Comments on ISP Grub: BT Would be Web-Wise to Get Back on Phorm

@anonymous Glad we're moving closer to a cons...

2009-08-03T02:53:46.367-07:00

@anonymous

Glad we're moving closer to a consensus!

You're completely right - people need to question what these companies do and don't "see", what data they hold, how it's used etc.

We can rely on their own assertions (hmm...) or, better, your Phorms or your NebuAds should have an independent privacy council with respected, non-partisan figures on board.

But it's all academic now - ISP-level behavioural targeting is off the agenda for at least another couple of years...d'you reckon?

Yawn...... James, I agree with you about Google, ...

2009-08-01T15:30:14.467-07:00

Yawn......

James, I agree with you about Google, I would be cautious about corresponding with anyone who uses gmail. As a good friend, I would be advising them to use something else. I don't disagree with you about targeted advertising per se, provided the user has a clear choice as to whether to accept it or not. I DO have an issue with ANY commercial company deep inspecting my packets. Phorm, Nebuad and Frontporch, will look at EVERYTHING, ALL OF IT, your complete internet session, that is, everything that you do. If you are happy with that, then fine, I'm not.

Utterly spurious argument. It's "my cho...

2009-07-30T08:15:22.005-07:00

Utterly spurious argument.

It's "my choice" whether I contact my mate - who is doing a PhD in marine biology out in New Zealand and Hawaii - at his Gmail address? Sorry, what should I do, send him a telegram instead?

It's not my fault that my friend, like the vast majority of Gmail users, is unaware that google reads his incoming and outgoing mail. (Yes, his PhD is in fish, not in IT.)

I agree that what's terrible is when companies like Phorm do stuff behind everyone's back. Something like ISP-level behavioural targeting must make it clear to users what's going on. Don't see that happening with Gmail, though I'm sure it's buried somewhere in the T&Cs.

@James Mann You still have the option of refusing...

2009-07-30T08:06:47.803-07:00

@James Mann

You still have the option of refusing to send emails to any gmail email address. When you do send emails to gmail users you do so by choice, not because your ISP has sold you down the river and you've been given no choice but to only communicate with gmail users.

There is still an element of choice with gmail that you don't have when the ISP starts watching your every move online.

If only that were true... I'm not with Gmail,...

2009-07-30T01:29:41.191-07:00

If only that were true...

I'm not with Gmail, yet if I send an email to a friend @gmail.com, Google reads *my* emails. I don't get much choice in that.

I'm at risk of sounding like a Phorm fanboi, which I am emphatically not - I think the way they went about behavioural targeting was unethical, unscrupulous and just plain wrong - but I don't think there's anything wrong about the concept or the technology (as I understand it).

And I know this will get me shot down as a heretic, but I *want* targeted ads. If I like books, gardening and travel, I wouldn't mind 20% off paperbacks at Borders or two for one on Eurostar trips to Paris.

I would, however, hate anyone to:
a) read my communications
b) know *my* interests (as in the interests of James Ethelred Mann, 22 years old, 13 Despair Street, Scrodhampton NN3 3TN)

BUT:
a) Gmail knows this - even if I don't sign up to them
b) Phorm, NebuAd, Frontporch etc. don't

Oh, for heavens sake! The Gmail argument has been ...

2009-07-29T09:46:01.796-07:00

Oh, for heavens sake! The Gmail argument has been done to death.

repeatedly.

But here we go.

I have the choice to use gmail or not.

I can choose to mail people on gmail or not.

If I am signed up with an ISP who decides to intercept my browsing, he will do so.

If the machine I am browsing on has a certain cookie on it, the machine is opted out.

I am not opted out as an individual.

(There is also the technical problem in that one's browsing has to be intercepted and processed before a check can be made whether you want interception and processing or not - but let's save that)

In the final analysis, i don'e have any other choice than to change ISP.

This blog is sponsored by a public relations compa...

2009-07-29T08:03:49.593-07:00

This blog is sponsored by a public relations company who work for Nebuad - another Phorm-like company.

The suggestions made here - automatic opt-in for example - would directly benefit the commercial sponsers of this blog if they were accepted.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the comments are invalid but it's only right that readers are aware of a commercial interest.

Well, I didn't want to spell it out, but if yo...

2009-07-29T01:41:10.208-07:00

Well, I didn't want to spell it out, but if you're with Gmail, Google can and do read your emails to provide you with targeted ads.

The key is - they know who you are. I bothered to investigate how Phorm's and NebuAd's technology worked. If they're telling the truth, then they hash a user's IP address to give a random identifier that can't be linked back to an individual.

Other people on this blog have made sensible comments about Phorm going about things in an extremely cavalier (nay, illegal) way. They're right.

But what I can stand is the bleating from people who don't bother to investigate something properly. People who go: "Waaahh!! Advert on internet is bad!! Go 'way nasty advert. I can has everyfing free on internet?"

What would be wiser would be for the behavioural a...

2009-07-28T19:02:40.904-07:00

What would be wiser would be for the behavioural ad companies and their online blogists to stop trying to fight, label, tarnish these 'Privacy advocates'. Stop telling them they are mis-informed when they actually know exactly what companies like Phorm are trying to do.

It's time for the behaviourial ads companies to look closer to home, acknowledge the damage Phorm have done to their business, and then if they still want to go down the route of profiling at an ISP level then seriously engage with these 'Online activists'. If you do not understand the concerns, if you do not show a willingness to adapt to using things such as true 'Opt-in', if you go down the route of smear, spin, information manipulation etc. Then you will never win people over. Phorm are learning this the hard way.

It's time other companies started in real engagement rather than trying to write the 'Phorm' issue off as a one of success by a small bunch of privacy nuts. A good start would be to acknowledge that this is not a small group of people, there are a large number of consumers out there with real concerns. It's time these companies starting to actually address them.

QUOTE: "small group of mis-informed privac...

2009-07-28T16:04:58.224-07:00
QUOTE:
"small group of mis-informed privacy advocates"

That's the opposite of the case. It is the mis-informed masses that wouldn't have a problem with the system. It is the *informed* people that are complaining.

And it might surprise some bloggers that the people complaining (like me and the above apparently) ARE customers of ISPs who thought they could get away with this.

One wonders if the writer of this blog is in some way connected with the Phorm team?

For info: I am an ordinary internet user who was shocked by what I heard BT were doing. I was amazed at the stupidity of other ISPs such as Virgin Media and Talk Talk who were cosidering it too. (Talk Talk not implementing at all now they say)

I have not campaigned against anything before, but I have written to several people about this issue of Phorm Webwise and Deep Packet Inspection for advertising. I do not care if it is a random number assigned to me by Webwise because a random number was generated when I was born called an NI number and that identifies me too when I use it for tax, employee benefits etc. Random numbers are not personal if they change... As I understand it Phorm Webwise would like to keep the same number for me and a different one for my neighbour. NOT so anonymous now is it?

For the record, in case it is not clear from my comments above: I do not have ANY activities on the privacy front other than opposing Phorm and ISPs who want to use their system.

Paul

"small group of mis-informed privacy advocate...

2009-07-28T12:15:59.463-07:00
"small group of mis-informed privacy advocates"

That's the opposite of the case. It is the mis-informed masses that wouldn't have a problem with the system. It is the *informed* people that are complaining.

@ James Mann Sorry but a direct connection on the...

2009-07-28T11:52:49.821-07:00
@ James Mann

Sorry but a direct connection on the ISP infrastructure by the Phorm equipment is "far more invasive" than email providers etc, who provide a "point to point" service to customers.

Phorm's equipment "piggy backs" on all their Web users connections & also on the Websites connections that they visit!

"It is absurd to think that the companies mak...

2009-07-28T10:40:45.920-07:00
"It is absurd to think that the companies making real money out of the internet, e.g. large retailers, online auctions and some major music retaillers; are not in a position to fund expansion of the infrastructure - expansion that would actually help them make more money!"

If you think you can charge them more, then charge them more for the service thats been provided. The internet is just the most convienant method of communication for these firms in the modern era. Its no different to road, rail or post.

No one gives you unlimited access to such a resource for a small set fee unless they dont want to make any money or are misleading you. The internet really is no different.

if you look at the old, online model of phorm that...

2009-07-28T10:11:41.555-07:00
if you look at the old, online model of phorm that failed to perform when switched on, and limit you investigation to the OIX side (that is what simon davis wrote the report on) then the data storage may be resonable

but

the UID is more unique than most names, so more ppersonally identifiable

the offline model that phorm are now working on actaully stores information while it is waiting to be processed

the offline model is slower at processing so blows a hole in phorms original claims of speed and processing data and adverts in real time

and then you have totally failed to look at the contraversial data collection side which phorm have cnvieniently delegated to the ISP, this is the data collection using DPI equipment supplied and programmed by phorm

oh and the issues of being able to opt-out, hmm, the ICO etc have said "IT MUST BE OPT-IN TO BE COMPLIANT WITH UK AND EU LEGISLATION" and you can only opt-out of the delivery of adverts not the interception of your communications by the ISP using the phorm supplied and programmed kit

you need to take off the phorm supplied rose tinted glasses and take a truely independant view of the wohle system then re-write your article

peter

Calm down, Civil Smurf, you'll give yourself a...

2009-07-28T09:46:16.824-07:00
Calm down, Civil Smurf, you'll give yourself an embolism!

You're right that Phorm and privacy are a red herring - anyone who bothered to investigate NebuAd or Phorm would find out that they're much more private that, say, a big email provider.

My personal view of Carter is that he's void o...

2009-07-28T09:37:12.179-07:00
My personal view of Carter is that he's void of knowledge, vision or competency.

Poster James Mann talks of the "Broadband Tax" on phone lines, well many of us "in the loop" so to speak believe it better to use the companies currently making money out of the internet to fund infrastructure expansion; namely on-line businesses.

It is absurd to think that the companies making real money out of the internet, e.g. large retailers, online auctions and some major music retaillers; are not in a position to fund expansion of the infrastructure - expansion that would actually help them make more money!

Forget advertising - that was I'm afraid a red herring in the Carter BOA. (After all you don't get cheaper electricity by agreeing to let your electricity company send you advertising every week!!!)

What is needed is a PROPER wholesale review of broadband provision in the UK.

Some homes have access to as many as 4 "pipes" for broadband connection, whilst many urban areas have 3, namely: ADSL over BT line, cable and UMTS. To add insult to injury, cable typically at 10Mbps+, ADSL typically at 8-24Mbps and UMTS around (burst) 3.8Mbps.

** YET ** (and this is what makes me and many others angry about Carter - a question he failed to address) many other rural and infra-urban areas have NO broadband access!!

Infrastructure development has been out of control. The current government whilst sucking up to telcos (and an ineffectual mega-regulators Ofcom more interested in pleasing government than addressing consumer issues) has allowed greed to prevail.

High-yield areas such as cities and large towns had back in the heady days of the late 90's several cable companies competing to lay the "pipes".

Now in this decade the folly was allowed to repeat itself - government sold of UMTS licenses for a whopping sum and didn't care to stop the telcos competing again for the same urban areas, allowing the rest of the population to suffer.

The digital divide is not a newsworthy subject but it's a national disgrace.

Phorm and privacy is a diversion. This guff has nothing to do with sorting out the mess that our national infrastructure currently finds itself in.

BT - Carter - Brown - (+Phorm) - Vodafone - 02 - Orange - T-Mobile - Virgin Media

YOU HAVE FAILED US ALL MISERABLY

The only way that BT could go back to behavioural ...

2009-07-28T08:47:53.556-07:00
The only way that BT could go back to behavioural targeting is if they linked it to the new Carter report.

No-one wants to pay £6 a year on their phone line to fund wireless broadband - maybe BT could sell it to the country that way.

But they surely can't go back to Phorm after the phiasco with the secret trials.

I was a BT customer during their secret trials of ...

2009-07-28T08:19:36.654-07:00
I was a BT customer during their secret trials of their adware system from Phorm. And I spent hours trying to sort out what was wrong when I saw they were doing something with my browsing.

I am not a privacy campaigner. I'm just an ex BT customer of many years who now uses an ISP who says they won't do anything like BT did and doesn't completely rule out for the future.

What ISPs should do is charge for the service level they provide and not try to take advantage of my communication with others by listening in on it. That is not the service I expected from BT and you certainly misrepresent me with this article's content. I have never taken ANY interest in ANY privacy matters before this. Nor am I involved in ANY other privacy issues. I've always been careful to avoid adware on my own pc.

I'm a BT Customer & I unfortunately for BT...

2009-07-28T08:07:16.910-07:00
I'm a BT Customer & I unfortunately for BT I know how this DPI Interception/Injection kit works & have been noting its presence on & off on my connection since 2006.

I'm not an activist by nature but when communication systems are in real danger of being compromised that it a totally different matter!