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

[Wildie]

Originally Posted by jelv

This really has turned in to a jumbo topic! (sorry - someone had to say it)

I suspect that Phorm had hoped that the protests would be drying up by now, not still gathering pace after this number of pages.

The one thing that concerns me is what Phorm/BT are planning the counter the protest.

one can hope the full truth and not more spin and lies.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Hang on a minute. We shouldn't set ourselves up in opposition to people, it is the concept of privacy invasion we object to, not the shareholders of anything. And despite the legality of being free to photograph what one pleases, it is something that many would not welcome and that should be respected. Look, months of hard work have gone into this campaign and we don't want the demo to degenerate into a 'them versus us' confrontation. The demo is our public face. There are even BT shareholders amongst us.

The demo has to be orderly with the aim of attracting more support not making ordinary people feel uncomfortable. Being irresistibly reasonable (and right!) are much better tactics than a war of attrition which is why the debate here has attracted interest at the highest level.

yep i agree, find a small alcove or corner of the building where people can't get behind the subject, and have some basic forms requesting permission and informing the person where the video or photo will be publish, with a tear off at the bottom for the person to take away with a copy of the above details and a thankyou at the end and an option to email alex etc if they change their mind

peter

[kagemusha]

Ah well, I wasn't suggesting confrontation or heavy tactics - even though it seems to have come across that way. As the article suggests, shoving lenses in peoples faces is not the way to go about things.

It is possible to be quite busy with a camera without looking mean or intimidating. Some one is bound to try and push you around, after all you are demoing a global corporation's AGM, there's always some idiot in a uniform and a clipboard at these kind of events - making them aware of you knowing your rights can often head off any unpleasantness.

Have a good day everyone - wish I was coming but unfortunately won't be able to make it.

[Wildie]

think the only pictures to be taken will be of the protesters not the public or them at the agm inside who getting their wires crossed here.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Wildie

think the only pictures to be taken will be of the protesters not the public or them at the agm inside who getting their wires crossed here.

Yep, you're right Wildie, wires got crossed. Ah well, all sorted so no biggie
(@popper - wrong end of stick mate but I can see how it happened)

[tdadyslexia]

Hi All

Well I have done it again, just put up Anti-Phorm Video #4 the new video is Here enjoy.

Anti-Phorm Video #3 is Here

Anti-Phorm Video #2 is Here

Kent Down The Pan is Here

[bluecar1]

been trying to find a simple way to expose the amount of data phorm / webwise will see in an easy to digest way to explain to others just how exposed they will be,

just come to me as they keep on about the googlebot entry


"if you can google it, phorm will profile it"

might be good for a protest banner

and everybody knows just how much info google can see

peter

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

been trying to find a simple way to expose the amount of data phorm / webwise will see in an easy to digest way to explain to others just how exposed they will be,

just come to me as they keep on about the googlebot entry


"if you can google it, phorm will profile it"

might be good for a protest banner

and everybody knows just how much info google can see

peter

Good banner, but what about the private password protected web pages that Google honours to not show but Phorm will still profile?

[tarka]

is it worth highlighting that they can see more than google can? I know it's been said before but anything like your user profile on some websites, subscription sites etc that don't use https phorm will see and profile where google has no possible way of seeing that information.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by tarka

is it worth highlighting that they can see more than google can? I know it's been said before but anything like your user profile on some websites, subscription sites etc that don't use https phorm will see and profile where google has no possible way of seeing that information.

we have to stick to facts and at the moment we do not have proof of what we suspect to be the case,

and phorm have said they will not profile pages requiring passwords etc to access or data in form fields on pages (i know we all trust phorm as far as we can phrow them)

this is another case of where they will not explain how they will achieve this to allow webmasters to block profiling effectively from private areas unless they block google and all other search engines

but an intersting case is this forum

google can index it, but it is password protected to post, do phorm profile it or not?

my bet is yes, and in profiling they will get my profile name on here "bluecar1" , my location as "kent" and i am a BT customer as it appears in the code and not in a form entry field, which is the other thing we have to trust them not to process

peter

[tarka]

Did they not say that it was pages protected with HTTP authentication that they would not profile? I can't remember for sure but I will do some digging.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

we have to stick to facts and at the moment we do not have proof of what we suspect to be the case,

and phorm have said they will not profile pages requiring passwords etc to access or data in form fields on pages (i know we all trust phorm as far as we can phrow them)

this is another case of where they will not explain how they will achieve this to allow webmasters to block profiling effectively from private areas unless they block google and all other search engines

but an intersting case is this forum

google can index it, but it is password protected to post, do phorm profile it or not?

my bet is yes, and in profiling they will get my profile name on here "bluecar1" , my location as "kent" and i am a BT customer as it appears in the code and not in a form entry field, which is the other thing we have to trust them not to process

peter

I cannot see how Phorm could confidently say that they would not profile 100% of all password protected HTTP webpages. Some password protected pages I could possibly access because I still have an unexpired cookie on my PC from my last visit. Is phorm now going to read and decipher all 3rd party cookies as well before they make a decision whether to profile?

Even if Phorm/Webwise had in place a system to attempt to avoid P/W protected pages, I cannot see how it would be foolproof. Is, perhaps, 95% privacy good enough because it could not be not foolproof?
Privacy is Privacy and privacy should be 100%.

[vicz]

Phorm takes the view that if it is open to google it is open to them. But who knows what they will do? They will do what they like then destroy the evidence so no-one can prove or disprove anything. They can do this because BT are happy to sell your information to a proven bunch of crooks.

It's one of the annoyances with Phorm that we have to interpret their spin before we can investigate the reality.

It's been a nightmare for us at BT forum because the only answers we ever had from BT themselves have been re-hashed Phorm statements - they either don't know the facts well enough to answe questions or they simply aren't willing to reply.

Many sites - especially those requiring membership and which have privacy policies that apply to members - have a HTTPS: log-in page but the site itself is plain HTTP: It is these sites that will most likely have the most personal information without having what Phorm regard as PII.

This leaves Phorm's list of non-profiled subjects up for scutiny as it is unclear what they include or exclude in those catagories. Take "medical" as an example - do they only exclude "medical" information that relates to the customer as many people will visit sites for information relating o other peoples conditions including that of their family and friends. Is pregnancy or abortion a "medical" subject? Ditto suicide or depression.

How will Webwise distinguish between a search for "depression" relating to economics and "depression" as a medical condition?

There are far to many examples to list but the lack of answers and clarity on these basic issues makes me furious especially as the ICO and other official bodies have accepted Phorm's privacy claims without actually bothering to question their validity or viability.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Snip
This leaves Phorm's list of non-profiled subjects up for scutiny as it is unclear what they include or exclude in those catagories. Take "medical" as an example - do they only exclude "medical" information that relates to the customer as many people will visit sites for information relating o other peoples conditions including that of their family and friends. Is pregnancy or abortion a "medical" subject? Ditto suicide or depression.

How will Webwise distinguish between a search for "depression" relating to economics and "depression" as a medical condition?

There are far to many examples to list but the lack of answers and clarity on these basic issues makes me furious especially as the ICO and other official bodies have accepted Phorm's privacy claims without actually bothering to question their validity or viability.

yep,

far more information or in phorm speak "transparancy" (but transparancy in the true meaning of the word)

so we can get a better idea of exactly what information wil be profiled and the sources it is gather from

PEOPLE need a way of once the system is live of seeing what is contained in "THEIR" profile, but i think if people could see the vast array and amount of information stored they would opt out like a turkey would opt-out of xmas and phorm would be dead in the water , so thats not going to happen

peter