Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: jelv on March 06, 2008, 10:08:32 AM
-
A petition about this has been started on the 10 Downing Street website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/ (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/)
We petition the Prime Minister to investigate the Phorm technology and if found to breach UK or European privacy laws then ban all ISP's from adopting it's use. Additionally the privacy laws should be reviewed to cover any future technologies such as Phorm
The UK's three largest ISP's, Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk are all in talks with a view to introducing the Phorm technology. This would result in the browsing habits of the majority of the UK population being sold to a third party for advertising purposes. The opt out system for this technology is vague and unproven, even when opting out your every move on the Internet might be recorded. Surely this must be a breach of privacy laws, if not then the privacy laws need to be changed to cover such invasive technology.
-
Signed - I think this one is quite important.
Not that Ive got anything to hide about my surfing habits but I do not like the fact that data about my usage will be stored with the specific intention of targeting me with advertising.
Nor do I like the fact that this information is under the control of a third-party which has had a dubious history in the past.
Fair enough record surfing habits to protect against child abuse etc - but ISPs selling this data to other companies. NO!
-
For me the most worrying aspect of this is the precedent it sets: that ISPs can send information on your browsing habits to a third party (and in this case a highly dubious third party) without your permission. The opt out that is offered only stops you getting targeted adverts - it does not stop information about your browsing being sent to Phorm. Despite their protestations, I cannot believe that they will be doing nothing with all that data - why would they incur all the costs of receiving and processing it if they are not going to use it in some way?
How long before this is forced on BT subsidiaries and, if the ISPs can make money out of it (as I believe there must be or else why would they be doing it), many other ISPs adopt the same system?
Because of the precedent it sets I'd urge everyone to sign the petition - not just users on the three ISP's named (how many other ISPs are already in secret talks with Phorm?).
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ispphorm/
-
Signed.
-
Likewise.
-
Ditto ;)
-
Signed.
And this is the site of the people with the idea of Phorm.
http://www.phorm.com
dave
Just been on the site and the Adblock in Firefox is indicating that I can block the changing quotes fron different 'experts' who have written about it. :lol:
-
Also signed :)
Might be worth keeping an eye out and remembering about this in the future, as the petition is open until next year!
-
I've done my duty.
-
Ditto
-
Me too.
-
I've signed as well.
Just a question, everytime I see this thread I read it as 'porn' virgin media etc. Is it just my mind :P
-
Just a question, everytime I see this thread I read it as 'porn' . Is it just my mind :P
YES! YES! YES!
Stay behind after lessons and I'll explain the difference.
dave :graduate:
-
I've signed as well.
Just a question, everytime I see this thread I read it as 'porn' virgin media etc. Is it just my mind :P
I'm glad I'm not the only one. :-[
-
:-X
:lol:
-
This looks interesting: http://www.dephormation.org.uk/
-
It does
..... but I still think this says it all
But Dephormation is not a solution. Its a fig leaf for your privacy.
-
Just watched BBC Working Lunch which included an interview with the CEO of Phorm.
It can be seen on BBC Broadband Player after 3-30pm
He didn't really sell it to me.
dave
-
BT will be changing their T&C's if Phorm is rolled out. But...
We have not amended the BT Total Broadband Service Terms or Privacy Policy yet. The words are still being finalised, so I cannot yet share the exact changes with you.
These changes, however, will not be material and will not be grounds for terminating your existing contract early without being held to term.
Source: 2nd post on http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=2612&start=120&tstart=0
I'd like to see that tested in court!
-
Well it seems that BT have been a bit underhanded in this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm
Trials of an online ad system carried out by BT involving more than 30,000 of its customers were potentially illegal, says a leading digital rights lawyer.
BT has said it trialled a prototype of Phorm, which matches adverts to users' web habits, in 2006 and 2007.
The company did not inform customers that they were part of the trial.
Now there's a surprise.
-
At last a little bit of good news. I have today received a response from BT which included the following in to our concerns regarding the privacy of our websites (a number of other people have received very similar responses).
For HTTP traffic, we assume that if a website wishes to be found by the public through being profiled by major search engines (Google), then the site is in the public domain and therefore as long as we have consent from the requester of the page, we are permitted to profile the site.
However we note that you have specifically requested that your own website(s) should be excluded. Please can you provide me with the url(s) of your website(s), together with confirmation that you are the website(s) owner, and we will honour your request to exclude your website(s) from profiling within the BT Webwise system.
We believe this approach is reasonable and is supported by the advice we have received. If I require any further information from you (aside from the url) then rest assured I will let you know prior to commencement of our trial.
If you want your website excluded you need to contact BT - an email to Ben Verwaayen is where I started: ben.verwaayen@bt.com
-
I thought this was supposed to be an "Opt-in" option!
NOT an opt-out option.
At least that's the way I have been reading it.
-
The opt in/opt out argument is about ISP users.
This about webmasters telling BT/Phorm that they don't want visitors to the websites they run to be monitored. Personally I feel an opt out is a big step forward from get stuffed which is where we were before!
-
Ok, thanks.
-
Very interesting jelv.
Just to make sure I have understood correctly if I didnt want visitors to this site being profiled by Phorm.. I'd have to write to BT.. and TT.. and VM... and any other ISP that may use Phorm? ... including those ISPs in the future that may not even be so open to say they use it.
Maybe there should be a central Phorm registry?
-
That appears to be the size of it - quite ridiculous. How do you know all the ISP's that are using Phorm? How do you get to know of new ones?
There's an argument that says a central register of sites opting out shouldn't be set up because if someone put a notice on the front page of their site saying Phorm keep out, but they did not register, Phorm could use that as a defence.
It should be opt in!
There's a recognised mechanism for just this sort of thing (robots.txt) but Phorm are refusing to provide an agent string (because they know what will happen!).
-
Ridiculous indeed :(
>> (robots.txt) but Phorm are refusing to provide an agent string (because they know what will happen!).
Too damn right. I would certainly put it in.
~ Users to this site pay their ISP to access the internet and bandwidth they use.
~ I pay a webhost so that visitors to this site can get information and help - therefore I pay for them reading the site.
Why should some third party cream off money for content I put up and pay for?
Also would the agent obey the robot.txt? Theres already some dubious ones that dont :(
or even if they did - that opens up another possible path for abuse...
would that blacklist the site with phorm and possible ISP portals, so that traffic could be "diverted" to Phorm friendly sites over those sites that were anti-phorm.
>:(
-
While it probably wouldn't endear you to guests, you could at least draw their attention to this by either watermarking your pages with a "Your ISP uses PHORM!!!" watermark for example, or you could redirect them to a page explaining Phorm and do this every 10 page views/whatever.
In fact if a significant number of sites would agree to do this I think the complaints from customers to the offending ISPs would outweigh the (initial) profit to be made from Phorm.
Just a casual thought which I haven't thought through :)
-
I was wondering if I could put something on every page which tested for a faked cookie for my site which has been created by Phorm. If I find it pop up a message "Do you realise your ISP is recording details of every webpage you visit?". I could set a cookie so that each visitor only got it once.
-
Now the security companies are looking at it, according to the latest BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7359024.stm
-
I can't make my mind-up whether it is totally a bad thing or not.
With reading the article above and it saying "it will display ads from xyz type companies.
Then, I wonder " I don't visit Gambling, Casino, Porn, Chat Rooms, On-Line dating and realistically I do very little Add-Hock surfing " :angel:
So, does that mean I could be virtually Ad free from all of the above. :lol:
Or at least, PC related ads could possibly be more reliable than those listed above.
Or does it mean I will just get Ad's promoting the best movie and music download sites. >:D
(This last comment is very much, "Tongue-in-cheek, so comments are not necessary, thanks)
-
The point is - targeted ads depending on your surfing habits are probably ok for a single person - but NOT for multiple users.
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again - what if on a household computer, teenage lad decides to go looking for dodgy websites whilst there's nobody in - then his 10 year old sister goes on the internet after him... and gets presented with adverts 'related' to previous browsing habits?
The whole thing just strikes a very bad chord with me, and I really think it should be strictly opt-in, if it is allowed to continue, which hopefully it won't be!
-
If ISP's were forced to adopt an opt-in policy opposed to opt-out, then I think there would be so few takers, the whole scheme would soon be a dead duck, and the ISP's would be left with egg on their faces
[presumably duck eggs]
-
[dead duck eggs?]
-
Is there such a thing as a live duck egg?
-
Presumably, otherwise the entire species would die out? :P
-
I think I'll go for a lie down.
-
... before you go 'quackers'? :lol:
-
Back on topic and a bit of light reading
The ICOs stance on Phorm
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/news_and_views/current_topics/phorm_webwise_and_oie.aspx
-
The most active forum discussing Phorm is the VM discussion forums. The topic is here:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated.html
If you intend to read the lot you'll need to set aside an hour or six(ty)!
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34535819-post4477.html shows Kent's true colours!
-
From http://www.fipr.org/press/080423phorm.html
"Home Office guidance misleading" says FIPR
RELEASE: 23 April 2008
The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) has today released the text of an open letter to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, on the legality of Phorm Inc's proposal to provide targeted advertising by snooping on Internet users' web browsing. FIPR calls on the Home Secretary to withdraw her department's previous statement because it has become incomplete and misleading in the light of new technical and legal analysis of Phorm's system, and is an obstacle to the just enforcement of the law.
The letter explains that a technical note by Dr Richard Clayton, FIPR's Treasurer, and a legal analysis by Nicholas Bohm, its General Counsel, show that the operation of Phorm's systems involves:
* interception of communications, an offence contrary to section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
* fraud, an offence contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006
* unlawful processing of sensitive personal data, contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998
Individual directors and managers of the Internet Service Providers involved could be criminally liable for these offences.
The full text of the open letter can be viewed at:
http://www.fipr.org/080423holetter.pdf
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Richard Clayton's technical analysis:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf
Nicholas Bohm's legal analysis:
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
The Home Office statement from January 2008:
http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm
QUOTES
Said Nicholas Bohm, General Counsel, FIPR:
"My legal analysis shows that the operation of Phorm's system involves illegal interception, fraud and breach of the data protection principles. Our papers demolish the existing Home Office statement, and it should be withdrawn. The Information Commissioner and the police should carry out a proper investigation of the complaints which have been made to them."
Said Richard Clayton, Treasurer, FIPR:
"Phorm's system will illegally intercept and process private and sensitive data, and we have now established that it will break other laws as well. The Home Office's superficial analysis said that the system would be lawful. Given their batting average at the High Court, relying upon their opinion was always unwise -- this new paper spells out the errors they have made, and makes it essential that their report is withdrawn.
CONTACTS
Nicholas Bohm
General Counsel, FIPR
01279 871272
07715 419728
nbohm AT ernest.net
Richard Clayton
Treasurer, FIPR
01223 763570
07887 794090
treasurer AT fipr.org
NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. The Foundation for Information Policy Research (http://www.fipr.org) is an independent body that studies the interaction between information technology and society. Its goal is to identify technical developments with significant social impact, commission and undertaken research into public policy alternatives, and promote public understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy- makers in the UK and Europe.
2. Phorm (http://www.phorm.com/) claims that their "proprietary, patent-pending technology revolutionises both audience segmenting techniques and online user data privacy" and has recently announced that it has signed agreements with UK Internet service providers BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to offer its new online advertising platform Open Internet Exchange (OIX) and free consumer Internet feature Webwise.
3. In a statement released on 8th April the Information Commissioner's Office said:
"A question has been raised by the some individuals about whether or not the Phorm products entails an unlawful interception of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Home Office is responsible for compliance with RIPA and Phorm has approached the office directly and had a written response. Some organisations have stressed an alternative view that the scanning of the content of websites by the ISP on route to the user will entail an interception of communication during transmission. This is a matter that the Home Office takes the lead on and the Commissioner will not be taking any further action."
-
Looks like their shares (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/products/companyservices/ourmarkets/aim_new/Trade%20and%20Investing/Company%20price%20search/?bsg=true&ns=PHRM)on AIM isnt doing too good either
-
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F212.26.134.247%2FChart.aspx%3FProvider%3DHistory%26amp%3BCode%3DPHRM%26amp%3BSize%3D620%26amp%3BSkin%3DRedWhite%26amp%3BType%3D2%26amp%3BScale%3D0%26amp%3BSpan%3DMONTH3%26amp%3BMA%3D10%26amp%3BEMA%3D%26amp%3BOVER%3D%26amp%3BIND%3DRSI%26amp%3BXCycle%3D%26amp%3BXFormat%3D%26amp%3BLayout%3D2Line%3BDefault%3BPrice%3BHisDate%26amp%3BCompany%3D1&hash=f38ed780c2f5944b79dbd01352b73a748d75d550)
Tomorrow should be interesting when news of the FIPR letter reaches shareholders.
-
And today's revelation is from a report by Charles Stanley Securities which assesses Phorm as an investment prospect.
http://www.capmarkets.com/9344/PHRM_230408.pdf
When it starts
Morphing the Internet
By placing the user at the centre of the advertiser/publisher ecosystem, and by
exploiting the behavioural data available to ISPs, Phorm’s OIX platform should
expand the addressable online advertising market, improve the efficiency of
advertising, enhance the user’s browsing experience, and generate incremental
revenues for carriers.
you can have a pretty good guess at who actually wrote most of it!
The interesting bit is to be found on page 5
And third, the launch customers – BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media – have also undergone extensive trialling of the technology, and none are in the business of taking unnecessary risks on new technology adoption.
Whoa there! "BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media – have also undergone extensive trialling of the technology"
Now which ISP's have been caught with their pants down? It's not only BT that have already conducted secret trials!
Have any TalkTalk or Virgin Media customers seen webwise cookies appearing on their PC's.
-
>>> Now which ISP's have been caught with their pants down? It's not only BT that have already conducted secret trials!
:o
-
Phorm opponents to picket BT shareholders (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/bt_agm_phorm_protest/)
Opponents of BT's involvement with Phorm will protest outside its annual general meeting in London in July in a bid to alert investors to alleged wiretap law-breaking.
<snip>
Follow the above link for the full article.
-
Does anyone know if any ISP other than Plusnet uses RIN?
Why?
Can people check what they get if they go to http://www.webwise.com/privacy/can-choose-NA.html please.
If you are not on BT, Talk Talk or Virgin Media you should get:
You Can Choose
Webwise is currently not enabled by your ISP
I'm getting
You Can Choose
Webwise is currently: OFF
on my Plusnet connection. I.e. Phorm think I'm on an ISP using Webwise.
-
You Can Choose
Webwise is currently not enabled by your ISP
I'm with EntaNet (ADSL24)
-
>> Does anyone know if any ISP other than Plusnet uses RIN?
AFAIK Plusnet (aside from BT) is the only ISP that uses "RIN" ... since its a kind of "new way" for ISPs to purchase bandwidth without having to shell out for their own centrals and bandwidth is more or less purchased on a PAYG process in 100Mbps blocks. It was basically a quick way for PN to get some extra bandwidth when it was urgently needed, and according to IW they/we were in effect beta testing what is now known as part of the WBC network. How much of that is true or not I dont know since RIN and WBC was getting a bit mixed up at the time.
Those ISPs though that choose to go on 21CN, will be using WBC so it would be interesting to see what comes up for them.. although I believe with WBC the ISP can choose Ellacoya profiles. Its a long time since I looked into all the WBC/RIN stuff - about 18 months ago - so my memory is a bit hazy.
-
It would be interesting to know whether people get a 'BT' IP on not when they are on WBC!
-
Would be interesting to see a WBC tracert to see what path it follows.
I dont know anyone thats on the enta 21CN trial though to ask to provide a trace.
-
https://nodpi.org/?p=20
Does anyone here know anything about the DPI features of WBMC?
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/10/eu_bt_phorm_trial/
Viviane Reding, the EU European Commissioner for Information Society and Media wants people who "feel strongly about the trials" or were "unwittingly profiled in 2006/2007" to write to her.
Looks like BT might be attracting EU-level attention (and EU-level penalties). That ought to shake the gits out of their comfortable complacency!
-
https://nodpi.org/?p=20
Does anyone here know anything about the DPI features of WBMC?
Not much - but when I looked into it last year - it was really QoS/ Traffic prioritisation profiling.
AIUI (and I really cant remember now where I found the info on the BTw site) it was so that ISPs could say prioritise x amount of bandwidth for time sensitive applications such as VoIP or BT Vision. From what I looked into it would appear that they have ellacoyas on each of the PoPs around the UK to manage these services.
I really dont have time to do any digging right now and I may be wrong - but Im pretty sure that the DPI features (or at least were) available to both WMBC and WBC.
AIUI the major difference between WMBC and WBC is that WMBC uses the Colossus backhaul (same as with existing IP stream), but the ISP has options as to how and where the routing goes from there.. I'm sure that WMBC can even go to traditional Centrals as per IPStream now... or it could be routed straight out onto the net using the Central Plus option.
WBC is where the ISP has a presence at the PoP - and rather than using Colossus - and it goes straight to the ISPs network.
Finally one important thing to remember - just because an ISP says it uses WBC - that doesnt mean they dont also use WMBC for some other PoPs.
Trying to think of an example - say Plusnet who has a large customer presence in the Sheffield area.. they could use WBC at the Sheffield PoP if they think its financially viable to do so.
Yet for say for their Scotland customers they could use WMBC to route on to their centrals.. or they could also use WMBC and purchase WMBC bandwidth in blocks.
I may be wrong, but atm off the top of my head I cant think of an ISP (other than BT - or perhaps Vodafone if they dont purchase Tiscali) who could afford to invest in using WBC at _all_ PoPs in the UK.
Most of the biggies are investing in LLU at the exchanges if they have a large customer base there... so therefore doesnt make sense to also invest at the PoPs too.. unless they use it to "mop up" certain regions.
-
Just picked this up from another forum. If it was me I'd be damned annoyed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/phorm-to-use-bt-customers-to-test-precision-advertising-system-on-net-851133.html
-
hmmm... me too :(
-
https://nodpi.org/?p=20
Does anyone here know anything about the DPI features of WBMC?
Not sure if its what you want.. but I came across some info which explained what BTs "Advanced Services" were.
EUSC : End User Speed Control – The ability of the SP to control the End Users maximum IP throughput rate in real time by interfacing with BT’s systems.
QOS : Downstream Quality of Service – The ability of the SP to request real time Assured Rate sessions by interfacing with BT’s systems .
AR : Assured Rate traffic - Where bandwidth is reserved in the BT Access Network to maintain the requested throughput.
BE : Best Efforts traffic subject to BT network contention.
I didnt actually get it from there.. but a quick google shows that theres some very similar info publically available on SINET 450 if you want to have a read.. and although it relates to IPStream it does appear to tie up with the info I had about 21CN.
In that sense.. then the DPI mentioned in that link is simply ellacoyas doing Deep Packet Inspection to be able to perform the QoS? Its no big secret that Ellacoyas perform DPI.. Its what theyre designed to do and again its not news that BT invested quite heavily in Ellacoya switches which are said to reside on their PoPs.
Putting everything into perspective I think there may be some confusion about the generalisation of the term BT.
From what I can gather its BT retail aka BT Broadband doing the phorm stuff with their customer base.. and nothing to do with the BTWholesale side of things.
-
:o I just realised i'm on Virgin Media, It's wierd this isn't it ISP's selling browsing information to Phorm what happens if someones Credit card details get stuck in there ??
-
I can't make my mind-up whether it is totally a bad thing or not.
With reading the article above and it saying "it will display ads from xyz type companies.
Then, I wonder " I don't visit Gambling, Casino, Porn, Chat Rooms, On-Line dating and realistically I do very little Add-Hock surfing " :angel:
So, does that mean I could be virtually Ad free from all of the above. :lol:
Or at least, PC related ads could possibly be more reliable than those listed above.
Or does it mean I will just get Ad's promoting the best movie and music download sites. >:D
(This last comment is very much, "Tongue-in-cheek, so comments are not necessary, thanks)
From what I can gather... what happens is this.
You send a request to say kitz.co.uk to view this site... and the phorm server "pretends" to be me.
What it then does is sends you the content from my site.. but it would strip say the Be or Plusnet (or anything similar) advert I have displayed.. and instead replace that with one of their own ads.
Therefore it may decide to serve you a TalkTalk ad.
Now that is annoying because no way would I want certain ISPs ads displayed from this site... but thats what people coming to this site would see.
To the visitor it would look like I was displaying an ad for cr@p_ISP perhaps making out they were the best and cheapest ISP out there. This being an adsl site.. then users may believe it and sign up with cr@p_ISP.
In the meantime phorm will probably be paid something along the lines of £80 per sign-up (along the lines of what the big players like certain others get... and me who pays to host the site gets bugger all.. and probably looses the opportunity of making a few pence from at least a half decent ISP which currently goes to help subsidise the not cheap cost of maintaining and hosting such a site like this.
So they win - sites loose - yet its the site thats dishing out the content - and they are creaming it in.
Small player such as this site wouldnt stand a chance - despite how busy the main site is.
Because theyre big they get big money from the advertisers.. because I try not to push ads I get pennies.
I'm actually already thinking of taking down some of the ads because its not worth it - I know some people reakon they make a mint with the likes of google ads but I certainly dont.. not at a rate of quite often around 1 cent per day... which goes bugger all towards my hosting costs.
From experience (and perhaps Im being too frank here) but any income towards costs is far better by me choosing to display an ISP that I agree with - rather than something a third party (such as google ads) decides... and at least I feel happier in the knowledge too that I dont display something that is there for monetory values only.
Yes I could make more from ad revenue - but I choose not to display it. Phorm takes that away from me and the site and will display what the hell it likes.
/end rant as she looks at nearly empty bottle of wine :/
-
then users may believe it and sign up with cr@p_ISP.
Surely you can't mean Tiscali?
-
@Kitz,
Having read your latest on this dastardly scheme (Phorm), what can I and others actively do to prevent or hinder its introduction. I've signed the Downing Street petition, but I'm sure there is more that can be done. I just don't know what.
toulouse
-
Sorry toulouse, I must have missed your post earlier. :/
Theres not much really as general public can do other than spread the word about phorm and say we dont want it.
Some ISPs are anti-phorm.
Jelv seems pretty on the ball about whats happening and the latest news with them, so I trust him to keep us up to date of any developments and what we can do.
-
On BT's Support & Advice page there is a gimmicky facility called Ask Emma.
Usually I regard them as being pretty useless, but it seems that it in this case you are far more likely to get a truthful answer than you would from BT executives.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dephormation.org.uk%2Fimages%2Femma6.jpg&hash=692b5f683d1b040087a297316cc52db5d68fccab)
-
Jelv seems pretty on the ball about whats happening and the latest news with them, so I trust him to keep us up to date of any developments and what we can do.
As it happens there is something that everybody can do:
(https://nodpi.org/images/protest01ST.gif) (https://nodpi.org/2008/05/30/protest-at-the-barbican/)
There's more information about the campaign on https://nodpi.org/
-
For a discussion of how Phorm will work, including how it forges cookies and the implications:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwit.tv%2Fsites%2Fall%2Fthemes%2Ftwit%2Fimg%2Fpodcasts%2Fpodcast_2.jpg&hash=cdf8bbbb01e0d0318db969c5530eb1244b01845e) (http://twit.tv/sn151)
There is some discussion in the introduction, the main discussion starts at about the hour mark.
If you are reading the transcript from http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm search for "Let's talk about Phorms" to find the start of the main discussion.
-
I downloaded and listened to all that the other day.
Some very good and interesting points in there.
BTW for anyone who cant be bothered to sit through the whole program theres links on grc.com of the show and transcripts available.
However, rather than wading through the whole programme, Ive copied the relevant bits related to phorm if anyone wants to read it which can be downloaded from here (http://www.kitz.co.uk/downloads/phorm.txt).
Copyright and credits still go to SteveGibson @ www.grc.com
-
Here's the latest news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7619297.stm
-
Thanks floydy
it was not making the entire letter public but instead outlined the main reasons why it considered Phorm to be legal.
OK so what are they hiding? Why isnt it public information?
Or is it just me that this reeks of the undercover trials that occurred in the first place.
If Phorm has nothing to hide or be afraid of then there is no good reason why the information cant be in the public domain is there!
But it stressed that any profiling must be done "with the knowledge and agreement of the customer".
So it will be hidden in the depths of T+Cs somewhere then? :-X
What happened to opt in?
Some believe systems such as Phorm are the only way to keep internet service providers afloat in the future.
What a load of B$ :no:
-
"Users will be presented with an unavoidable statement about the product and asked to exercise choice about whether to be involved."
A shade like the EULA in the Google Chrome before sect 11 was removed. >:(
I bet the 'Yes' box would be automatically ticked.
dave
-
BT are at it again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7641754.stm
Telecoms giant BT is about to start further trials of a controversial internet advertising technology.
Developed by Phorm, the Webwise system watches what people do online and shows adverts tuned to their interests.
From 30 September, a sample of BT's customers will be invited to "opt in" to a trial of the technology.
Early trials ran without the consent of customers which led to complaints from rights groups who said this broke laws governing the interception of data.
-
:-X
-
I see the new trial has now actually started.
Taken from http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/bt-webwise-trial.html
Customers who have been selected on an anonymous basis will be invited to participate in the trial via a special web page that will appear when they open their web browser:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.bt.com%2Fstatic%2Fi%2Fbtretail%2Fwebwise%2Fimages%2Fwebwise-invitation.png&hash=80f72f167ca2b989a68bbc02c918a1eecdf6f0ef)
Customers who see this page should simply choose either "Switch on BT Webwise" or "No Thanks", after which their choice will be recorded and they can continue browsing as normal. The invitation page will be shown on each computer connected to the selected broadband lines.
At any point during the trial, customers who have seen the invitation screen can turn BT Webwise on or off by clicking "BT Webwise On" or "BT Webwise Off" in the left-hand menu on this website (www.bt.com/webwise)
BT Webwise uses a cookie stored on trial customers' computers to remember their preference. If the cookie is deleted at any point, the invitation page will be displayed again. Customers wishing to switch off BT Webwise without using a cookie can do so by following the instructions here (http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html).
-
Is anyone actually going to be daft enough to sign up for this? ???
-
Unfortunately, yes. "BT Webwise" sounds like a useful feature, doesn't it? Lots of people will be taken in.
-
"BT Webwise"
Isn't that an oxymoron?
-
How do I switch BT Webwise on or off?
At any point thereafter, customers can change their choice by simply going to www.bt.com/webwise and clicking 'Switch BT Webwise Off' or 'Switch BT Webwise On'. Subscribers are responsible for making sure that other users of the service in the household are aware of BT Webwise and know how to switch it on and off.
BT Webwise uses a cookie stored on your computer to reflect your choice; on or off.
If you delete the cookie, you'll be shown the invitation page in your browser again and you will need to restate your preference. If you regularly delete your cookies and do not wish to take BT Webwise, add webwise.net to your browsers' blocked cookies settings.
Even ensuring it is turned OFF, if you run a cleaner and it removes the cookie, you are going to be nagged again and again.
Or you have to start adding cookies to your blocked list.
Do BT know if the people they are targetting are clued up to start adding cookies to block lists.
It should be a straight option of Yes, I'll do it or No, not on your life! And when a choice is made it should not have to be repeated everytime you run your maintenance software.
dave >:(
-
Signed!
Looking at the rolling ads on the phorm link, the companies there all say how good it will be for THEM re: targeting ads to specific consumers.
The phorm banner proclaims that they've gone to great lengths to keep details private! Bit of a conflict there, then?!!!!
My view is that any ISP that introduces phorm will lose customers in droves (provided the word is spread successfully) and forums across the net will be filled with questions and complaints about getting rid of it!
Rich
-
>> Is anyone actually going to be daft enough to sign up for this?
Yes I believe they will Floydy.
It all seems to have been dressed up with the main selling point being webwise.. which correct me if Im wrong.. but doesnt do any more than the IE and FF do anyhow?
Knowing the behaviour of many older or non techy users.. they will see that and believe its giving them more protection whilst surfing.
The stuff about serving ads and how it works has all been played down.
So yep I could see many not realising what it really is all about.. and would probably just click it at some point or other just to get rid of the nag screen. :'(
-
From el reg - linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/phorm_h1_2008/)
Phorm made a loss of $24.7m (£13.8m) in the first half of 2008 as it fought privacy advocates, lobbied to get politicians on side and tried to overcome technical problems dogging its ISP adware system.
and
Political scrutiny has made behavioural targeting a hot potato for US ISPs, but Phorm has hired a major lobbying firm in a bid to persuade Congressmen to its point of view.
So does that mean if youve got tons of money to lobby the government then you may stand a chance of success?
Call me a cynic - but I am still very curious about the u-turn and why the UK government said "it was happy for Phorm to go ahead", but they refused to publish the full details to the general Public.
-
.... Which reminds me
Quote
But it stressed that any profiling must be done "with the knowledge and agreement of the customer".
I dont see any notice in the "BT invitation" that makes their users aware that they are being profiled.
It concentrates far more on the pro's of webwise's protection over fraudulent websites.
-
Shows how well BT are in control of the Phorm trial. It's supposed to be BT users only, but today a Plusnet RIN user has ended up on the invitation to participate in the trials page. http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,70440.0.html
I suspect there may be a bit of a panic on in Plusnet Towers!
More worrying to me is the implications. I think this revelation proves that the kit is installed inside BT Wholesale, not BT Retail. What does the M in WBMC mean? Will Phorm be an integral part of that? It would explain why BT have been so unconcerned about losing customers if they were going to get revenue because the majority of ISPs using BT Wholesale will be on Phorm like it or not. :(
-
It would have been very interesting to see that screen cap.
Like you say Pete Jackson seemed a bit surprised! - lets hope they act on it soon.
>> is installed inside BT Wholesale, not BT Retail.
/as an aside it makes me wonder how much control over shaping BT have on the PN RIN these days.. if messages like that are getting through too.
IMHO, my gut reaction is that RIN was a 'tag-on' block of BTrs bandwidth.. and somehow the bandwidth block has merged into one (ie BTr) and its not BTw doing anything.
I hope Im not wrong or the implications are very far reaching.
-
Actually jelv I saw that comment earlier from elsewhere.. and when I responded in here.. I hadnt seen that Pete has since made another reply.
His later reply would indeed seem to indicate that PNs RIN was a tag on for BTr's bandwidth. Without checking.. but off the top of my head, from his implication of the numbers involved - PN doesnt hold sufficient RIN bandwidth of their own. IIRC you have to purchase 100Mb blocks, but there is a minimum which I cant recall. [edit its 1Gbps bandwidth]
BTW.. just found this about RIN under BT Central Plus (http://www.btwholesale.com/pages/static/Products/Internet/BT_IPstream.html)
With this option, user logins are authenticated within BT broadband network and service providers do not, therefore, have to provide a RADIUS server.
IMHO Thats the key!
-
Given that the user login (including the realm) is authenticated within the BT Broadband network it should be a simple job to determine if a user is on a BT or non-BT realm. As they have failed to do that it makes me suspect that the point at which the Phorm intercept happens is much deeper buried.