back to article Net think tank: Phorm is illegal

The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), a leading advisory group on internet issues, has written to the Information Commissioner arguing that Phorm's ad targeting system is illegal. In an open letter posted to the think tank's website today, the group echoes concerns voiced by London School of Economics …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. alistair millington
    Thumb Up

    Just watched the BBC interview.

    9 minutes in he is asked the question, 12:40 mins in he is asked about three isp's that are thinking of data monitoring and he says he wouldn't want it and would move if he had to.

    Can't see any other conclusions to make from that. 14:28 he says about opting in should be the way forward.

    I like him. :)

    Nice to see another QUANGO doing something useful for once, unfortunately they are all hangers on, the main one is the DATA protection people and they are silent, which bodes ill. They are the data police and if they don't speak up then it will have to be court for a private citizen to force it through, or of course an MP gets wind and then we end up legally changing RIPA and this becomes legal, but I also think this is a police state and data pimping being legal plays in comrade Browns policies.

    :)

  2. Paul Delaney
    Thumb Up

    @AC Re: Whinging

    Almost deja-vu...

    So reminiscent of the statement made by the President of Sony's Global Digital Business - Thomas Hesse:

    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

    You are obviously in the employ of Phorm and the fact that you feel the need to post here in such a fashion is a clear indication that you think you have already lost...

    You know what?

    You're right...

  3. John
    IT Angle

    a bit about monitoring

    Even if you don't have a tesco clubcard they can still find out what you bought. I go shopping in Tesco every Thursday around the same time. (So just by going shopping therefore I give data away to the local council/police/tesco themselves who can monitor my trip into the UBD without my permission.) Their automated tills (that run embedded Windows 2000; sometimes perfroming the odd illegal operation) when they decide to work can accurately record what you have bought anyway. It's the same if you go to the corner shop as well. As the old saying goes, there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

    Data floats around in various formats and humans are creatures of habit, so it's easy to monitor them and whatever they're doing. That said, I would prefer not be junk mailed, spammed etc etc unless I specifically ask for it; the folks at El Reg have it right by allowing us to opt in. Its good that someone has decided that the delivery boy can't snoop or pass stuff on. He/his masters wouldn't want to open something that could be dangerous.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    So Long and Thanks for all the Phish

    It doesn't matter how BT finally implement Phorm, or if they even do at all now. They way they thought they could do it initially was hideously underhanded and showed complete contempt for their users.

    The execs that thought this was "A Good Thing" are still there, still thinking the same way and probably still prepared to swallow down any good PR hype that comes throught the door with the promise of sacks of cash.

    I have to be able to trust my ISP to treat my data with integrity, to secure it to the full extent that the law allows and not to some spun-down interpretation. And to treat it for exactly what it is: My Data. That chain of trust has been broken, right there...

    Sad to be going really, they've been very reliable in the 6 years I've been a customer.

    That's it, those there. Yes, the 2 MACs.

  5. Stewart Haywood

    &Andrew webster

    "Actually it's Sue, Grabbit & Rune as any long term private eye reader knows ;)"

    Hmmmm....I always thought that it was "Sue Grabbit & Runne". Rune sounds like something to do with Gandolph the Grey.

  6. Alex
    Thumb Up

    The 80/20 Thinking Report...

    looks like the BBC is finally laying off the bull:

    * selected highlights *

    "The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."

    "E-mails, credit card details and information on secure websites would not be tracked and analysed, Phorm has said.

    But the interim privacy impact assessment report, written by Simon Davies and Gus Hosein, of 80/20 Thinking Ltd, said the company should go further.

    It said: "Information from websites and queries regarding sexual content, political preferences, medical health, racial origin should be blocked from processing."

    "Similarly, as profiles are developed Phorm should communicate openly whether profiles and channels will match information of this type, e.g. matching pharmaceuticals with web activity that searches for anti-depressants.

    The report also called on the tool to disregard data collected from website addresses so that ISPs could not, in theory, learn about their customers' commercial preferences, such as which bank or insurance company they use.

    It said: "If this information was to be logged by an ISP this would make users feel spied upon because their ISP would know which services he or she makes use of. Phorm must ensure that it is not using information about these sites in any way."

    "The report asked Phorm: Can cookies lead back to users in any way? Of course it is merely a unique identifier but a unique identifier can still be linked to individuals.

    Can an external attacker gain access to the required information to re-link the individual and the unique identifier?"

    "The report also urged the company and ISPs to make the system opt-in, so that users choose to use the service."

    BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7303426.stm

    ...nice report there phorm, that's the independent report that praises your proposed invasion of privacy tool kit is it?

    its good to see the scales slowly falling from the eyes of the mass media, I wonder how well Kent E Phorm is sleeping at the moment?

    DO. NOT. WANT.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    Even their own report is damming

    According to the Beeb ( http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7303426.stm)

    "A system that matches users' web surfing habits to adverts must ensure sensitive sites are black-listed from tracking, a privacy report has said.

    Phorm's online technology is set to be rolled out by three of the UK's biggest ISPs, BT, Virgin and Talk Talk.

    The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool. "

    "But the interim privacy impact assessment report, written by Simon Davies and Gus Hosein, of 80/20 Thinking Ltd, said the company should go further.

    It said: "Information from websites and queries regarding sexual content, political preferences, medical health, racial origin should be blocked from processing. "

    Odd how they've changed their stance since their last report which basically said everything was wonderful and shiny.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    80/20 Thinking report

    ...is here:

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/Phorm%20PIA%20interim%20final%20.pdf

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Anonymising your Clubcard data

    Don't present the card at the till. Take the receipt to the customer services desk and they just add on the points manually... voila! points and no association with the trolley load.

    As per the chap doing the Sainsbury's thing - me too - Mr Tesco's notices that I've not shopped there for a while and sends me a heap of vouchers. So I shop there. Then Mr. Sainsbury's notices that I'm not there either after a few weeks so a heap of vouchers appears.

    Saves me about 15% on my groceries - which is nice :)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    BT has its head firmly in the sand

    I work for BT as a back-office support person (on of the few remaining onshore!) and this whole situation is absolutely pathetic. Internal newsgroups are buzzing with this story and I've yet to see one person post anything supportive of this sellout plan.

    I think BT Retail will more than likely not make any big statements, proceed with the trial and deploy as planned, as quietly as possible..users be dammed.

    I'm sure they have already worked out how many end-users this will cost them and have factored that against the profits they will be getting from a cut of the ad. revenue from Phorm (i.e. if we assume that Phorm will net them about 20M a year then they can afford to lose about 100k customers assuming each one coughs up £15 a month..that's quite a lot before the bean counters see this as a bad deal)

    the biggest points for me are that If users opt out why is their web traffic still processed by Phorm owned and maintained equipment based at the ISP (phorm keep spitting the line out that no data is transmitted out of the isp network yet want us to ignore that big man behind the curtain) ..so Phorm could patch their equipment whenever they felt like it and change what they sniff out. Proof that they are thinking about this lies in their Patent application 20060212353 to the UPSTO:

    "[0042] As explained above, the context reader may be configured to more than just keyword and other contextual data pertaining to a given web page. The context reader may also include behavioral data (e.g, browsing behavior), other historical data collected over time, demographic data associated with the user, IP address, URL data, etc."

    [0022] also states that its not just HTTP data they are eyeing up, IM / email may be on their long term goal list..its just the thin end of a wedge. When this system goes live, expect tweaks / enhancements that mean your IM, pop/imap email and other services also gets sniffed.

    Another point is that BT and Virgin still want opted-out customers to have all their traffic routed through Phorm owned equipment (again at the ISP data centres)..why would they still be sticking to this if the servers aren't supposed to be doing anything. It just reeks of abuse and slyness. Phorm will be happy at that (or nonchalant at best) as it means they can still do something with the data should they choose. opted out shouldn't be cookie based, opted out customer traffic should be on a whole different network segment to Phorm servers and ISPs should be held accountable if any opted out traffic touches 3rd party equipment...of course BTR Marketing will never willingly go to an opt-in system as they wouldn't get many lab rats to sign up.

    I get my Broadband for free, yet i will be switching ISP once this comes into play.

  11. Werner McGoole
    Thumb Down

    @Michael

    That's a facile argument isn't it?

    I can believe that RIPA lets too many people see my private data. I can also complain that some people are trying to see my data when RIPA says they shouldn't. And I can be glad if it at least stops those people.

    No contradiction there that I can see.

  12. Colin

    Futher to; Making my Government work for me.

    I told you all earlier I had written to my MP about this proposed invasion of our privacy. Well I also wrote to the House of Lords, specifically to a member of the House of Lords from my area asking for him to raise whatever questions that he could about Phorm and the entire dodgy dealings between them and the ISP's.

    Well I got a response from the Lord I asked to look into it and he said that he will be looking into the questions I raised about privacy laws. Another little step in the direction we want it to go. It may only be a little step but keep asking them to take steps and eventually you get the politicians moving.

    Please keep pushing your representatives keep hammering home the message that we don't want this. Educate the users in your workplaces, do anything legal that you can do to throw a spanner in the works of this deal.

    To the people who have suggested hacking and DDOS attacks etc.

    **Don't break the law by hacking them, you let Phorm win if you do that**

    It won't matter squat how nasty we say they are to the using masses, cos you will have made Phorm into the victim. We need the uneducated and inexperienced to see Phorm as the bad guy in all this, not us.

  13. Peter Fairbrother

    Re: "Privacy International" loves Phorm

    Privacy International has, as far as I know, made no public statements whatsoever about Phorm - though Phorm have said otherwise, and so have the BBC etc.

    The confusion comes about because a report was commissioned from 80/20 Thinking by Phorm. 80/20 is run by Simon Davies, who is also well-known member of PI - but he is not representing PI here.

    The interim report from 80/20 says that the Home Office concluded that Phorm would be in compliance with RIPA - I don't know how Simon D came to that erroneous conclusion, it says nothing of the sort, perhaps he was told so by Phorm.

    From his emails I don't think Simon D had actually seen Simon W(atkin)'s Home Office "view" when the draft report was written, but I can't confirm that.

  14. Peter Fairbrother

    Re:Phorm's official response to the allegations made by FIPR

    "We don't agree with FIPR's analysis. And its description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We've sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Strategic Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). We discussed our system with the ICO prior to launching it and continue to be in dialogue with the organisation."

    Ernst & Young are a firm of accountants, they are not lawyers, and their report merely suggested that Phorm might comply with some US and Canadian standards. mentioning nothing about RIPA compliance.

    80/20 are not lawyers, and according to Simon D they did not independently consider whether Phorm would be legal under RIPA.

    The Home Office are not lawyers, and in any case they did not say that Phorm would be legal under RIPA.

    The ICO say that they only learned about Phorm a couple of days before this all started (haven't got the exact ref to hand), and they have not commented publicly on the legality of Phorm under RIPA as yet.

    So that much is all bullshit. I don't know what Phorm's own legal opinions said, but if they had told me was lawful then I'd get me some new lawyers.

    It's totally, blatantly, and very obviously illegal.

  15. Spider
    Thumb Up

    oh the humanity

    Phorm share price down 13% in 48 hours.

    just thought i'd share the good news.

  16. George Johnson

    Phorm running out of steam?

    Today on the BBC, the Auntie is rolling out the old news that two two indepdent privacy advisors addressed customers concerns and that Phorm, while needing better protection for customer data, will not disclose or gather information from https sites.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7303426.stm

    Hmm quite, until you read who they were, our old friends from 80/20 again!

  17. Phil Storer
    Alert

    Yeah, and what do I get ?

    I think I may invoice the car fone wharehouse for my time while I surf.

    my rate is 25 gbp/h. if they pay they can log as much activity as they wish, if they dont pay, Illkeep invoicing then untill the amount is enuogh for the small clame court to deal with on my behalf.

    You gottafight for your rights to party....

  18. Julian Smart

    Keeping it in the public eye

    If the ISPs do go ahead with Phorm (and similar systems) anyway, I for one would contribute to the cost of full-page newspaper ads keeping the public informed about which ISPs are spying on them. With 7,000+ signatures on the petition, I think there's the motivation to keep up the pressure for quite some time - which would be necessary to make sure that sufficient numbers of people leave the ISPs for their bean-counters to start taking a different view.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    The 80/20 Thinking Report

    Doesn't exactly give phorm a clean bill of health does it? If I got a health report like that I'd check myself into the nearest hospital ASAP.

    The report is full of assumptions, unanswered questions, recommendations that haven't been acted on, misunderstandings and, frankly, a lack of comprehension of some pretty basic security and privacy technicalities. And the authors' supposed reputation as "respected privacy campaigners" doesn't exactly hit you in the face either. I can well see why they didn't want to publish it.

    I accept that it's a preliminary report, but even allowing for that it comes nowhere near to supporting phorm's claims on privacy and security. In fact you have to look pretty hard to find the positive bits that phorm keeps quoting - and seen in context even these are faint praise.

    So when phorm next quotes this report, I think the response should be universal laughter. And a few choice quotes in return.

    We should perhaps be a bit kinder to the authors, but even so, it still looks a lot like they were in the process of selling their souls to phorm before reality intervened. A very clear conflict of interest.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Forget newspaper ads...

    Instead of newspaper ads, if this goes ahead, we should set up a fund to launch a class action lawsuit against any ISP involved.

    I am surprised that we have yet to hear of anyone complaining to police about the BT trials that were run last year without any kind of consent. Would be interesting to see what the police did if those affected last year were to write to the police claiming BT had committed offenses under RIPA.

    Paris because shes had plenty of dealings with the police.

  21. stewart mitchell

    What?

    This is a non government body telling the gov that it might be illegal - I don't see any iminent changes here

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @AC

    One of the things on my schedule for this weekend is asking my brother (BT) to check for a webwise cookie.

    If one exists, then I will be asking him to contact BT for comment about this invasion of privacy...

    I'll get back to you after that if it turns out he was hit by the trial - assuming that PC Plod doesn't request that he not talk about it until it's been dealt with *grin*.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Jobs Horns

    @Phorm's official response to the allegations made by FIPR

    " By Julian Maynard-Smith

    Posted Tuesday 18th March 2008 11:45 GMT

    Here is Phorm's official response to the allegations made by FIPR:

    We don't agree with FIPR's analysis." Ect... Spin and more spin......

    I am wondering if they have sacked the PR people now.

    Julian Maynard-Smith’s Specialties:

    Documentation, marketing copy, articles, interviews and reviews. New media (Webwise, OIX), IT, DR, data centres, finance / banking (front and middle office), travel industry, CAD/CAM, project management software. Music, crime fiction, novels.

    As he is an expert in crime fiction , were his skills used to write the blurb for Phorm about how secure the system is, and of course "no personal days is ever used honest"

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hitwise

    Does this mean Hitwise is illegal also?

  25. Graham Wood
    Gates Halo

    Phorm are hilarious

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm

    "Webwise deliberately ignores https pages"

    Short of getting a trusted wildcard certificate to allow a MitM attack, they don't have any choice.... Well, I suppose they could install something on the user's PC that monitors the pages viewed, but that would be wrong, and they'd never do that would they?

    It's not often that I'm going to get to use this icon, but compared to these guys....

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Re: "Privacy International" loves Phorm

    @Peter Fairbrother: "80/20 is run by Simon Davies, who is also well-known member of PI - but he is not representing PI here."

    That's my point.

    We need citizens rights group to work for citizens, not for privacy-invading spyware scum. They can't do both at the same time, like Simon Davies has done here.

    So in the morning Davies, wearing his 80/20 hat, does Phorm consultancy and congratulates it for protecting our privacy. In the afternoon, he puts his "Privacy Campaigner" hat on an says Phorm is invading our privacy. (Actually, as you say, he hasn't even done that - there's complete radio silence from PI).

    And you think this is OK?

  27. Julian Smart
    Thumb Up

    Re: "Privacy International" loves Phorm

    I think this is fascinating from a psychological perspective. What might be going through Mr Davies' mind, to compaign for many years in the public interest and then seemingly detonate his own reputation by association with a dodgy company intent on riding roughshod over users' privacy?

    One, partial, answer comes from the rather sheepish admission from another member of PI that their funding isn't great and they have make ends meet (but that PI distanced itself from the 80/20 report). This was reported in another Register comment page.

    Another factor may be the phenomenon that after building up a reputation, a person can begin to feel invincible - and is therefore confident that being wined and dined by this kind of company is fine and his reputation unassailable. He could be justifying himself by arguing that he has the chance to change what Phorm are doing for the public good; while forgetting what this relationship will look like to the outside world, and the fact that tweaking Phorm's processes doesn't remove the underlying dangers.

    Another theory is that it's a cunning plan to actually undermine Phorm, at the same time as extracting a fee. The final report might therefore be full of surprises for Phorm.

    No doubt we'll get answers eventually. I suspect there's a TV drama to be made out of it, with a healthy mixture of corporate greed, grass-roots campaigning and larger-than-life personalities. To complete the picture, someone just needs to turn up videos of some of the protagonists in compromising situations... happily, these will be much easier to find when BT, Phorm &co have flushed away the online privacy of the nation.

  28. Andy
    Linux

    Use Konqueror if it's not supported:)

    So all those using Linux can use Konqueror. Or, when KDE 4.0 is out, Dolphin:)

    Phorm appear to be in discussion with other ISPs both here and abroad, according to this :

    http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn:PHRM.L&action=article&articleid=6611046

    We need a page somewhere that lists all those ISPs that don't give a damn about their customers. Maybe a section on El Reg?

    VM now have a webwise page :

    http://www.virginmedia.com/customers/webwise.php

    Here is an extract :

    Webwise will help provide you with a safer and more relevant online experience by helping you avoid scam emails or websites, as well as making your online experience more relevant through advertising that matches your areas of interest.

    According to that, it will also protect us from scam emails. Well how are they going to do that unless they are sniffing our emails?! I for one will be leaving vm, as will the missus seeing as we share the connection. I will have to get her another email

    address. Maybe gmx.com - no spam there.

    Why do the ISPs assume we want ads thrown at us anyway? oh yeah, to make them more money. Maybe this is why vm have dropped their prices and upped the speeds at the same time. They knew they were going to rip their customers off by flogging their surfing habits and making money out of them.

    There is one other thing to consider - sometimes we forget a password and it is emailed to us and we happen to use webmail to view it. Oh look! They can see my password that I got emailed to me. And they say they will ignore passwords. Or we get a link to a page to change a password. Get out of that one then Kent "the lying b***tard" Phorm.

    Just checked that investors site, here is the latest posting :

    http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3APHRM.L&it=le&action=detail&id=3962215

    Briefly, it says it is looking good in the USA (for Phorm), looks like AT&T will be signing in a couple of weeks and revenue will soon be coming in from the UK ISPs.

    So it looks like the 3 traitor ISPs are going to be starting their sniffing very soon. Well that is what it is, sniffing our packets.

    We don't want ads so phuck off phorm. And up yours vm!

    Tux because I use Linux Konqueror is not supported:) Yes, I also use windoze, but Linux is my OS of choice.

  29. ben
    Dead Vulture

    Hang on a moment....

    It doesn't matter two hoots if your ISP is a Phorm Signup or not, or if you have the opt out cookie.

    Your IP traffic will go via some Phorm signed up ISP router somewhere and hence be profiled...

    In the UK, as BT pwn much of the backbone and BT are part of the Phorm collective, I suspect all your http GETs are belong to Phorm anyway...

    Dead vulture cos resistance is futile

  30. Andy
    Paris Hilton

    @Ben

    But even if BT own much of the backbone, it will be in their data centres where the phorm servers/hardware are and if I am with someone else, say Zen, they will have their own data centre surely and so my http GETs won't go anywhere near BT's phorm servers? I don't know much about networks but this is how I would imagine it is set up. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

    As for the opt out cookie, it shouldn't be a cookie. It should be an opt in and if you don't opt in then your net traffic goes nowhere near phorms server.

    Paris, cos she can come and get me any time:)

  31. Andy
    Gates Halo

    @Ben part 2

    If we don't opt in (don't know anyone who will) and our http GETs go through to a phorm server in one of BTs data centres then that is illegal and BT should be taken to court and have their ass kicked big style. Plus compo for the users affected.

    BillG cos even he ain't that bad.

  32. ben

    @Andy

    I think you miss the point slightly.

    How do you think your GETs get to the remote end?

    They go off your PC as a TCP/IP Packet, routed via the backbone to its destination.

    The backbone can mirror those packets without your consent or knowledge - do you see where I am going?

    As BT are signed up to Phorm, and IF Phorm are found to be legal, I can see nothing really preventing them from writing a bit of code for the backbone (OK all the backbone routers) to mirror all http GET packets to the BT Phorm servers regardless of their (the IP Packets) origin. If AT&T in the states also sign up to the Phorm nonsense, it will be nearly impossible to stop this Pharming going on and you, the end user, will have no chance at all of opting out.

    /me I'll get my own TFH thanks

  33. Peter Lovatt

    Hit back

    Why not search out investor forums and highlight the bad press and the prospect of future lawsuits.

    Add this to emails letting your ISP know you will close your account if they do implement Phorm.

    They have two masters - customers and shareholders. Hit both of them

    Peter

  34. Stephen Baines

    BT to comply with Swedish Law

    As a webmaster with sites hosted outside the UK and operated from Sweden, I wrote to the Company Secretary of Phorm and Webwise telling them that under Swedish law such interception is absolutely illegal and it must not happen on communications with my server.

    I have had no response from Phorm yet, but I have had a response from BT:

    >Dear Mr. Baines,

    >

    >Thank you for your letter to our company secretary Mr. Larry Stone.

    >

    >I acknowledge the receipt of your letter and confirm that we will take

    >the necessary steps to honour your notice.

    >

    >Regards,

    >

    >Mangesh Kulkarni

    Anyone on BT webwise who wishes to check for me later, please let me know!

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Virgin Media and Phorm

    I work at Virgin Media support and recently was contacted by a customer about Phorm. Apart from the information on the public website all we've had is a near-identical intranet announcement. Obviously all I'm able to tell anyone is this official line ("helps protect against fraud bla bla bla") which the fairly tech-savvy customer wasn't entirely happy about hearing (I have to say I felt pretty crappy having to regurgitate the VM BS relating to it as well). Gotta laugh when the ISPs can't even be honest with their own staff about this.

  36. W
    IT Angle

    "Rate this story"

    Where's the new "Rate this story" 'barometer' when you need it?

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    @Phorm's PR

    Hahahaha....

    Quote "because you are giving those of us with a brain and degree of intellect a bloody headache."

    Aww is someone upset? Give a sh*t. Jog on.

    What made me cry with laughter is this news item

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eef58398-ef9a-11dc-8a17-0000779fd2ac.html

    1. "Phorm seeks $65m for overseas expansion" - Phailing.

    2. Phorm, which reported no revenues - Phailing.

    3. $16.3m loss for the first half of last year - Phailed.

  38. 3x2

    @"Privacy International" loves Phorm

    <...>You must be new to the Phorm story. The BBC asked PI, and PI said Phorm was OK by them.<...>

    Yes very new. Right I'll type slowly so you see the words ...

    The initial BBC story, for the first day or so, did say that PI endorsed the Phorm system. Then the BBC did their checking (which they should have done first) and amended the story. Before they (BBC) amended their story, unlike you, I asked PI directly about Phorm and they cleared up the misunderstanding.

    OK so far? Good. Now then re: http://calculating.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/privacy-international-idiots-endorse-phorm/

    These dicks presumably went to the same school of journalism as the BBC because you see they re-printed the BBC article without checking their facts either. It happens a lot on the Internet and when you are a big AC you will begin to understand that and maybe think (or god forbid research) before you type.

    - Hope that's all clear enough now

  39. anonymous sms

    UK Government and BT's Dishonest Record on Internet Fraud

    The issue of trust and honesty concerning all the parties involved in this personal data collecting/selling scheme should be considered.

    @ el Reg. All this information is in the public domain. I believe it shows that BT is not a fit and proper company who should be trusted to prevent the potential fraudulent use of the data they intend collecting. I also believe it shows that the Government and Regulators should not be trusted to step in to protect the public when this data collecting scheme is abused (and it surely will).

    Throughout 2004 (1st Jan to Aug) the UK public lost tens (hundreds?) of millions of pounds due to internet fraud in the form of "rogue diallers".

    Throughout this period BT claimed they had no way of knowing if the numbers appearing on victims bills were the result or rogue diallers or the legitimate use of the customers PC.

    What BT and the Regulators failed to tell the media and victims was that the level and pattern of complaint (concerning the same known numbers) clearly indicated that the bills were the result of the use of illegal dialler software. They failed to tell the media and the thousands of victims that 20% of all complaints they received in 2004 concerned the same UK company (Telecom One) and 3,500 known premium rate numbers (0909 967 ****).

    In an article in The Guardian (July 2004) it was reported that Icstis (PhonePayPlus) had received "at least 25 complaints" during June 2004 for each of the three Telecom One numbers mentioned in the story.

    At the same time as the Regulators were allowing BT to continue billing for the 3,500 Telecom One numbers BT were also billing for their own Redstone numbers that were later discovered to have been programmed into illegal diallers.

    Despite the high level and serious nature of complaint Ofcom only acted in August 2004 after increasing media pressure. They finally introduced vetting on the internet diallers. It was later revealed in an Ofcom case (May 2005) that Icstis had requested information from Telecom One in February 2005 regarding the services being billed using their numbers. The Ofcom case also revealed that by the time Icstis had requested this information and reported Telecom One they had stopped receiving complaints regarding the 3,500 numbers. Ofcom decided to close the case because Telecom One's service providers had apparently left the market.

    Before we allow BT to collect and sell our personal date I believe people should ask serious questions into the apparent inability of Government and regulators to prevent the telecoms networks and the internet being used to target the public with such high levels of serious organised fraud.

  40. Paul Delaney
    Coat

    Re: Did you have comments when RIPA was introduced?

    "You hypocrites, you hate RIPA more than Phorm"

    (with reference to sarcasm)

    Ah - but that was before anyone (including the RIPA authors) realised that in certain circumstances, obviously not envisaged at the time, the legislation could actually be used to protect the rights of Joe Public!!

    The one word in question, obviously a typo, was overlooked in the final draft and an ammended version will no doubt become available in due course...

    as soon as the relevant palms have been greased

    Edit/Replace...

    Find what: permission

    Replace with: indifference

    Interpret the meaning of that in court!

  41. Mark

    Phorm Blacklisting

    They claim there is a blacklist that will not 'profile' sensative pages like web based mail pages. However I run my own server and as such I have my own web based email as does ALL people who have PLESK on there server which is most dedicated and VPS servers these days. Also most people who have a domain with UK-REG have web based mail. I dont see how they are going to black list personal web mail pages for every domain?!

    BT is the main subscriber to Phorm and it wont come as a shock that the goverment will let this continue as BT is the bedrock for the UK's communications.

    What a way to alienate the internet population.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like