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

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Florence

The best path for anyone who feels they cannot trust their ISP once phormised (if ever) is to do as I have already done move to an ISP that is not signing up to phorm.

True but unfortunately VM now have a de facto monopoly for cable in the UK. Even if I was prepared to ditch my 20Mb VM broadband, the best ADSL I can get where I live is 6Mb and I'd still have to pay for BT to reinstall a phone line even if I wanted to go with Zen or whoever. So a proper opt-in with zero touch from phorm if you don't opt in will do me fine. And if some people are stupid enough to opt-in, well that's up to them. Some people still use IE.....

BTW "Never trust anyone who takes money from you" as a wise man should have said.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

The PIA isn't finished yet, I spoke to Simon yesterday on the phone and he said there is about 3 days work left to do on it but until he can schedule those 3 days to do it then obviously it is going to be delayed. I could go on and tell you all about the things he has been doing for the past couple of weeks but that would be a breach of confidence. I would hope people trust me enough to accept that when I say Simon has been occupied by other very important issues, that I am not telling lies.

I keep in regular telephone communications with Simon to keep a flow of information running, but we also talk about a lot of stuff that is nothing to do with Phorm (which is understandable given his work in privacy advocacy and my interest in the same area) and I can't possibly be expected to run around the web shouting all that information for anyone to hear. I wouldn't do it with any of you guys, or any of my other friends and I am not about do it with anyone else.

Yes I am as frustrated as you guys are that the PIA hasn't been released yet and that the videos have not been released but I also make an effort to find out why and get updates.

As soon as I get notice that the PIA is completed I will post that information here immediately.

Alexander Hanff

k. np

[Florence]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

<OT>



LMFAO

I just had this picture fly through my head of a big pidgeon with a peaked cap on !

or did you mean coup ?
lol

</OT>

Thought we needed a laugh so left it open to personal interpretation of each member

Originally Posted by vicz

True but unfortunately VM now have a de facto monopoly for cable in the UK. Even if I was prepared to ditch my 20Mb VM broadband, the best ADSL I can get where I live is 6Mb and I'd still have to pay for BT to reinstall a phone line even if I wanted to go with Zen or whoever. So a proper opt-in with zero touch from phorm if you don't opt in will do me fine. And if some people are stupid enough to opt-in, well that's up to them. Some people still use IE.....

BTW "Never trust anyone who takes money from you" as a wise man should have said.

Yes I had to go the pay for new BT line have a steady speed with lower pings in game and no spiking.. Soon many exchanges especially midlands and south will move to 21cn giving 24meg.. Bournemouth has 100meg all none cable.. BT will go fibre to the home and other ISPs will start to supply this...

Times are moving on and if BT, tasktalk and VM wnat to saddle themselves with the rootkit technology which is hackable regardless of what anyone says.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by vicz

True but unfortunately VM now have a de facto monopoly for cable in the UK. Even if I was prepared to ditch my 20Mb VM broadband, the best ADSL I can get where I live is 6Mb and I'd still have to pay for BT to reinstall a phone line even if I wanted to go with Zen or whoever. So a proper opt-in with zero touch from phorm if you don't opt in will do me fine. And if some people are stupid enough to opt-in, well that's up to them. Some people still use IE.....

BTW "Never trust anyone who takes money from you" as a wise man should have said.

But anywhere in the world you have a monopolistic cable supplier in a particular area. It would be better to argue that BT has been slow to roll FTTH which has been Verizons response to Cable in the US.

On 24th April the Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government a question which was due for answer by 8th May and was answered on 20th May:

He asked: "Whether any official or Minister in the Home Office has offered written or oral advice to any executive of the company Phorm as to the legality of their targeted advertising software product; if so, what was the advice; in what circumstances was it given; and what was the justification for giving it." [HL3268]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office (Lord West of Spithead who is responsible for Security and Counter-terrorism) has replied:

"The Home Office was asked by a number of parties, including Phorm's legal representative, for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It provided a guidance note for those parties.

The note is not, nor was it intended to be taken as, a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only a court can give. Nor was it intended for publication. However, a copy of that note has been published at http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf.

Working to protect the public, the Home Office is keen to help industry understand its legislative responsibilities, and to work with business in order to achieve a workable balance between commercial interests and public safety. In this way potential legal obligations can be taken into account in the conception of new products and services."

So we're just waiting on that other question:

"Which law enforcement agency, Department or other statutory body has responsibility for investigating and prosecuting possible criminal breaches of (a) the Data Protection Act 1998, (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and (c) the Computer Misuse Act 1990." [HO HL3267]

Hank

[Wildie]

looks like the OH are dragging their heals on the questions cos they made a booboo.

[popper]

Hank, it seems a good time to start using that new website were you can offer up a "Freedom of Information Request"
and publicly track the responses, given they said "Nor was it intended for publication", that way we can get the real public domain responses directly (dont forget the later response Florence got OC).

might be a good thing for Alexanders website too when he gets it up and running

Freedom of Information Request website
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Originally Posted by popper

Hank, it seems a good time to start using that new website were you can offer up a "Freedom of Information Request"
and publicly track the responses, given they said "Nor was it intended for publication", that way we can get the real public domain responses directly (dont forget the later response Florence got OC).

might be a good thing for Alexanders website too when he gets it up and running

Freedom of Information Request website
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Already done LOL!


Dear Sir or Madam,

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office) has stated that the Home Office was asked by a number of
parties for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

How many parties requested this information about RIPA 2000 and compatibility of targeted advertising prior to the writing of the
January document produced in answer to these questions? (published here http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.pdf)

When were the requests received?

How many of the parties making such requests are British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in the UK?

Other than Phorm, have any other non-ISPs made such requests prior to the writing of the paper referenced above?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

I'm sure there are more questions that we can ask but these are the most interesting ones I could think of. I think if one asks too many then it can easily become what they term vexacious (spelling?) as it costs a lot of time to pull answers together. Will see what comes of it...

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Patricia Hewitt has been kind enough to respond to a second email I sent her. Unfortunately I'm still quite new to all this (never felt so strongly about a need to stop something!) and I did not say I wanted to publish her response, so I will paraphrase very carefully to keep the meaning the same:

Dear Mrs Hewitt

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I have to say though, given the current information available and the detail that BT has provided you with, I believe that the actions of BT may not have been legal.

I fully agree with them that if no personal information was stored or used then it was not illegal under the Data Protection Act. However, 'RIPA' is another matter and they intercepted the communication of thousands of customers without any legal authority to do so. I don't see how that action could be seen as within the bounds of the law.
I am xx years old and when someone tells me that customer research says something I know that the detail behind the statement is what matters. In your business you will be very well aware that surveys will obtain answers in support or against a position depending on the way the questions are asked and the specifc content of the questions. Therefore, assurances based on reference to the research do not work without full published detail which makes it somewhat worthless. I do understand BT is a plc, so publishing might be completely unacceptable in terms of the competitive nature of the sector.

Thank you again for your contact. It is unfortunate that the secret trials took place. It is very concerning that BT are working with Phorm at all and, since contacting you previously, my views are now firmly set that this use of the interception is wrong and should be stopped.

Regards


She thanked me for my email, she's checked the exact detail with colleagues at BT and confirmed that, before conducting the small-scale trials in question, BT took advice on the legal situation.

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

She does remind me about how the forthcoming trial will be on an opt-in basis, so customers are entirely free not to take the service and the BT team is confident that their legal position is robust.

She acknowledges that the BT Board will want to debate the trial after it has run, but she doesn't think that it would be right for BT to end their business relationship with Phorm when the trial has not yet run its course.

Note to self: Tell them you will publish their response unless they ask you not to!!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

I've had a letter from the ICO - They've assigned a case worker to my questions. It's taken them 7 weeks to do that which they say sorry for. They enclose detail of how long it can take to complete cases and respond fully. So... I see it could be a long wait for an outcome!

Hank

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Originally Posted by popper

"Nor was it intended for publication"

Hmmm. Good point popper... I do wonder what changed their mind on that... Alexander? Dr C? Was it one of you perhaps?



Hank

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Hank

Patricia Hewitt has been kind enough to respond to a second email I sent her. Unfortunately I'm still quite new to all this (never felt so strongly about a need to stop something!) and I did not say I wanted to publish her response, so I will paraphrase very carefully to keep the meaning the same:

Dear Mrs Hewitt

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I have to say though, given the current information available and the detail that BT has provided you with, I believe that the actions of BT may not have been legal.

I fully agree with them that if no personal information was stored or used then it was not illegal under the Data Protection Act. However, 'RIPA' is another matter and they intercepted the communication of thousands of customers without any legal authority to do so. I don't see how that action could be seen as within the bounds of the law.
I am xx years old and when someone tells me that customer research says something I know that the detail behind the statement is what matters. In your business you will be very well aware that surveys will obtain answers in support or against a position depending on the way the questions are asked and the specifc content of the questions. Therefore, assurances based on reference to the research do not work without full published detail which makes it somewhat worthless. I do understand BT is a plc, so publishing might be completely unacceptable in terms of the competitive nature of the sector.

Thank you again for your contact. It is unfortunate that the secret trials took place. It is very concerning that BT are working with Phorm at all and, since contacting you previously, my views are now firmly set that this use of the interception is wrong and should be stopped.

Regards


She thanked me for my email, she's checked the exact detail with colleagues at BT and confirmed that, before conducting the small-scale trials in question, BT took advice on the legal situation.

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

She does remind me about how the forthcoming trial will be on an opt-in basis, so customers are entirely free not to take the service and the BT team is confident that their legal position is robust.

She acknowledges that the BT Board will want to debate the trial after it has run, but she doesn't think that it would be right for BT to end their business relationship with Phorm when the trial has not yet run its course.
Hank

That is almost word for word BT press release stuff. She's reading from the BT script.

[Wildie]

so what I get from that lot is they must have a opt in to be legal as apposed to opt out, with that been so the business model is worthless well worth a lot less and may be it`s failure to make them the money they was told they would get.

[Florence]

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm.

They must have used selective wording since it is obvious to anyone interception is illegal.

Another trick way to ask perhaps they should just resign their posts now and lets get in people who do care about out privacy without resulting to the spy state.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Hank

Already done LOL!


Dear Sir or Madam,

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office) has stated that the Home Office was asked by a number of
parties for a view on the compatibility of targeted advertising services with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000...

Hank - that is spooky. I asked the Home Office the same questions as a FoI request on 5 May. I asked them to;

- Reveal the full PDF opinion document sent to ISPs after 4 February 2008 (as opposed to extracts already published)*
- Reveal the full correspondence, request for opinion and reply, associated with the publication of that document
- Reveal which organisations – specifically 80/20 Thinking, Phorm, BT, and/or other parties - asked for your opinion on RIPA with respect to Phorm prior to 4 February 2008
- Dates of contacts between the Home Office and each of Phorm, BT, 80/20 Thinking concerning Phorm’s Webwise product since the start of 2008.
- Dates of contacts between the Home Office and independent IT experts, if any, concerning Phorm’s Webwise product since the start of 2008.

I'm still waiting for a reply, which is due about now.

[vicz]

Originally Posted by Florence

She's confirmed that over the last two or so years, the company has taken extensive legal and other expert advice on the system from Phorm

Ha Ha Ha Ha

"Hey Mr Rapist, what are you doing"?
"Relax, it's good for you and its legal"

[popper]

Hank, i cant find ANY submited Phorm,Deep Packet Interception,or ISP correspondence "Freedom of Information Request"s on the
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
from anyone to any Govt Departments ,never mind the Home Office section?.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/home_office

and only 3 people are tracking on the word Phorm right now
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/phorm should any turn up later.

[Dephormation]

Incidentally I think ICO are long overdue a few FOI requests too.

How many complaints? How many actioned? How many upheld? How many contacts with Phorm? How many contacts with 80/20? How many contacts with independant IT consultants? etc

It will be interesting to see what happens if they ignore FOI requests, they are responsible for handling FOI complaints ... argh implosion.!!