open Democracy News Analysis - Digital privacy wars, Guy Aitchison - Comments

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:12:37 +0000

With regard to your article:-

Privacy advocates, Bazalgette reckons, "do not acknowledge the importance of commerce."

But we do understand the overall effect this will have on commerce that it why we have been looking at it from both the Web User & the Website Perspective, if the WWW does not operate coherently with proper recognized rules then both the Users & the Websites will suffer!

http://www.fipr.org/press/081125phorm.html

geegie on "Digital privacy wars"

geegie — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:16:24 +0000

Panic setting in ?
BT scramble to sanitise their forums byremoving any trace of customer questions and complaints about phorm/webwise

Good show chaps, tooo late all the relevant threads will have been copied and stored ready to bite your arses with.
This will all come back to haunt you, and so it should.
Morons

geegie

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:58:22 +0000

BT have just effectively removed all proper possibilities of discussions about BT Phorm/Webwise by removing the only thread that was allowed on either the Business Forum or the Support Forum.

Way to go BT "Censorship & Anti Democracy" at it's absolute best!

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=7395&tstart=0

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:25:08 +0000

Jacqui Smith's Orwellian plans to permanently store the whole population's electronic communications, including browsing history, in a huge central database

It definitely looks like these current plans are in direct conflict with this UN Charter designed to prevent Governments or other Powerful bodies from creating the same sort of outrages which led to WWII doesn't it!

Both Article(s) 12 & 30!

http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=45940#45940

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:46:23 +0000

BT don't even seem to be able to keep this Webwise Trial inside their Own Network, so how many BT Telephone/Broadband connections are actually hooked up to this Profiling System?

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,70440.0.html

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:54:27 +0000

And unfortunately for BT this is what happens when you attempt to abuse or otherwise overturn Peoples Innate Rights!

http://beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=7116&tstart=0

For those who hadn't memorised (or saved) the previous T&Cs, they had a change of £6 to cancel BT Broadband outside the contractual minumum period. This has now been increased to £18.51. See clause 8 of the BT Broadband price terms.

What BT have failed to tell you is that if you are dissatisfied with this change, you have the right to cancel your BT Broadband contract within the next 10 days, without penalty, even if you are still under a 12 or 18 month contract.

See clause 34 of the BT Residential Standard Terms (near the top of the same document).

Phil Main on "Digital privacy wars"

Phil Main — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:07:39 +0000

Posted on Nodpi site by forum member today

'Notice of new terms and conditions from BT which I have received this morning:

"9. Unless we have made a change to the prices or terms and conditions that is to your material disadvantage or paragraphs 10 and 11 of the BT Total Broadband service terms apply you must pay a charge for ending BT Total Broadband within the minimum period by way of compensation to us. This charge will be equal to the total of the monthly rental charges left in the minimum period. This charge will not be subject to VAT.

10. We may also charge you up to £45 for the home hub and £150 for the mobile phone(s) we have provided to you as part of the service."

BT attempting to stem flow of customers leaving because of PHORM by threatening them with charges that breach Unfair terms and conditions regulations regarding FAIR contracts. No party can alter the terms of a contract without consulting the other party. If they do it is not enforceable. Leave and tell them see you in court. You will be there on your own, because they won't be there because they know they will lose.

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:12:30 +0000

I suppose Planning in Secret for at Least Two Years doesn't amount to a gang or a group in your Eyes though?

I would act alone if necessary just in case you hadn't managed to grasp the situation properly, so would all the others!

Some old fashioned words sum up this whole situation

Sir Walter Scott

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first set out to deceive!"

In my interest on "Digital privacy wars"

In my interest — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:09:40 +0000

So, you work for an ISP, is your company interested in the uptake of this technology?

Let us get that out of the way before you answer anything else.

Or in other words, could your favourable stance be down to the fact that you have a desire or need to see this model succeed?

You are correct in one point you make, the questions have been asked many times, but you are wrong with regard to answers, the answers that are out there are incomplete and often misleading.
The English language is so great in that respect, you can say one thing while meaning another, or even lie by omission should you want to.

As far as the system being able to work if properly regulated, how so?

The system scrapes copyrighted works (webpages) and then exploits them by seeing what users are interested in, and then displaying adverts for competitor sites.

Or is copyright theft ok in your world?

The system forges cookies as if they came from the domain the user requested, so I take it forgery is acceptable to you also?

Then let us consider the multiple redirects issue, this will actually cause bandwidth usage to increase, yet supposedly bandwidth is in short supply and that's why the ISP's want to increase their revenues.

So the upshot of this technology in your opinion is the fact that it will allow the infrastructure to be upgraded?

So we can have a nice new infrastructure with just a few large players left you mean? After all, it is only the major players who will be left standing if you destroy all of the smaller companies who rely on their web presence, and they will basically be destroyed if you continually send their visitors to other sites with larger advertising budgets.

Regarding the fact that Phorm were more open than NebuAd, I would like to ask one simple question. So what?

They are still pushing a business model that is basically extortion as far as any website goes. Advertise with us, or have your vistitors sent to your competitors.

Before you deliver the "well sites can opt out too" line, consider copyright law for a moment, you have to ask for a licence before making use, not after the fact, and all because somebody doesn't contact you saying you can't use their intellectual property for whatever reason, it doesn't mean you can go ahead and do as you please.

If Phorm and their partners truly believe that publishing a webpage is akin to placing the work in the public domain, free for their use, why do they bother to have copyright notices on their own sites pages? Those notices can't really mean anything after all, they have posted the pages in the public domain now if you follow their reasoning.

I note that you also comment about the "creep" factor, well I would say Phorm are already considering that one too, Hugo Drayton said he sees a need for editorial input already.

I want an internet connection, not a walled garden with approved content.

The real truth is, this is about greed, Phorm and the ISP's saw an opportunity for easy profit, the trouble is, like most greedy people, they didn't look beyond the flashing £££ signs.

The simple truth is, the ISP's have scored too many own goals by advertising low headline prices, and instead of charging what the product is worth, they got into a price war with each other.

They are left with a choice, charge what they need to cover the real costs, or abuse their customers trust and privacy. Sadly it looks like some have gone for the second route.

Personally, I'm with an ISP that won't touch Phorm, I pay a set amount each month for a set amount of bandwidth, split between peak and off peak hours.

I'm happy with the arrangement, as is my ISP. Which is how it should be.

Thomas Toscani on "Digital privacy wars"

Thomas Toscani — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:22:51 +0000

The covert trials by BT and Phorm were not the only mistake they have made.

BT repeatedly lied about the trials afterwards.

Phorm has hired an army of PR goons to spread misinformation around the net:

Phorm's Wikipedia entry was sanitized by the PR goons.

Phorm conducted a supposed 'open discussion' meeting in London. The public were told that we need not film it, as Phorm would hire professionals to film it and later releas it to the public. Guess what happened? Phorm got slammed in the debate, and the video was never released on the net.

BT, Phorm and Phorm's PR goons repeatedly make misleading or simply wrong statements about the way Phorm operates. 'Opting out' of Phorm does not mean your traffic is not intercepted as claimed. Your traffic is still intercepted, but you are not served ads.

BT and Phorm claim that they have evidence to show that consumers want this 'service', yet they don't release the data showing this is the case. Considering the furious backlash against BT and Phorm, I highly doubt that consumers are begging for their private communications to be intercepted in order to receive better junkmail.

BT presents Phorm's adware technology as primarily 'anti-phishing' technology, and a 'free service'. Wow! How could any consumer be against that? What they don't do is tell consumers that most browsers already have anti-phishing mechanisms built in, or more importantly, that turning on this 'service' means that all their traffic is intercepted and analized to build up a profile on them.

...and so on, and so forth. I think the point has been made. BT and Phorm have shown themselves to be mendacious and untrustworthy in the extreme - and you're asking consumers to trust BT and Phorm to do exaclty what they say they're going to do, nothing more, nothing less? Why on earth should consumers believe a word either BT or Phorm have to say about anything?

SecretSociety on "Digital privacy wars"

SecretSociety — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:08:52 +0000

@Not in my interest

Browser hijacking
Cookie Forgery
Illegal Interception of WWW Traffic intended for another Party!

Is it necessary to go on, if this had been done by anyone but a Powerful Company with the Ear of Government intent on a Surveillance Database , the Police would have swooped on them before they could get started!

If any Website openly does this on the WWW it is likely at least to be shutdown & then most probably Prosecuted for the Data Stolen & other Legal Issues.

Subversion of the WWW protocols in order to serve ads "which are often not relevant" is a Minefield; when you start breaking the law for Commercial reasons where does it stop!

I'll answer my Own Question in this case "IT IS BETTER TO NOT EVEN TO START TO THINK OF BREAKING THE LAW!"

Not in my interest on "Digital privacy wars"

Not in my interest — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:13:58 +0000

Slight lie - I work for ISP though not one of the three.

I think that the main problem here is that all of the questions repeatedly asked on many of these comments pages and the forums have been answered many times in other places - If research is done (and I don't pretend that this is easy- I have been following since the early days) you can find most of the answers.

The system, if properly regulated, can work without destroying privacy - many people seem to be 'au fait' with Google as it is seen as a choice. This system must now also be a choice- accepted that at the moment the choice is a complicated one to avoid - but the tiny size of the Trial (operative word here folks) really discounts this to a larger extent. If you don't like you can move not moan.

The upshot of this technology is that it may well be one of a narrowing set of options that allow us to improve on what I'm sure everyone agrees is a decrepit internet infrastructure for such a small island first world country.
If we continue to moan about prices vs. bandwidth and illogically deny the ISPs the chance to generate the revenue needed to upgrade their network then we are in danger of losing large swathes of the country to internet loss in the aftermath of provider collaspe.

It may not be everyones cup of tea but in this 'credit crunch' era there are many people who would not be adverse to having discount offers and cheaper alternative offered to them at opportune moments - let the service provide to them and opt out yourself if you object. Don't fall subject to the extremists niave view that any company could feasibly work a business model that 'stole peoples data regardless of choice' in such a privacy concious world - they really would have been invetigated by the CoL PD.

Behavioural targeting is something of a holy grail for advertisers - It means that they waste less money on campaigns and this is why it can generate vastly higher revenues- This doesn't aid internet users but it could be forced to filter back as reduced pricing/higher download limits/larger bandwidth. It will be pushed for by the ad industry and they WILL find a way to profile people somehow- would it not be better that we are aware and have some influence upon it or shall we wait until they do deals with the Gov't and sneak their way into the 'covert' boxes everyone pretends to not know/care about?
At least this company was marginally more public about their system than their brothers in the US -Nebuad/frontporch were running commercial (not technical) trials without notifying anyone - Phorms biggest mistake was running their tech trials without notification.

I think the main reason for such pro-phorm aggression is the anger at inaccuracies presented over and over again and the demand that every question be answered in its place - there are 18,000 people asking questions and one small tech company answering - come on bloggers I know that you don't think that you are the centre of the internet - so don't act the child! Search and ask don't demand - you might find some sympathy.

This only covers a small section of the many question out there and I'd like to answer more but I only know some of these answers (right friends right places) I don't personally think that this system itself is thing to worry about - I think that we should create a set of standards and make them abide by them - allow but restrict - and then we can control any further joiners to this gang without fear of the dreaded "creep".

Ps. on another note I'm not sure that the argument stretches to periphery/unrelated issues - the release of Email addies from the BT forum really isn't a valid point in this arena - but I'm sure there are upset types who'll shout back.

geegie on "Digital privacy wars"

geegie — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:11:18 +0000

for someone who doesn't care Noddy seems to keep cropping up spouting the same "tin hat" nonsense but never has a reply to questions about the workings of Phorm. Just answer the questions. Anybody from Phorm or BT anybody.
If you are so sure it's squeaky clean why the secret trials?
Why all the avoidance and meaningless repetition of the Phorm PR handbook?
Why is talking about Webwise a dirty word on BT forums?
Where is all this customer research saying we just LOVE Phorm ?
Why wont the BERR show us a copy of the letter to the ICO but will "discuss the line we took" with BT?*

* (source a FOI request to BERR)

Not a punter on "Digital privacy wars"

Not a punter — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:02:13 +0000

Your starting point is way off line. So far off that you obviously are so ignorant about everything else being discussed here that you should spend time educating yourself before condemning those who have spent the time education themselves.

The starting point of this was websites suddenly having additional javascript codes added. This code called scripts hosted on a domain under the control of 121 Media - this was back in Sept/Oct 2006. Then, in June/July 2007 sites again discovered that someone was adding additional javscript to their site code and once again this code was calling scripts hosted by a domain under the control of 121Media/Phorm (Phorm being the new name to try and distance themselves from all the bad publicity).

Only in 2008 did BT finally admit that the javascripts which had been discovered illegally injected into web pages had been part of a trial of a new behavioural targeted adertising system which was about to be marketed as BT Webwise.

No author of copyright content likes to have someone else come and modify that content. Dispite months of complaining to anyone who will listen, or not in the case of BT, BT is still stating that the BT Webwise system will be modifying the content of web pages without the consent of the owners of those websites.

It seems so innocent a comment
"Q. How can I distinguish between cookies that were placed by Webwise and those given to me by websites I visited?
A. The Webwise cookie is clearly named "webwise-uid" so it can be easily identified. It will either contain the unique identifier string if you’re opted in or it will contain "OPTED_OUT" if you are not."
What right do BT have to forge a cookie in the name of all websites visited and then tell everyone that it is OK because it only contains a UID or OPTED_OUT. It is still a forgery and should be treated as such.

As for your real name comment. I assume that you are refering to the 2 experts who were contacted by Phorm to examine the system for technical and legal considerations.

Dr Richard Clayton's analysis can be read at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080518-phorm.pdf
which is text which has been cleared and approved by Phorm as being a correct analysis of how the BT Webwise system works within the ISP [the part which is not discussed in BT's response copied in the above post which conveniently ignores the interception].

Nicolas Bohm's legal analysis can be read at
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf

Why do you expect experts in their own field to not use their real names - that is part of who they are and why they are able to provide their analysis with authority. That authority is respected by many and you can discover that for yourself by searching for them in any search engine [but don't use Google if you have failed to opt out from its tracking and this worries you].

Added to all the history is the threat of the future. You can hardly blame website owners for campaigning to protecting their commercial property. Webmasters do not want someone making a copy of their content and then using that content to add to a profile which can be sold on to advertisers who are looking to use Behavioural Targeting advertising within their marketing campaign. Making a copy of copyrighted content for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright owner is a criminal offence.

Using the data collected to promote competing products to customers is much worse than having mail opened to have junk mail added: it is taking one product out of the shopping basket and replacing with a competing product.

And, don't even get me started on the requirement to remove search engine traffic from websites if they don't want to have their content 'stolen' for commercial gain by BT Webwise.

Guy Aitchison on "Digital privacy wars"

Guy Aitchison — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:23:43 +0000

I agree with "Why So Hostile", it would be helpful if the pro-Phormers posting here actually made a case as to why anyone would want it rather than just caricaturing their opponents.

@"Not logged In" 7:20 The fact you post a link to the Bazalgette article shows you haven't even bothered to read my original post, which was about that very article!

Digital privacy wars, Guy Aitchison

Guy Aitchison — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:49:22 +0000

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The battle for privacy in the digital age is being fought on many fronts (a point last night's seminar on the database state - reported on below by Tom Griffin - made abundantly clear). Some of these battles are being fought more publicly than others. I've been aware of Jacqui Smith's Orwellian plans to permanently store the whole population's electronic communications, including browsing history, in a huge central database since the summer thanks to No2ID flagging up the plans here on OK. But only today was I made aware of Phorm, a sinister new behavioural tracking technology currently being trialled by the country's biggest Internet Service Provider, BT.

Phorm is the subject of a must-read exchange between Peter Bazalgette, formerly of Endemol, the producers of Big Brother (yes, the headlines write themselves), and Becky Hogge of the Open Rights Group. In a speech at the LSE (published this month by Prospect - excert in the FT), Bazalgette argues that by campaigning against Phorm, and other technologies which capture web browsing habits for the purposes of advertising, privacy groups like the ORG are helping to prevent the full economic potential of the web from being realized:

Increasingly, privacy not pipes are the front line in the battle for broadband Britain. Put simply, we expect most of our online entertainment and information free. The music industry has discovered this to its cost, as illegal downloads proliferate. If content is to be delivered free, but with revenue to intellectual property owners, it must be supported by advertisements. Advertisers will do this only in exchange for knowledge of who is receiving their promotional message and when. Technology exists to track our every move online, but such intense scrutiny has led to a state of war between commercial pioneers and privacy campaigners. At stake is a potentially huge expansion of the internet economy.

Privacy advocates, Bazalgette reckons, "do not acknowledge the importance of commerce."

In her response (published online by Prospect), Hogge accuses Bazalgette of viewing the internet solely in commercial terms - it is, in fact, much more. Daily communications and civic engagement now all take place online to the extent that "what we do over our internet connections reveals more about us than any other activity". Turning to Phorm, she writes:

Phorm subverts crucial, commercial relationships between businesses and their customers. It works by dialling directly into your ISP’s network, intercepting communications between you and the websites you visit, to ascertain what sort of things you are looking at. It's as if the postman were being paid to open every letter he delivered to you, just in order to send you a better class of junk mail.

The postman comparison is a good one and is by no means flippant. It expresses an important truth that politicians and the media so often fail to grasp: we ought to be accorded the same rights to privacy in our digital lives as we are in our non-digital lives.

Hogge goes on to point out that the activities Phorm will be engaged in cannot comply with the law. This shouldn't be a problem for BT and their clients however since the relevant provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (like most privacy laws) aren't actually enforced. And at a time when government is desperate for private sector investment in broadband infrastructure "Blind eyes could well be turned to legislative niceties in order to allow this investment to take place, for instance by helping BT get more advertising revenue to shore up its bottom line."

Both articles are well worth reading and are being discussed on the Prospect blog.