbod]

I think the key point to hammer home is the "small scale technical trial" should still be investigated as possible breach of RIPA.

Regardless of the scale or the technicality of their actions, if there was no user consent by one or both parties then an illegal interception may have occurred.

There is an implicit duty for the home office to investigate a possible 10,000 + criminal breaches of RIPA.

That would be the approach I would take anyway.

Where did you get his email from Florence, is it something you can reasonably put up on the forum?

[rogerdraig]

i too would love to be there but as a disabled dad of two its impossible on a weekday with out wife taking time of work rather hard at this short notice


i will have to stick to sending letters that the nice people here are providing templates for

[bigbadcol]

Thanks for posting the reply Florence,

Phorm say the home office report says their system is legal.

Yet the home office says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully..

Somebody has been spinning the truth again.

It may be worth asking the Home office if it considers over 100,000 people involved in the 2007 tests of the system by BT to be small scale.