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

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Wildie

side tracked here i think, i cannot see the police selling the data for profit and sending adverts.
unless you really got something to hide.

Indeed, my point was about privacy though, I don't wish the subject at hand to be side-tracked.

[Dephormation]

One for USA readers (if any)

Penalty for wilful infringement of a registered copyright is $150,000.

Cost of registering $300 lawyers charge + $30 fee.

Cost of a payout , (almost) priceless.

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes, but not all cases, and the gathering of certain data, i.e IP log history only goes to bolster a police investigation, and may not be used as evidence.

The DPP would tell them not to use it for any reason as it would be of detriment to the prosecution case

The new legislation coming into force would require our ISP to record basic internet activity, such as sites visited for a rolling 12 month period, and the police could request that information also

Sorry, I think I'm missing something here, can you tell me where it states in the Communications Data Bill or the European Union's Data Retention Directive that ISP's are required to record the websites that their customers visit over a period of 12 months please?

The reason I ask is that I can't see them complying with that (definitely not the French ISP's) because of the sheer volume of data involved, the time it would take to collect and the space required to store it all. There is also the implementation problem in that ISP may only use their Deep Packet Inspection hardware for tasks relative to providing and maintaining an Internet Service like "traffic shaping" and not profiling their customers by monitoring the pages they visit. This is what Phorm is proposing and the Home Office have already stated that this can only be done with the explicit consent of the ISP's customers so any law which allowed the ISP's to collect this information willy-nilly would surely be a contradiction?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

One for USA readers (if any)

Penalty for wilful infringement of a registered copyright is $150,000.

Cost of registering $300 lawyers charge + $30 fee.

Cost of a payout , (almost) priceless.

LOL, iv just posted this cf url over on the wired blog and invited them (US, and canadian dont forget them)to come here and start their own Anti DPI Phormettes NebuAd thread so they can collect all their interesting facts in one place and start their own local fight.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ment-115047832

@Toto

I think I know the answer to the question I asked you in my last post...

I have just read the "comments" on the El Reg article
"Government orders data retention by ISPs" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ion_directive/
I can see now how easy it would be to draw the conclusion that this law will require that ISP's record and store their customer's browsing history. I think it's a case of people jumping to conclusions. Almost certainly due to the antics of BT and Phorm et al now everyone expects the whole industry including government to try and pull underhand strokes in an effort to remove even the slightest hint of privacy from their lives and have become conditioned into reading that into every piece of remotely related news.

I've been following this for several years and such has been the inflexibility of the ISP's that implimenting data retention has been an uphill struggle for all the European governments!
It's not what it seems believe me and the register bless them do little to quell the hysteria

In the article it states:

Law enforcement agencies can gain access to such data with a court-ordered warrant. Though providers almost uniformly keep the information for such periods to resolve any future billing disputes, the laws will ensure that they do so.

The information referred to here is what the ISP's have always collected: IP allocation, date, time, duration which they can (but seldom do) use for billing customers or billing disputes. The only thing this legislation changes is that now it's compulsory for an ISP to retain this (and only this) information for 12 months.

A telecoms business lobby group told OUT-LAW.COM at the passing of the Regulations last year that the orders would have little impact on the industry.
"The reality is that nothing much has changed. The new legislation will make little practical difference as most telecoms providers keep certain information for billing purposes and customer records," said Michael Eagle of the Federation of Communications Services. "That information would be enough to meet the requirements of law enforcement agencies. There is no need to keep more data that you are ever likely to be asked for."

Requiring ISP's to monitor and retain their customers browsing history would make a Massive difference and would probably force many of the smaller providers out of business.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

The DPP would tell them not to use it for any reason as it would be of detriment to the prosecution case



Sorry, I think I'm missing something here, can you tell me where it states in the Communications Data Bill or the European Union's Data Retention Directive that ISP's are required to record the websites that their customers visit over a period of 12 months please?

The reason I ask is that I can't see them complying with that (definitely not the French ISP's) because of the sheer volume of data involved, the time it would take to collect and the space required to store it all.

There is also the implementation problem in that ISP may only use their Deep Packet Inspection hardware for tasks relative to providing and maintaining an Internet Service like "traffic shaping" and not profiling their customers by monitoring the pages they visit.

This is what Phorm is proposing and the Home Office have already stated that this can only be done with the explicit consent of the ISP's customers so any law which allowed the ISP's to collect this information willy-nilly would surely be a contradiction?

theres no contradiction as such, just as the
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party will find a way to include and cover in detail at some point that EU wide Directive of your ISP given IP address is personal data under the DPA, how the UK will include that final Directive in to UK law when the times right is another matter OC

the ISPs and the 3rd party companys Phorm/NebuAd etc not being Govt Agencys and would be in very hot water if they tryed to subvert any Govt agency or police dept/personel.

its not the same as the subversion of the end users of the ISPs inthe UK.



the only reason Phorm and NebuAD can DPI intercept the users is because the ISP executive have allowed it to happen, we need someone to take the law and show these executives what it means for them personally.

another stanford type RIPA case is all it would take to stop this in its tracks, but it appears all the effected BT customers dont have the data and the will or perhaps finances to push that point.

and the right Govt people dont want to take on the costs of such a case just yet ,prefering to pass the bucket of sick around to the next department....

OC lets not forget the DPI vendures also have a larg part in all this too, as they were not happy being just DPI vendures and want MORE variaty of DPI products in use no matter the cost to the real consumer/end users, long term.

their so called efforts 'to create value-added service offerings'

funny how i found these references while i was looking for Docsis3 news and related information

http://www.cable360.net/ct/news/scte/24920.html
"July 31, 2007
"Deep Packet Inspection and Beyond
Whatcha Got There?
By Carl Weinschenk"

its clear were he/they got the later Digital [Program] Insertion ideas from here, something else to look forward to and improve your remote mute speeds...
http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/features/25335.html
"September 1, 2007
Digital Program Insertion
By Michael Acer, Scopus Video Networks
...
Taking targeted ads further

Continually evolving technologies for targeted content insertion hold the promise of reaching consumers on an individual basis.

The increasing adoption of digital set-top boxes by consumers and the wholesale migration of the broadcast industry to digital operations, in conjunction with advances in the leveraging of purchasing and marketing data, mean that DPI has the potential to bring tailored advertising to specific viewers at a household level.

Robust encoding and multiplexing solutions allow all players in the digital video food chain to maximize local ad dollars for a valuable bottom-line boost.
"

linked off this
http://www.cable360.net/ct/data/25528.html
"September 10, 2007
Deep Packet Inspection, Version 2
By Jonathan Tombes

The collision of abbreviations, like that of celestial objects, is a rare but enlightening event. Take DPI, for instance.

Digital program insertion (DPI) appeared on the editorial calendar of Communications Technology, and this month's issue features an article on that very topic. Meanwhile, we heard from firms representing the several companies engaged in the other DPI (deep packet inspection).
"

http://www.cable360.net/search/ct/?q...spection&issue=

[popper]

might be interesting, a nice easy online option for Phorm matters perhaps...

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ay/084734.html
"FOI requests and WhatDoTheyKnow
Ian Mason ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri, 16 May 2008 18:26:40 +0100
Previous message: Interesting Work Factors
Next message: FOI requests and WhatDoTheyKnow
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As there are some frequent Freedom Of Information Act requesters here
I thought I'd draw everybody's attention to the latest production
from the folks at MySociety.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ is a website that helps you submit FOI
requests and then publicly tracks their progress. It has a number of
advantages principal of which, in my opinion, is that it could build
into a very useful central repository of FOI replies.
Anyway, take a look for yourselves and form your own opinion.
Regards,
Ian

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

The DPP would tell them not to use it for any reason as it would be of detriment to the prosecution case



Sorry, I think I'm missing something here, can you tell me where it states in the Communications Data Bill or the European Union's Data Retention Directive that ISP's are required to record the websites that their customers visit over a period of 12 months please?

The reason I ask is that I can't see them complying with that (definitely not the French ISP's) because of the sheer volume of data involved, the time it would take to collect and the space required to store it all. There is also the implementation problem in that ISP may only use their Deep Packet Inspection hardware for tasks relative to providing and maintaining an Internet Service like "traffic shaping" and not profiling their customers by monitoring the pages they visit. This is what Phorm is proposing and the Home Office have already stated that this can only be done with the explicit consent of the ISP's customers so any law which allowed the ISP's to collect this information willy-nilly would surely be a contradiction?

Indeed, its a staggerng amount of data, but I noticed this comment.

The internet log retention orders will also mandate the keeping of information on a user's activity but not the content of any communications.

Now, IP allocation is not Internet activity as such. I always leave my router on, but turn off my PC's, so no browsing activity is going on. Does the above mean that this new law will require ISP's to also collect what URL's were visited in the last 12 months, and what email communications were made?

I hope not, but if it is true, Phorm will be a minor inconvenience compared to this little nugget.

I have looked at the actual directive itself, you can get a PDF of it from here and it isn't that clear if I am honest. At the very least it would seem to indicate, as was mentioned in The Register article, that most ISP's are already doing this, the article therefore just appears to give a maximum time frame for the retention of such data. Whether it requires the storage of sites visited is not clear, that's one for the legal boffins here to decide.

[jelv]

Has anyone any input to http://www.vigay.com/ ? It is giving false positives for some users and redirecting to http://antiphorm.vigay.com/index.html

I'm on Plusnet but usually connect via RIN which gives:

Your IP address is 86.142.42.xxx, which resolves to host86-142-42-xxx.range86-142.btcentralplus.com

So I can understand why that appears to be BT.

But it is also giving the same error to users connecting via the Plusnet normal centrals. I am getting the same errors when connected to 80.229.7.xxx. I've seen another report from 84.92.150.xxx.

Plusnet has publicly stated it is having nothing to do with Phorm.

I also note that on the Dephormation website under the webmaster tools it says

01-May-08; added Brightview ranges

Brightview/Madasafish are owned by BT but operated by Plusnet and use some of the same IP ranges. They should not be included as they come under the same Plusnet policy statement. I wonder if this is the reason for the false Plusnet positives.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by jelv

Plusnet has publicly stated it is having nothing to do with Phorm.

I also note that on the Dephormation website under the webmaster tools it says

Brightview/Madasafish are owned by BT but operated by Plusnet and use some of the same IP ranges. They should not be included as they come under the same Plusnet policy statement. I wonder if this is the reason for the false Plusnet positives.

Remember this is not about the user's choice, this is about the ISPs choice.

Until recently, Plusnet were posting to their newsgroups saying that they couldn't see a problem with Phorm...

Ian Wild said to quote

"What I said was that if the majority of the benefit is given back to consumers and people are explicitly made aware that it's happening with their data, I can't see the problem with approaches along these lines."

From the perspective of a web master, that's the wrong answer. Phorm (opt in or out) abuses web site owners copyrights, and intrudes on their private communications.

If Plusnet can't see the problem with that I'm not very sympathetic. If you can point me to an official statement that says they will never implement Phorm (or anything like it) despite Ian Wilds comments, I'll certainly consider taking them out of the list on Dephormation.

PS: Incidentally I note in anther post Ian Wild states

"I can't guarantee that the RIN platform won't be affected (It presumably will)"

PPS: more

I don't think it's a bad thing provided the advantages are shared with customers and nothing is done without the knowledge of the customers affected.

So that would not include sharing the benefit with the content/copright owner? Or concern to avoid compromising their privacy?

Sin bin as far as I'm concerned. Other web masters might take different views.

Pete

[Chroma]

I regularly email people in the Middle east, China, Korea, the US and Russia.

How long do i have before my door kets kicked in and im detained as a terrorist?
Or do i need to become a Muslim before this will take place?

I mean if there are logs of this im certain it would look like i was part of a terror cell rather than just an average citizen.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

PS: Incidentally I note in anther post Ian Wild states

"I can't guarantee that the RIN platform won't be affected (It presumably will)"

PAYG/RIN users have two available logins, one for RIN and one for the normal network. They have already suggested that if people are concerned they should move back to the normal login. I suspect that if RIN is affected it will be shut down pronto as it would be contrary to the existing T&C's.

[Digbert]

Originally Posted by Chroma

I regularly email people in the Middle east, China, Korea, the US and Russia.

How long do i have before my door kets kicked in and im detained as a terrorist?
Or do i need to become a Muslim before this will take place?

I mean if there are logs of this im certain it would look like i was part of a terror cell rather than just an average citizen.

What will they think of me, the bulk of my emails that come from Banks around the world telling me they have lost my personal details and emails for drugs that I can't do without.

An amnesiac, sex addict hypochondriac?

[davethejag]

Hi All, I do not know if this has been posted already, if it has I apologise.

http://webworkerdaily.com/2008/05/17...s-think-again/

Regards to all, davethejag

[popper]

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog....g-centres.html
Path Intelligence - Phorm for shopping centres ?

May 18, 2008 12:07 PM
Just in case you thought that Phorm was the only threat to your privacy, here is an example of similar "no opt out" snooping technology being installed in the infrastructure of a public space, a shopping centre, which secretly snoops on individuals, without their informed prior consent, in the hope that advertising and sales revenues can be maximised.
There is no way, short of switching off your mobile phone, of opting out or avoiding this snooping scheme.
The Times has a story:

From Times Online May 16, 2008 Shops secretly track customers via mobile phone
...
"