Of course, if improvements can be negative then it's perfectly possible to consider the privacy improvement provided by Phorm. No other (known) ad provider examines your browsing habits in quite the same way. I can choose to block other ad providers by barring their cookies and filtering out their URLs, whereas with Phorm that only stops me seeing the results of their snooping, at least according the public information on how they do it.
April Fools....
By Matthew HepburnPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:31 GMT
The biggest April phool around here is Phorm!!
The sooner that crock of retarded Spyware merchants gets off our internets the better - i think right now Comcast seem to be a nicer ISP than BT
Phorm = Phail
now that's
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:32 GMT
Now that's a novel use of an illegal law re RIPA
Revolving doors. Need a revolver.
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:36 GMT
Nice one again El Reg.
"At the time of this newly-revealed first trial, Stratis Scleparis was the chief technology officer of BT Retail. He hopped across to occupy the same position at Phorm in January 2007. BT has not addressed our question over whether it is comfortable with the role Scleparis has played in the deal."
That accounts for a lot, though it doesn't make matters any better on either side, arguably it makes them worse.
Major employers typically have a corporate policy on the recruitment of staff from suppliers, customers, etc. It isn't always necessary to rule out that kind of career move, but what is generally accepted as necessary is to rule out the possibility of dodgy dealings.
Ben Verwayeen, what is your company's policy on recruitment from suppliers and customers? What processes were followed in the case of Stratis Scleparis's career move? Is any corrective action necessary?
It's quite simple...
By JamesPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:39 GMT
...Just don't use an ISP that has had anything to do with Phorm. There are enough others out there to choose from, and *not* using Phorm might even become a selling point.
If you are unlucky enough to be using BT you will probably appreciate the improved performance you will get from another ISP anyway.
Surely...
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horsePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:41 GMT
Simply by being associated with this spyware company VMs image is already tarnished as they have exposed themselves as no different from the rest of the money grabbing corporates out there prepared to put profit before customer satisfaction... totally opposite as to how they want to be portrayed in the media.
But then I'm presuming Branson needs all the funds he can get to finance his white elephant galactic project.
My recent letter from VM clearly states they are currently progressing with an "opt-out" policy and that they will be as transparent "as possible" with their customers regarding this solution.
Can we or the Reg come up with a list of non-Phorm broadband suppliers so when we all need to jump ship, we already have decent info to hand?
Page 1 section 1
By 3x2Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:41 GMT
(RIPA)
1 Unlawful interception
(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—
(a) a public postal service; or
(b) a public telecommunication system.
Pots and kettles
By Sceptical BastardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:42 GMT
Firstly, given your reportage to date, I accept this is not an April Fool story ;)
The important point here is that BT deliberately sought to hide what it was doing. It cynically deceived its customers and was knowingly sailing close the wind in legal terms.
BT cannot be trusted to tell the truth. The company has lied about this issue consistently; why should we accept anything BT says now as true?
Furthermore, BT has shown no signs whatsoever of backing away from Phorm nor from the concept of traffic interception for commercial gain. At least both Carphone Whorehouse and Virgin seem to be re-evaluating their commitment to Phorm.
As to Kent (with a 'u') Ertugrul and his PR people's spin:
"We think it is unethical of the Register to seek to undermine a technology..."
Bloody gall! Pots and kettles. How *dare* they accuse anyone of being 'unethical'
"... that enhances online privacy..."
Bollocks! In fact, it does exactly the opposite as K(u)nt well knows.
"....Phorm's system ensures that ads are served with no data storage ..."
Storage is irrelevent, a red herring. You bastards are intending to intercept my packets and spy on me.
"... something that will benefit readers of the Register and other websites."
No it won't. Not in the slightest. Not in any way imaginable.
This whole sorry saga needs and deserves the widest possible media coverage. El Reg has done a sterling job so far but, sadly, ninety-five per cent of DSL-using Joe Public is technically illiterate and doesn't read The Register. A lot more coverage such as The Guardian's and the BBC's is needed to generate the deluge of complaint that BT so richly deserves; and wallet-voting by switching ISP is the best way to reinforce the point.
Phuck off, Phorm. Do not want.
So - if it's not legal .... we'll just change the Law!
By JamesPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:45 GMT
"BT has said it plans to change its terms and conditions accordingly to comply with the law."
... and I for one look forward to NOT accepting the change.
So I'll just take my Mac (code), and leave.
Phorm Free ISP's
By Cris PagePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:52 GMT
There is already a list growing at http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?11
Wow, no really WOW
By Alexander HanffPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:52 GMT
The deeper we get into this the worse it gets. Even I never saw this coming and until the end of the second page I was beginning to believe it might be a very clever April Fool but now I am left staggering.
I submitted a petition on the PM website on Friday evening to call for the PM to demand the Home Office initiate criminal proceedings against BT for the 2007 Trials which they recently admitted to and was shocked yesterday to find out it had been rejected for unfathomable reasons.
You can see the petition text and the email I got from the PM web team on the following link:
I am also currently investigating the possibility of filing for a High Court injunction to prevent Phorm technology being deployed in the UK with any of the 3 ISPs under RIPA; anyone who has any feedback they wish to give on that please contact me.
And in closing, Wow.
Alexander Hanff
PS.. You need a Gobsmacked icon ElReg
Did I read this right?
By Man OutragedPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:54 GMT
BT ran an experiment whereby it intercepted all web browsing to insert JavaScript into web pages, and god knows what else?
Did I read this right? 18,000 customers? Sorry I really can't believe this article Chris. You must have got something wrong. I can't believe a household name would stoop to such aruably criminal lows in the search of advertising revenues.
What are the implications? BT has been working with Phorm since 2006 we know from El Reg and The Guardian. Phuck me this seems really VERY serious...
As usual...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:56 GMT
It takes a Liberal Democrat to put forward a balanced view of the internet and to question the integrity of BT and the likes.
Just a shame they'll never get in, we're stuck with either Corrupt Cameron or Zombie Brown.
If only people would vote for parties that actually have some moral fibre and care more about the people that vote them in than the big companies that sponsor their campaigns and offer them silly money after they leave Parliament.
Erm...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:56 GMT
In light of the RIPA comments from legal experts, and even the offical gov advice suggests that this system will only be legal if users are opted in then I can't see how BT can fail to end up in court regarding this.
Any legal peeps around care to enlighten those of us who regularly have to use "IANAL"?
/Paris 'cus she knows about stickin' it up her...
I wish this were an April Fools joke...
By JonathanPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:59 GMT
"We think it is unethical of the Register to seek to undermine a technology that enhances online privacy - Phorm's system ensures that ads are served with no data storage - something that will benefit readers of the Register and other websites.
In the interests of balance, we would like the Register to reflect the improved privacy environment Phorm provides over the other major online ad targeting companies detailed in the attached table."
/end
You just cant make this up. El Reg being irresponsible by exposing a spyware scam to the Net? You know, attempting to portray your product in a positive light is one thing. This.... This is stupidity. This is from the mouth of Mr-I-Dont-Know-How-To-Do-PR (and my product sucks anyway).
Seriously, we have two options - have our internet usage monitored for the sake of advertising revenue we will never see, or.... Nothing. Or no monitoring. Which sounds like its a better deal for privacy? The jury is out on this one.
It still amazes me what people will do, and what they will convince themselves of, for the sake of money. This is a system that uses people like cattle to make more money for the ISPs and the advertisers by invading our privacy, and yet Phorm defends it as if it could cure AIDs and cancer. How? How can you not admit that your product is immoral at best, illegal at worst. How can that not make sense to you?
What is the implication on commercial confidentiality?
By FluffykinsPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:01 GMT
There must be one or two folk out there who "work from home". OK, a lot will have VPN connections, but not all.
Can somone from the cognoscenti please have a guess as to what the security implicaitons for a company and it's intellectual property are if one's outworkers are having their traffic intercepted to and from, say, internet and their company's internet accssible intranet sites (honest guv, we aren't actually reading anyfink)
Just wondered.
Kent
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:04 GMT
Jesus Kent's comments make me want to bitch slap his face.
Self Undermining
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:06 GMT
Typically, the arrogance we expect from these parasites, they assume they have some god given right to our data in the same way that the ad boys seem to think its ok to up the volume in ad breaks (leading to a universal muting of ALL ad breaks in our household), the sad thing is they cant see they are WRONG.
From my reading in various places, side-stepping reasonable questions is standard practice for this company, just one more reason NOT to trust them. The fact that they have targetted the UK is significant given that Phorm pretty much have thier roots in the US, maybe they knew that was too big a market to try to fool first off with some very vocal privacy advocates - clearly the hope was to slip it under the radar here and then be able to point to its UK operations as proof of the "value" of this, and considering I have anti phishing in all my browsers Im still trying to work out how letting a proven malware provider anywhere near my traffic provides ME with any value.
THEY have undermined thier own "product" by secrecy and deception. Im sure if the Reg staffers were minded to do a "hatchet job" on Phorm this would have been far worse for them
Kreepy Kent can go Phormicate himself!
not being a legal bod...
By Damian Gabriel MoranPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
can BT customers demand to know (via freedom of information?) if they were within the trial that was not a trial but actually was and if they were can they then take legal action against BT and Phorm using RIPA as their consent was not given?
FAO: Phorm Team
By Mr JollyPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
Phorm team, can you please answer the following questions which I've asked of you a few times.
If you don't store any browsing histories, how come the OIX website says:
"...For example, Travel advertisers will be able to target messages to anyone seeing the keywords "Paris holiday" either as a search or inside the text of any page with timing of three times in an hour..
...Advertisers create customised channels using behavioural keywords - keywords derived from searches, URLs, and contextual analysis of pages visited, with recency and frequency"
In order to know the frequency someone visits a page you are going to have to record the URL's visited against their profile complete with a list of times they visited it too, so you can tell if they visited it in the three hour example mentioned above.
So how does your system know what time a page is visited and the amount of times a page is visited by someone if it doesn't actually store the URL of the page?
Many sites have Terms & Conditions which explicitly deny data mining, extraction etc. of their content. Many of these sites are also copyrighted.
Bearing in mind that some ISP's are in talks to crackdown on copyright theft (Virgin & the BPI) and it seems to be another big thing at the moment, could yourselves or the ISP's installing your system be held accountable for copyright theft? It could be argued that you are profiting by mining this copyrighted data which doesn't belong to you or the person viewing the page to build your profiles.
If I was to own or have a website then I certainly wouldn't give you permission to mine my content so you can profit from it.
Finally, can you guarantee that the data your systems hold or process will NEVER be able to identify a living person by any means whatsover?
If so, how?
Thanks Phorm - Phanks!
Just a thought
By Daniel WilkiePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
Since the majority of ISP's are provisioned through BT Wholesale, and since they clearly have truth issues, what are the chances that, since all the data will have to through through BT exchanges and BT infrastructure to go via the ISP that all that will be profiled by Phorm too?
Just a thought, I'm not sure of the technical aspects as I've never worked for an ISP.
Shocked and Appalled
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:13 GMT
So BT ran a trial which involved intercepting the communications of 18,000 customers, and gifted the information that was intercepted to a third party adware/spyware provider without even seeking consent?
Someone in BT and Phorm needs to spend time in prison to think this over.
Its just appalling.
If Virgin have done this, I'll be joining Alexander in demanding prosecutions against them too.
Phorms claims not to identify users are obviously false. Their cookie is named 'UID', abbreviation for User Identifier... ie an identifier for a user. And the claim they don't store anything... of course they do... its called a profile and its linked to a specific user via a user id.
Their note must be an April fools day gag.
Guess what Mr Ertegrul...
By Stefan PaetowPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:15 GMT
It's not The Register who is stirring the negative sentiment against you. It's US, free citizens, who prefer NOT to be profiled. Bollocks to your excuses, to your reasoning; you are trying to make money off my browsing habits, you pay ME, not my ISP. The cheek...
Here's to a nice fat lawsuit against BT and Phorm for breaching RIPA in 2006.
BT Broadband Contract
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:16 GMT
The article states "BT has said it plans to change its terms and conditions accordingly to comply with the law".
Can a customer refuse to accept the change and therefore terminate their contract and move to another ISP ? I'd move if someone could confirm. I'm not sure Zen Internet could cope with the demand though :(
time to make a stand
By James McLeanPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:17 GMT
Given the potential breach in law that has ocurred in 2006 where you could allege a wire tapping offence took place against 18,000 customers. Would it not make sense for some good lawyer type to effect a UK equivalent high class action case on behalf of those 18,000 people?
There are more opportunities to make money for these people in suing BT than BT will make in the first year of operation of this insidious tool.
Failing that all it will take is for one single victim to lodge a police complaint for alleged wire tapping offences to threaten this entire house of cards.
I have never used BT so sadly it could not be me, otherwise Mr Plod would get a visit this afternoon (seriously).
Somewhere our rights need to be honoured and somewhere people need to make a stand. why not here?
Paris, because she knows money when she sees it.
It Gets Better
By Captain JamiePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:17 GMT
How the hell can Phorm dare to lecture anyone after being dumped by The Guardian for a lack of values? We're talking about a company which has behaved unethically, unprofessionally and dishonestly.
I'm stunned at the revelation that "That means all 18,000 test subjects were always opted-in without their knowledge."
I always expected the unacceptable from BT but this leaves me stunned. There's often some degree of vested interests and old boys' network in business but this is obscene.
El Reg, don't let them off the hook
By ChrisPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:19 GMT
Please please keep on them and don't let them fob you off. If they hadn't broken the law they would certainly be quick to say so. If they have broken the law then someone should be prosecuted for it - why should they get away with it? Please keep on them and don't take a sidestep for an answer.
A bit ot persistence is required
By Chris WPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:21 GMT
In the reports of people being arrested because someone thought their mobile phone or whatever was a gun and similar stories the police always say they have a duty to investigate complaints.
Maybe someone based in the UK could call the police and make a complaint against BT. I recall someone already trying but if enough people did so then it might get a bit further.
Similarly with the petition on the PM website especially in light of the 2006 trials.
Phorm site
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:24 GMT
I..*shudder*.. went to the Phorce, erm Phorm website, had a luck at their press releases. It's amazing that El Reg has probably had more stories on this item than any other news site/paper, yet isn't mentioned once as a source for their Press Archive. In fact all the sources given are basically that sites rehash of the Phorm press releases and some even seem to think its A GOOD THING! IT ISN'T! Makes me worry about the sanity of the "tech" writers for these other sites!Or rather, wonder how much they are being paid!?
It all boils down to what is relevant to the users interests. Or rather, what shit Pharce is trying to make relevant for them. Nothing like burying your head in the sand up to your arse eh Phorm? Hoping the opponents to this "innovation" will go away? Not while there is movement in the fingers of El Reg and it's readers!
Phorm arrogance.
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:24 GMT
Phorm really are quite the arrogant bunch. First they say they are going to education Sir Tim Berners Lee on the benefits of their system and now they complain about El Reg coverage of all this.
Newsflash for you Phorm. You along with BT have broken RIPA. You have lied countless times. Even your PR team couldnt be honest and initially registered on the cableforum website as PhormTechTeam. You lack credibility and even the tiniest semblence of honesty. We dont believe you. We dont want your spyware. Go away.
re: Damian Gabriel Moran
By Alexander HanffPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:25 GMT
No, Freedom of Information Act only covers the public sector (and not even all of that). You could however send a Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act) accompanied with a £10 cheque or postal order asking if you were involved with the trials. You need to send the request to the BT Data Controller and I recommend you send it by registered post and print off the delivery notification from the Royal Mail website. They have 40 calendar days to comply with the request before they are in breach of the regulations at which point you can either contact ICO with a formal complaint -or- if you can prove damage you can initiate civil proceedings against them in the county court.
@Various
By Graham WoodPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:25 GMT
@Mr Jolly
Wonder whether we can apply the 3 strikes to an ISP? E.g. three random customers each download an illegal mp3 via http.. Each has only one "strike", but phorm has three - can we therefore demand that they get unplugged? ;)
@Damian Gabriel Moran
The FoIA applies to government bodies, not private companies. However, under the Data Protection Act, you should be able to find out if you were within that trial, since they really should still have those records - there's an administrative fee associated with it, but it has to be "reasonable".
@Fluffykins
To some extent they may be protected by your lack of encryption... It's not illegal to hear something that people say in public if they shout it really loud ;) However, the RIPA doesn't seem to see an internet pipe as a "public place", so it probably isn't covered. No company should be using http/html for remote working without the "s".
@Daniel Wilkie
There's another article on the reg (can't remember the title at the moment) that includes details of how the infrastructure works. Effectively the data passes through a very small part of the BT network (from a data point of view, rather than physical), and goes immediately out on a dedicated pipe to the ISP. Therefore unless BT are putting the phorm stuff within that small section, it's not relevant... If they DO put it there, then they are likely to be really hammered by the other ISPs. If nothing else, they're increasing the data flowing over the pipe and that's what the other ISPs end up paying for...
BT Group publishes a code of ethics.
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:26 GMT
Based on their actions, maybe it should say "this space intentionally blank" but what it does say includes:
"The Chief Executive Officer, Group Finance Director, the Director Group Financial Control & Treasury, direct reports to the Group Finance Director and the lines of business Finance Directors will:
* act with honesty and integrity, including ethically handling actual or apparent conflicts of interest between their personal relationships or financial or commercial interests and their responsibilities to BT;
* promote full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in all reports and documents that BT files with, or submits to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or otherwise makes public;
* comply with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to BT and to its relationship with its shareholders;
* report known or suspected violations of this code of ethics promptly to the Chairman of the Audit Committee; and
* ensure that their actions comply not only with the letter but the spirit of this code of ethics and foster a culture in which BT operates in compliance with the law and BT's policies."
Etc,
Ben, how does the Phorm work fit this ethical policy?
In particular, what about "ethically handling actual or apparent conflicts of interest between their personal relationships or financial or commercial interests and their responsibilities to BT;"?
How does Stratis's career move (which BT and Phorm presumably knew about when BT started trialling Phorm) line up with your ethical policy?
The public want to know. In particular, your longsuffering stakeholders (employees and shareholders) want to know.
re: A bit ot [sic] persistence is required
By Alexander HanffPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:33 GMT
I am the one who tried to report the 2007 trials to Scotland Yard but they refused to issue a crime reference number because I was unable to provide them with an exact date and place where the criminal act took place (as I am not a BT customer nor ever will be).
So yes, we need criminal proceedings to be initiated which is why I have just refiled the petition on the PMs website with the news of the 2006 trials and again asking the PM to demand the Home Office start proceedings.
I have also started a facebook group to help publicise it here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12430966276
(And no I don't need lecturing on the privacy issues surrounding Facebook but thanks anyway).
Oh dear God...
By AshPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:35 GMT
Anybody seriously wish that chemical neutering was legal practice?
Someone with such questionable moral values to actually BELIEVE that this is, in any way, acceptable, legal, or even required, should not be put in charge of impressionable people, their own or anyone elses.
I worry about the state of society.
The cracks are appearing...
By Midnight_VoicePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:37 GMT
Phorm say:
We think it is unethical of the Register to seek to undermine a technology that enhances online privacy - Phorm's system ensures that ads are served with no data storage - something that will benefit readers of the Register and other websites.
I say:
This rather intemperate response means they are rattled.
Keep up the pressure, El Reg, BadPhorm, DePhormation, and everybody else who cares about this.
for a perhaps insufficiently satirical look at where this will all end up if we don't keep up the pressure....
But I am sure we can. And I sincerely hope Kent Ertugrul's phlight back to the USA goes from Terminal 5.
Paris, because her baggage will always follow her around, no matter what
Is it just the end users that can sue?
By Grant MitchellPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:38 GMT
Surely the owners of websites surfed to by the guinea pigs were also victims of interception? I guess you'd have a hard time proving (unless your logs go back that far), so just to make it easier, can we use the same formula's the recording industry uses to calculate damages to work out how much BT must pay ;-) ?
And on that bombshell..Phormgate
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:43 GMT
Well done Chris & El Reg, real Watergate stuff - or should I say 'Phormgate'. Lets just keep focused on BT and the other ISPs who are the principal villains of this piece.
The only Trials BT should be involved with...
By Alexander HanffPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:45 GMT
Are criminal trials for the potentially millions of counts of breaches of RIPA in both 2006 and 2007. How many webpages do you think 18000 people visited over that 2006 trial period?
@ Alexander Hanff
By Inspector_MorsePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:45 GMT
Good luck with the injunction; I think it's the only sensible way to stop this.
As for the No.10 petitions route, does any reader have a single example of this tactic working (i.e. our beloved leaders - past and present - actually taking any notice)?
You know, being democratic?
No?
I thought so.
El Reg - keep it up.
Unethical?
By 3x2Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:46 GMT
<..>UK equivalent high class action case on behalf of those 18,000 people?<...>
They shouldn't have to. Breach of RIPA is a criminal act not a civil one.
Either BT & Phorm have committed a criminal act or they have not. My reading of RIPA say's they have. Time for HMG to step up.
Dear HMG Home Office
By Jimbo GunnPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:57 GMT
Dear HMG Home Office,
I recently received details of your new initiative to create new legitimate business opportunities in the hi-tech sector, namely in the Data Raping arena, and I'd like to register my company's interest in the scheme.
I own a conglomerate of small enterprises specialising in niche revenue opportunities. By profiling anonymous individuals we can identify those of high net worth whom we can target our product at. Out main product being simple letters offering our services, our main service being NOT writing to the press about profiles showing interest in our sister business selling a large range of man-on-man video materials.
We also have ties to a large network of software developers who are keen to install 3rd party "applications" on our data-raping hardware. Many of these are enterprising individuals whom I'm sure will find great ways to increase revenue once we have total control over users data streams.
Thank you for your interest,
Frances James "Jimbo" Gunn
Writer, TheSpoof.com
http://www.thespoof.com/search.cfm?writer=7138
opt in security broken
By Peter WhitePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:59 GMT
it shows how a dubious website can opt you in without your knowledge, using standard cross site request forgery techniques
so if you visit a site it can put an opt in cookie on your pc without your knowledge
then it is down to whether webwise process the opt out or opt in cookie first
hmm looking more dubious and less secure all the time
central resources needed
By Peter WhitePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:01 GMT
what we need is a central location to keep all the issues, websites, email addresses and places to write to, to complain so we can maximise and co-ordiate everything against phorm, is anyone aware of a site or blog like this?
we also need standard letters that list the issue we are complaining about to the relevant recipient of the complaint,
one to each of the following
ISP
to register your position on phorm and specifically remove permission for them to profile your data or pass it via profiler
info commisioner
to register a complaint with regards to BT, VM, TT and Phorm potentially breaking RIPA and the DPA, even if the user opts in
MP
general complaint, plus info on their comms to constituants and researchers web activity being profiled if using one of the 3 ISP's etc
home secretary
as it involves BT's breach of RIPA last year during trails of webwise, and potential breaches of RIPA and DPA in the future, and possibly the national security implications of governmet officials web activities being profiled etc
MEP
as it could involve european law, in particular human rights act, as right to privacy would be infringed
local press
make more people aware of the potential issues
bbc watchdog
as local press but more national coverage
have i missed anything??
@Alexander Hanff
By Gianni StranieroPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:01 GMT
Look, there's no point in messing about with online petitions. If you are a BT customer and believe your traffic may have been intercepted, contact the Computer Crime Unit of your local police force. For example, if you live in London:
Of course you will first need to provide evidence that your traffic has indeed been intercepted.
Why didn't they come up with an excuse?
By DavePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:02 GMT
BT also refused to reveal where in the national broadband network the thousands of guinea pigs were sourced from.
Surely they could have claimed that they would have loved to reveal where the mugs came from, but they don't hold sufficient information to be able to identify the source?
The powerpoint slide contains lies
By Hayden ClarkPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:05 GMT
.. of course.
It suggests that the "opt out" for major search engines is "deeply embedded". However, anyone who has an anti-malware package on their PC (or otherwise knows how to delete cookies) can "opt out" by preventing the storage of the tracking cookies needed by the other ad-targeting engines to work.
Since the Phorm system is IP-address keyed, and occurs in the network, there is no way to opt out of tracking.
Are the BT Board Asleep on the Job?
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:06 GMT
So the BT Retail CTO organises secret (and illegal!) trials using their customer's data, in conjunction with a notorious spyware outfit, and between them they perfect a scheme that they think they can get away with. Then when they think they might make a packet, he jumps ship to be CTO of the very company he has been sweethearting at BT's expense, leaving BT to carry the can if the legal implications blow up in their face (as they are doing). Nice move, but would you buy a used car from this man? Makes Nick Leeson look like an amateur!
One of the 18,000
By AlexPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:06 GMT
I was one of the people who was entered into the parasitic trial without consent.
I am utterly appalled that the number of other people who also "wiretapped".
This is a disgusting abuse of trust and faith.
What I find most appalling that despite several emails to and from BT Directors I have still not received an apology, just belated confirmation that a test did take place despite being told at the time that there was no such thing happening.
In the words of the mighty Tony Harrison: "It's an Outrage!"
BT, looks like the sh17 is about to hit the Phan!
DO.
NOT.
WANT.
...looks like we'll be seeing BT + Phorm in the dock then!
Isn't this like
By IanPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:07 GMT
BT having someone listen in to all your calls, taking notes - in case, say, you ask dear old dad what kind of garden shed you should buy? So they can inundate you with adverts for garden centres? I'm sure if that was forwarded as a legitimate business plan it'd get laughed out the office due to being incredibly illegal...
Plus what is the security ramifications? Like online banking? They intercept your username and password, and which memorable information selections you made? Credit card details entered in online shops? Chat text on MSN et al? Could divulge all sorts of snippets on there... OK it is encrypted but that's not the same as "100% safe" is it. And if it is recorded you've got all the time you need to crack it.
Ghastly situation, someone needs a right kicking over this.
Crimestoppers
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:15 GMT
Anyone tried em?
Urgh...
By AlexPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:16 GMT
I'm meant to accept that because websites can see some of my data if I choose to visit them, a service that sees almost all of my data even if choose not to use it is tickety boo. This, I have 'reservations' over.
However, I must say I'm impressed that Phorm is able to offer a time-travel service in offering the ability to undo previous participation. That is something that Google is sorely lacking.
Furthermore, the magic power that means data held by Phorm can never be accidentally or maliciously disclosed is in contrast to every single data-holding device ever made ever. So credit where it's due.
@ Alex
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:29 GMT
If you were one of those involved in the secret trials either last summer or in 2006 then please make an official complaint to the Computer Crime Unit of the Metropolitan Police citing Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
if you are open to that possibility but need help drafting a letter then I am sure many would volunteer to help you. One place you may be able to get help is from the members of the cableforum website where there is already a thread regarding phorm which is fastly approaching the 2000 posts mark.
I see the darkness coming
By SpleenPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:33 GMT
"We think it is unethical of the Register..." Good God. This reminds me of the angry rantings of a dying villain in a Western or samurai flick. As the end approaches all pretense at civility disappears. Such as it was. Phorm Tech Team's sunny, cheery, one-of-you-guys attitude always reminded me of Doctor Pal from South Park. "We're very concerned about your concerns and we'd like to explain to you exactly how our technology enhances your privacy, so first off how about we take off our shirts and kiss?"
These are not just people with a bad product. These are bad people.
Way to go El Reg, keep up the good coverage!
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:41 GMT
One minute it is a random number, the next minute it is a by definition non-random UID. One minute the system stores browsing data for 6 months, the next minute there is no data storage. One minute it is user profiles may be transferred to ISPs in other countries, the next minute it is no data leaves the ISPs network. We don't have servers in China (well, now... after you busted us). We voluntarily left the adware business (before various privacy/security orgs and US agencies caught up with us over the spyware/rootkit software we developed and distributed). This is a privacy story! Well, except for those we illegally snooped on in trials and anyone who is foolish enough to use an ISP that partners with us.
BT - Spying to bring people together
By Carlton CannonPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:47 GMT
Firstly I find it depressing that the likes of MP's like Alistair Burnham (Muppet) will bang on about P2P file sharing and back proposed "3 STRIKES & OUT DSL CUT OFF PROPOSALS" yet MP's will most likely not even batter an eye lid over BT's blatent BREAKING OF THE LAW!
Secondly I am appalled that the TELCO/ISP that should be setting an example for the rest are using the public like pawns in a casual game of chess. This is an attack on our civil rights and since they have already "formally admitted" this act will any legal action be taken? Is it now ok to break the law?
Next BT will be setting up fraudulent phishing sites and passing it for security enhancement procedures!
Dirty Bastards!
Great job Reg!
lies, damn lies and then there is PR
By Peter WhitePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:50 GMT
the smoke, mirrors, spin and finally BS have failed, now they are down to the bottom of the barrel with trying to make El Reg appear worse than them!!
news for you Phorm not a hope in hell
about time you gave up and went back to punting spyware and crudware
and we will block that as well
opt in security broken
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:54 GMT
It wouldn't require a dubious website, you could for example be opted in remotely by a post in a forum that allows images to be posted.
The problem is that just the act of navigating to the webwise opt-in URL deletes the opt-out cookie and retrieves an opt-in cookie with a unique ID.
There is no security to break. Neither is it a browser flaw. If your browser opens the opt-in url, you are opted in, that's all there is to it.
This means that a webpage could use perfectly standard HTML to opt you in.
You should realise that all the opt-out does is store an "OPTED-OUT" webwise.net cookie on you PC.
Now browsers don't allow cross-domain access to cookies for security reasons, so in order for phorm's system to check if you are opted out, your TCP stream would still have to be modified to trick it into accessing the webwise.net domain and sending the opt-out cookie.
I don't know what the legal standing is, but in my opinion that is still interception.
Another issue with opt-out cookies is anyone with access to your PC such as your children could opt you in, it should be down to the account holder to choose after verifying their identity.
In my opinion a cookie based opt-out is totally worthless, perhaps even Phorm didn't think it was worth making it secure?
Joke alert, because a cookie based opt-out is a joke.
@Alex
By DMPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:54 GMT
Actually,
Google have released several time travelling services...
/Mine's the one with the mirror shades in the pocket, next to the mr fusion
Thanks
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horsePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:01 GMT
For the link to the BadPhorm site earlier on in this thread. I'll transcribe and post the contents of the letter I received from VM regarding Phorm later today on the forum.
Un berrrrrrr lievable !!!
By Frederick KarnoPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:05 GMT
Big thanks to all concerned who showed BT up to be liars and unworthy of being capable of securely handling peoples data. We will see how toothless OFCOM really are ,this is a criminal case and people should face jail for knowingly allowing this to happen.
I am not a BT customer and never will be now, but i would suggest all people who are, demand a refund ,and the ability to leave the company with no financial penalties.......You are not guinea pigs and you should receive recompense for being treat in such a way.
Its unbelievable that they would lie to customers who had genuine concerns at the time that there business's were being put at risk.I would like to see this taken through the courts and an end put to this holier than though attitude many people have in this country to data protection.BT have proven themselves unworthy of our trust and should be severely spanked where it hurts........in the shareholders pockets !!!!!!
Phorm's Advertisers
By AndrewPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:11 GMT
If i understand it correctly in that advertisers are paying phorm to deliver their ads, Then what is needed is a list of the companies that are advertising using phorm. If enough people avoid these companies and go elsewhere they will hopefully get the message and not use Phorm.
Would anyone else...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:12 GMT
...trust their data with a company called Phorm no matter what the circumstance? The whole use of "Ph" in place of "F" to make the same sound stinks of script kiddie cowboy naming to me. I half expect their press releases to say "lol h1 m8s w3 ar3 teh l33t ph0rm hax0rs p1mp1ng j00r d4t4".
Even if they were a professional data backup company and I needed a backup solution the name alone would put me off because it just stinks of unprofessionality. What makes our ISPs think I'd be happy to be forced into using such a company when I wouldn't even volunteer to them? If they can't even show a decent level of maturity and professionalism in deciding a company name then they can't exactly be trusted to be mature enough to manage personal data.
@Central Resources Needed
By SecretgeekPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:16 GMT
I'd just add one more to that list.
Every site signed up to the OIX
(Come on El Reg...surely you can get a copy of that list).
Just a quick email to them to say that whilst there is any possiblity that they're part of the OIX (and hence in league with Phorm et al) you will not use their products or services.
I know it won't stop Phorm snooping but it'll certainly hurt them where it counts - in the pocket as their clients start pulling out (Let The Guardian' be just the first)
Fighting snooping with a flamethrower.
BT should email all the effected users
By William MortonPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:17 GMT
Can I suggest to BT that they email all the users who where effected by this trial in July of 2007 to avoid being flooded by Data Subject Access Requests.
With regard to the trial, I live in the Midlands and was one of the people who was spied upon, I understand that another exchange in the south was also pimping data, I would like to know which other exchanges were effected and which version of the PHORM was being used. No doubt PHORM have cleaned up their code since then and hence are more in line with the UK legal requirements, however this does not preclude the version of PHORM where they can "see all the internet".
Given that when BT trialed the service they were looking specifically for EGG and Recruitment sites customers it suggests they were after people with money to spend and wanted to obtain their carreer details.
That BT Privacy policy of that time forbaded access to third parties, I would like to know how BT sees PHORM and THELATHE as not being third parties, further given PHORM's malware history, BT could have shared this clearly sensative information.
Surely
By Trevor WattPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:18 GMT
by _quote_ "BT has said it plans to change its terms and conditions accordingly to comply with the law". _unquote_
Surely the reciprocal of that is that by needing the opt-in BT accepts that what they have already done is not legal?
I like phorm's comments.
By alistair millingtonPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:19 GMT
Reg has undermined their data pimping shenanigans and the Reg is at fault for not pointing out the benefits of a data pimping system.
EH?????
But consider me to understand both sides of the argument in your coverage of the phorm debacle, I do feel you are being middle ground on this, middle ground as you can given only the NONE guilty come freely to an interview and those with stuff to hide issue statements and keep quiet.
Phorm need to grow up.
And why isn't someone making BT give out who were the 18000. I have an egg card and I will have been using that web site so I could be involved.
The thing that gets on my goat... WHY TEST A FINANCIAL SITE IF THEY AREN'T BOTHERING WITH FINANCIAL INFORMATION. Egg do nothing but financial so you would think avoid that at all costs. Lunacy.
Someone has to go to jail for this, how many laws were broken, 18000? surely 1 day for each offence? :)
...but this is fat cat britain and chief execs get away with it.
I await new T&Cs so I can tell BT where to go.
/rant
Phorm - when the truth is stranger than fiction
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:19 GMT
"In the interests of balance, we would like the Register to reflect the improved privacy environment Phorm provides over the other major online ad targeting companies detailed in the attached table."
I find myself agreeing with Phorm here. Shock. Horror.
When I look at the data which FrontPorch claim to collect and are already collecting when the UK users of the free Hotspots click the Accept button on the T&C when they logon, then Phorm are making a point.
As long a FrontPorch and NebuAd (any HSBC Premium users - USA only? - out there looked at the T&C when they login free?), et al stay with users having to accept terms each time they logon, then I can only say that 'user beware' should be the rule. As they all operate on a 'no cookie' and data packet 'script injection' model you only know what is happening when you read the terms or see the ads.
Does anyone know who the UK ISPs are that are signed up to the services offered by these other ad/spyware providers.
However, so far, the UK users of these other ad networks systems have the choice of using the connection or not using the connection. If they don't accept the terms then they don't get connected. Simple.
Why can't Phorm / BT / VM / TT get the message that anyone who does not want the system should have the option of not being connected?
In the US, is Virgin Media being open with its cellphone customers who are selling their soul in exchange for all those free minutes for viewing adverts? - targeted at 14 - 24 year-olds.
A flame - because the more I read about how this 'technology' is spreading around the world, the hotter I get.
Maybe, if the VCs of this world put their money into real property developments, ethical mortgage suppliers and educating farmers on protecting their soil and water resources rather than virtual money generating machines, the world economy would be balanced more on the 'fair' side.
I see all those lovely blue BUYs are turning into red SELLs. No comments on the PHRM discussion so the shorters must be looking to make some more money on this news before the herds hear about it.
the expigated version
By SlainePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:24 GMT
"one of the aims of the validation was not to affect their experience"... correct, it was to affect their spending habits.
"18000" individually distinct instances of a breach of RIPA, lets hope the sentences run consecutively.
"BT claims that when it launches, Phorm's technology will be legal" and by the powers of logical deduction are admitting that they knew damned well that it wasn't legal at the time, since the launch still hasn't happened.
"to avoid any perception that their system is a virus, malware or spyware"... not to prove it isn't, but to make people perceive that it isn't, or in other words, as we all well know... IT IS, all of the above.
"firing 'a revolution in online privacy'"... mmm yes, there again, Phormally one could also call it a 'firing squad against privacy'.
And PHINALLY... it was NOT "El Reg" who sought to undermine this bastard child of manipulative advertising, it was we, the users, your target audience, in our tidal wave of venomous responses to your actions, your intentions and your abuse of our bandwidth... We don't view El Reg for a source of bullsh*t and spin, we seek the balanced, fair and open journalism that we have come to expect (well, that and lots of articles about Ms Hilton). You C**NTS chose to lie, to us, to government - even ti yourselves. At least Paris is honest about being a bit loose with her honour.
oops
By SlainePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:26 GMT
...sorry about that, I think I'd better go and have a little lie down.
And NO that doesn't mean I want to see an advert for Slumberger or Silent Night. I'll just hang my dressing gown up.
Come on El Reg
By Andy ORourkePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:36 GMT
Give it up, despite your protests this has to be an April fool right, I mean a large organisation like BT wouldn’t possibly intercept traffic without notifying it's customers and they certainly wouldn’t allow one of their upper echelon staff to enter into negotiations with a company, set up a sweet deal and then move to said company?
Good one El Reg but it really is time to give it up, this can't possibly be true............. Can it?
@William Morton
By SimplepiemanPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:48 GMT
> No doubt PHORM have cleaned up their code since then and hence are more in
> line with the UK legal requirements
But that's just the problem. Software is notoriously hard to validate and police. It's what Phorm and their PR teams just don't get. It doesn't matter how careful they are with data, and many safeguards they *say* are in their software.
It's illegal to intercept a communications stream without permission from both ends of the communication. It has to be - otherwise you have a situation where some companies are deemed "good" and are allowed access to intercept, whilst others are deemed "bad" and aren't. But who will police this over time? Who will regulate this? Is it worth setting up a regulatory body capable of daily oversight? Probably not - therefore intercept is banned end of.
What the "secret" trials do is avoid the contested legal area on whether consent of a website can be assumed. In these secret trials, even the end user didn't consent, so plain and simple case one would hope.
I Love Dissembling - Not
By JulianPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:54 GMT
"Phorm itself emphasises that it is firing "a revolution in online privacy" and that consent is a key part of its proposition"
Bollocks! But we are served a lot of that these days!
I WILL leave Virgin if they trial me or adopt Phorm.
Interesting...
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horsePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:56 GMT
Considering the noise that that beacon of impartial news reportage - the BBC, made over the government losing customer data recently it is interesting that the "technology" news, or should I say the "always very much out of date technology news" finds this story : un-newsworthy.
Harming UK plc (Re: Unethical?)
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:06 GMT
As well as BT needing an executive to talk to El Reg and the police, I can see them needing one to face a House of Commons Select Committee. This sort of behaviour harms the country’s economy. What other EU country is going to want to do electronic business with us, if we’re the EU country known for having an untrustworthy Internet infrastructure. It’s harmful in the same way that Northern Rock has been. Stratis Scleparis should get the same bollocking that Adam Applegarth got.
@Simplepieman
By William MortonPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:11 GMT
The whole point is that if the software was as they cry "anonymous" then why do it behind our backs. BT have admitted that they allowed what they agreed at the time to be malware to profile, "diety of your choice" knows what and where the profiled data went afterwards.
Why are the goverment sitting on their thumbs on this? This is a clear case of an illegal wiretap and needs a criminal investigation.
Now the House of Lords is asking questions
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:19 GMT
search the page for the Earl of Northesk. He has asked the government to clarify what they are doing about Phorm.
Good on him!!
@Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse
By SimplepiemanPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:21 GMT
1.) The BBC hate us. They think the IT community and El Reg are a bunch of fist-thumping alarmist conspiracists and have been ignoring our pleas for weeks and the first story they put up about Phorm was a "good news - Phorm are great"
2.) See point 1.)
HOWEVER... Word on the grapevine is that a mainstream TV channel will cover a Phorm-related topic this week.
Call the Police
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:21 GMT
Seriously.
How does one go about it? No use calling the local plod.
It's clear to me and others the law has been broken.
<no title>
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:27 GMT
Just let me know when they've all been banged up in gaol.
Just had a look
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:30 GMT
at BT's T&C's and point 22 is quite amusing:
Using the service
You must not use the service or allow the service to be used:
in any way which breaks any law or the conditions of any licence or rights of others.
So by the terms and conditions I cannot allow the service to be used in any way which breaks the law?
If they were genuine....
By Daniel GouldPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:32 GMT
BT could have just added a proxy service for all their customers to ensure they didn't hit unwanted pages. They could have applied this to any traffic from a customer's IP address, allowing the customer to specify if they wanted filtering, paying a fee to cover the service.
But, no, BT have decided to ally themselves with Phorm to generate revenue by underhand methods, perhaps thinking that their customers wouldn't willingly pay for the filtering service in the first place. Well, BT, if you had actually consulted your customers, I think you would find that most customers with children would happily pay a small monthly fee to filter their connection to ensure their children were safe on the internet, giving you the revenue strem that you seek.
I for one will be ensuring that I stick with an ISP that doesn't employ this technology.
All your NDA are belong to Phorm
By b shubinPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:33 GMT
in a world of ambiguity, this is a rare situation: the problem is very obvious, and very simple.
if you do ANY work-related activity at home, the confidentiality that is usually assumed in employer/employee communication is broken, if your or your employer's packets pass through Phorm's "service", no matter how briefly, retained or not. same applies to any communication confidential to you or any other parties (financial, medical, personal...).
whoever thought this was a great value-add (BT's CTO? i would take my business elsewhere on that basis ALONE), has ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING of how communications links are used. maybe BTCTO was hypnotized by the "shiny" (which makes him a dweeb, technically, as no true geek would fail to see the bright "biohazard" stickers covering every surface of this idea).
or maybe he's just stupid and/or greedy (seems rather likely, but i'm cynical, and have dealt with far too many C-level officers).
Glad I left
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:51 GMT
I am even more glad that I have just left BT internet now.
A thought......
By Peter StonePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:00 GMT
If I've understood the article correctly, then this time BT are going to make this new trial an open one. This SHOULD allow people to opt out of the trial.
So, if you know anyone who uses BT as their ISP, then point them to the artices on Phorm here & elsewhere & suggest that they say no thanks if they're made part of the trial.
10,000 users saying no should drive the point home. :)
The Spirit of L. Ron Hubbard Lives On
By RWPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:05 GMT
"We think it is unethical of the Register to ..."
Sounds like a scientologicalistical double-curve counterattack to me. Accuse your accusors of precisely what they are accusing you of.
Are there any known links between Phorm and Scientology, "the most ethical organization on earth" (except when their moles are stealing government records)???
As for violating RIPA, seems to me that the executive officers and directors of both Phorm and BT need to do some serious jail time. Nothing else will draw their attention to the criminality of their actions. Something like having to hit a mule with a 2x4 to get its attention.
A hefty fine in the tens of millions (pick your currency) would add a certain piquancy to the proceedings.
Note: not criminal conviction of the corporations, but of those controlling them. Big diff.
Why is there no L. Ron Hubbard icon? I had to use someone else with a fake halo as a substitute. (That is Ballmer, no?)
Computer Misuse Act as well?
By JonBPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:07 GMT
From the article:-
"The early iteration inserted JavaScript ..."
So they inserted program code into a computer system without authorisation and which would be executed without the users (or owners) knowledge?
That would be a virus - if I did it to either BT or Phorm you can bet it would be considered a section 3 breach - and I think that can carry up to 2 years.
It would take a braver man than I to talk to the pigs though, assuming you made it through without either a beating or a court appearance they wouldn't understand anyway.
@Cris Page - badphorm.co.uk
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:08 GMT
Good heavens! I just tried to have a look at the link Cris posted to http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
However, I'm using the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service, which tells me: "The page or file you have requested has content which is not allowed according to MoD Security Policy...
Served By: [redacted].igs.r.mil.uk/10
Request: GET http://www.badphorm.co.uk/ HTTP/1.0
01/Apr/2008:17:03:01 +0100 "
Furthermore it says: "Delivering DFTS - DE&S and [wait for it....] BT".
re: .mil.uk
By Alexander HanffPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:42 GMT
Maybe .mil.uk have blocked anything with the word "Phorm" in it to prevent all their secret web browsing habits being profiled by Phorm?
Data dumps
By AndyPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:48 GMT
I am on VM and I am now running tcpdump and wireshark and dumping all packets to file now. If anyone is going to the plod about this then you will need hard evidence, or at least something that looks like it. Perhaps a letter from bt stating that you were part of a trial (that didn't happen, at least not until they got found out) then you have a case.
As for Vm, I am looking at other ISP's. If my money isn't enough for them (£18 for 2MB, the M package) then it's time to go elsewhere. O2 look good, I have an O2 PAYG phone so £5 off for me. Only £7.50 for up to 8MB, unlimited usage (fair usage policy). Even the 20MB is only £15, cheaper than what I'm paying now. I am just trying to find out if they are going to use Phorm or anything similar.
Perhaps the only way to get something done about Phorm is to get big business behind the movement. I am sure there are plenty of business's out there who have people working form home, most if not all should be using encryption of some sort, but if some of the data is not encrypted then there could be commercially sensitive data being sniffed by Phorm.
Bones, 'cos that is what should be happening to Phorm. Can't we get a gun or bomb symbol on here? Cos that is what Phorm needs.
"a revolution in online piracy"
By PiersPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:00 GMT
is how I first read "a revolution in online privacy", which is MUCH more accurate. Oh, I've now started to hesitate to recommend any of the Phorm associated ISPs when friends ask my advice about changeing their broadband connection from <some crap service>.
An Alternative Viewpoint
By JulianPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:05 GMT
I just listened to Kent on Radio 4. He was very persuasive that the proposed technology is benign and protects, rather than invades, privacy.
But whilst I was not really convinced, if this is true, I wondered what else the technology could be used for in the future and how we might feel about that use.
And my conclusion is that I still have very serious privacy concerns, and that it is a quantum leap to move forward the 'Big Brother' scenario which most of us seriously deprecate.
However, since the Phorm technology has already been developed, even if it is not adopted now, it will rise again in perhaps a way that we really don't like. In fact I think that this is almost inevitable.
One more step towards the life style portrayed by Ray Brdabury in the 1950's science fiction novel 'Fahrenheit 451'
I have the feeling that a door has been opened that can never be closed again.
@Andy
By DavePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:16 GMT
IIRC O2 is the trading name of what used to be called BT Cellnet.
Choose with care
Good to see Phorm back in the headlines...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:31 GMT
.... even though we really need to see the mainstream media pick up on this:
The Sun: BT pimps your data for cash!
Hopefully that will happen soon!
Phorm and BT are now in my mind crooks, the way BT present this as a service that you should bloody well be glad they are providing for *FREE* makes me sick. Check out the page:
http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/index.html
"BT Webwise is completely free — and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work."
They've gone a step too far this time, if it's not stopped in its tracks how many more ISPs will jump on the band wagon? As it is I can see this being an ongoing fight as other systems become available which probably have 'even better technology and privacy' - I think this is going to be an long-term war between technical facts and marketting bullshit.
It's my lunch time now ...
By StillNoCouchPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:34 GMT
... so I have a few minutes.
I've been following this closely since it's beginning.
I've read the comments posted before me on this as well as the other articles in this series.
I'm still curious:
A) If all the ISP's have to do is change the terms of their EULA, why don't they just do it ? To hell with whether or not it's right or wrong ? After all, many of us are stuck with pretty much only one ISP to choose from (discounting/not-counting Dial-up).
B) Apprarently, PHORM's stock isn't much of anything here (where I am) so I'd love to see a link to a semi-real-time stock ticker. Suggestions from commentors appreciated.
C) These are relatively large companies, right ? I can understand a Mom-n-Pop shop being taken in by 121Media, but not large ISP's. WTF ?
Poor Phorm
By b166erPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:34 GMT
Virgin seem to have allied themselves to Google as of this morning, with their joint proposal to provide Mars based habitats ;~)
I hope BT get massive PR fallout from this, maybe they will then have to DO SOME FUCKING WORK for a change (FTTH) and LLU might also get a shot in the arm.
This amused me
By Bob StarlingPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:35 GMT
Phoned BT Broadband support to complain about possible interception of my web browsing by Phorm. They didn't have a clue what I was talking about and they suggested that I call BT's internet abuse support team.
Some unintentional honesty there?
I presume....
By J.ButlerPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:36 GMT
.. the information commisioner will be bringing a prosection against BT for breaking privacy laws ?
Well done El Reg
By WaldoPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:41 GMT
I am pleased and impressed by your coverage and continued persistence in revealing the gory details of this saga
I trust the story is well affiliated to other members of the press and media.
B.T. need to be brought to Earth on this little breach of trust.
Excellent journalism boys
This is so disgusting
By BobbyPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:00 GMT
Omg the shit's hit the fan now...
I mailed this to my mp this morning and just had a reply saying he's forwarded it to the minister;;;;
The Phorm Webwise terms should consider the following;
It must be one time ‘opt in’ option and not include a drive by install of anything that alters the users computer or internet browser settings.
Users must be warned that their own browser settings include a perfectly adequate phishing filter by default and that adding a 3rd party phishing filter of dubious origin should be very carefully considered.
Targeted advertising is an unfair practice and ‘opt in’ users must be given a more random freedom of choice. If I search and purchase an object in the course of an hour or so then I do not want to be bombarded with useless adverts for the same product day after day as this would immediately become a nuisance. If one accidently clicks on an ad and finds it repugnant then one should not be subjected to bombardment of similar repugnant ads day after day. Also users should be subsidised for the wasted bandwidth this costs them.
Users must be made aware that Phorm Webwise hide behind invisible 3rd party proxy servers and that their private internet data is being sent to undisclosed locations throughout the world.
Finally, users must be warned that Phorm were recently called 121media with roots in adware, spyware, trojans and rootkits before being asked to ‘opt in’ to this service. The Federal Trades Commission (FTC) have been investigating 121media since 2005.
RE: Did I read this right
By systemPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:03 GMT
There's still plenty of evidence of what they did lying around the net. Search for "sysip.net 2006"
They also carried out a trial in 2007 using the same domain name.
For some reason I find it hard to imagine that they will be held legally accountable for either trial though. Maybe I'm just cynical.
wtf! Srsly!
By tomPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:36 GMT
Please clarify. This *isn't* an April Fools joke?
No icon, because I don't know whether to laugh or... well laugh, but ironically.
@dave @andy
By Ivan HeadachePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:42 GMT
O2 is wholly owned by Telefonica of Spain. They acquired it from BT in January 2006.
I'm sure there must be more than 1 person here who is a BT shareholder. Wouldn't it be a good idea to bring this whole illegal caper to wider attention at the next AGM?
sysip.net injection in forum post
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:08 GMT
Interesting - nice to see that forums can be used as evidence - time stamped and all
< =text/>var PSpc="I.287303.1",PSsize="none"; I don't know, Sooz, seems to be happening on all my posts. Do you think I should see a doctor? Would you hold my hand, I'm a bit scared.
Tech bods on the forum, any ideas? Bit of a Luddite on computer stuff < src="http://ntp.sysip.net/tag/2.js" =text/> "
@!#* Phorm
By James O'BrienPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:42 GMT
"We think it is unethical of the Register to seek to undermine a technology that enhances online privacy - Phorm's system ensures that ads are served with no data storage - something that will benefit readers of the Register and other websites.
In the interests of balance, we would like the Register to reflect the improved privacy environment Phorm provides over the other major online ad targeting companies detailed in the attached table."
Ok first I want to say that I love in the States sadly. (still looking for a new mommy and daddy for moving to UK) I have been keeping up on this Phorm, BT and Virgin thing but havent commented until now since it doesnt affect me. The way Im reading it is that they will benefit "ME" as a regular reader of TheReg by serving "ME" ads? Not going to read through over 100+ comments but I want to be the first from my side of the pond to say this:
FUCK YOU PHORM THE DAY I GET ADS FROM YOU, BEING IN THE STATES I WILL SUE!!!
Sorry about the anger expressed its been a long last couple days.
/We have a thumbs up and thumbs down icon where is the international sign for "Your #1 with me"??
this bird chosen since its the closest thing to a bird I can put up
Oh dear Phorm
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:45 GMT
Who said there was no such thing as bad press. :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm
You deserve to be hung drawn an quartered BT. Also the fact that Phorm, this honest and totally "private with your data organisation" was involved in this sneaky interception shows everybody the weasels they are.
Least said about BT the better!
Of course BT could claim that their CTO at the time Scleparis was the culprit but he no longer works there. - Over to you Phorm, perhaps your CTO could explain? Oh they are one and the same !!!!
PHORM & BT
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 21:03 GMT
Within BT all is not well senior experts have warned that PHORM is untested and a very high risk undertaking. Those asked are qualified IT professionals - Their concerns have been ignored probably because of the pound signs flashing before the board members eyes and those greedy little senior managers, who unfortunately are not qualified to decide what PHORM realy is and does. There are already a number of exploits which can be used to caused a little mayhem. The other problem is that with browsers being asked to re-submit the page request as the first is intercepted for profiling. This will cause an extra overhead in bandwidth which will possibly result in reduction of users download allowances, this will result in theft of your available bandwidth, an artificial way of reducing your downloads. Tie this in with DRM (digital rights management) and eventually users will be prevented from doing certain types of downloads.
Solution write to BT chairman Michael Rake with a complaint asking for information and details. Until thousands complain in this way BT and the other iSPs will ride rough shod over their users.
deal of the millenium
By SlainePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 21:18 GMT
for sale, guaranteed safe and secure habitat of excellent quality based on a gorgeous little beachfront on Mars. (next door to amanfrom....)
Disclaimer: the property is only available for as long as you are prepared NOT to try and visit it.
Spin, spin, spin...
By Paul StimpsonPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:04 GMT
"The current version, being promoted to BT, Virgin Media, and Carphone Warehouse customers as "Webwise", does not use JavaScript in this way. BT's report identified that it makes consumers more likely to be aware that they are being profiled as they browse."
Why would it be a problem that users could detect that they were being profiled if Phorm is an opt-in system? They agreed to it; They already know. It would however make it simple to stop the system from working by disabling JavaScript.
"121Media [Phorm] will take action (both technical and public relations) to avoid any perception that their system is a virus, malware or spyware and to show that in effect it is a positive web development,"
'In effect'... That does tend to imply that isn't the purpose of it.
"BT also refused to reveal where in the national broadband network the thousands of guinea pigs were sourced from."
No **** they wouldn't! In order for someone to bring a criminal complaint someone has to be able to prove they have been the victim of a crime and when that crime occurred. BT and Phorm are relying on people not being able to bring complaints because they can't prove they were victims. The last thing they'll do is hand 28,000 (assuming the 2006 and 2007 victims were different people and every account was only one victim) the bullet to shoot them in the a*** with.
"...owing to the legal position, direct cookie dropping could not be trialed and should be verified once the legal position is clearer." = We know what we're doing is dodgy and could land us in a world of trouble.
Watkin wrote:"Targeted online advertising services should be provided with the explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions." = We don't give a flying **** about the privacy of the public. Just send out a 4 page update to your Ts&Cs (which most ordinary people can't/don't have the time to read and understand), hide it in there and we won't touch you. In fact we may even want to buy the data in future to help us identify terrorists/kiddie fiddlers or anyone else that we may decide is undesirable or might stop us getting re-elected.
"We think it is unethical of the Register..."
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." –Mahatma Gandhi. Looks like El Reg is progressing nicely down that path then,
Once again, wow
By bwsPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:35 GMT
After reading through all of the posts several times (as of 19:45 EST), I have several questions:
1) Websites that are hosted in BT address space, through direct or second parties, are they automatically required to submit to Phorm "inspection" of their content?
2) Since most EULA (thank you for that acronym MS (bastards!)) contain intentionally misleading information that the owner of the "property" has the "right to change the terms and conditions, at any time, with out warning or notification" of the users; since BT didn't warn the 18,000 test subjects, wouldn't that make both companies, whom I will refer to as 'the defendants" guilty of illegal interception of private data?
3) .mil.* sites and any company that does business with the Royal Forces should be exempted from digestion of Phorm systems, simply because when they're hacked (which if Google, Yahoo, eBay, and countless big content providers can, it's not a matter of IF but WHEN), wouldn't it be quite plausible that any adversarial government or military (rhymes with shina) could build queries that would possibly link unclassified components to potentially classified and higher modules or platforms?
4) Based upon the rather harsh reaction of Phorm and the mechanical response of BT, either Phorm is scared shitless and using the infamous "go on the attack when attacked" strategy and BT's plan is ignorance to the law until they can bribe an official to get an exemption, OR they actually have a snowflake's chance in hell of stalling this until it's just unprofitable enough to be not worth the hassle.
5) Has anybody attempted about writing letters to major shareholders of each company, kindly informing them that their ISP customer base is abandoning them, and there's a really good chance that any of the advertisers who make use of Phorm, will be promptly ignored or boycotted?
6) For those of us in the states, I'm probably wasting efforts but based on the fallout of this genius plan and awesome pr, I'm already drafting letters to my members of congress, providing they haven't been paid off by a telcom, ISP or web content provider... Yeah, I know I tried to keep from laughing, too. But what the hell, it's mankind's last stand against the complete usurping of individual rights and privacies over making for a .5% return on corporate investments.
7) If all else fails, it's back to analog for me, baby.
Re: PHORM & BT
By QuirkafleegPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:51 GMT
“The other problem is that with browsers being asked to re-submit the page request as the first is intercepted for profiling.”
Packet sniffing will be sufficient for that; no need to cause a re-request. At least, not a repeat HTTP request.
I find it reasonable (for Phish's purposes, which I don't find reasonable) if the propagation of the intercepted packets from the web server is delayed "a little" to allow for analysis of the page content. (That might cause re-requests, i.e. sending of duplicate packets, something which is normal in TCP/IP communication in the absence of a sufficiently timely response.)
Think of the eyes in the icon as those of Big Brother Pharm. Privacy is exposure.
Government Contracts?
By Anonymous CowardPosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:51 GMT
Any government depts us BT as as internet provider?
Can't see it going down too well if parts of the government involved in "covert" ops find that their browsing has been profiled by Phorm.
Lying by Omission is Admission of Guilt
By Anonymous from MarsPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 00:19 GMT
Lying by Omission is Admission of Guilt. If Phorm had just answered The Register's question with a one word answer, "No," then there wouldn't be any flak.
Instead, they got defensive, and proved themselves guilty.
A solution to the problems!
By Adam FoxtonPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 00:56 GMT
Phorm could surely solve all these woes by forwarding on the increased ad revenue to us- the customers- in the form of cash or money into Paypal accounts or suchlike (so your actual details are obfuscated from them)
But as they'll not do that...
Couldn't we just all share a single UID cookie?- share a common one out via torrents, rapidshare, wherever. You'd be a small % of a large pool of "unidentifiable" data and since there was one there, you'd never download a new one. And if you did, it'd be clear that they were trying to personally identify you.
Or they could just sell off this hackproof database technology they seem to be claiming to have.
What's that in the icon? Oh, my! It's Phorm looking through my wallet :P
Keeping track of Phorm participants
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 01:21 GMT
Hi. I run Phormwatch: http://phormwatch.blogspot.com/
I'm trying to keep an eye on Phorm participants, including ISPs, PR agencies, and participating websites and ad-agencies. So far, here is my list:
List of participating ISPs
* BT Internet, * TalkTalk, * Virgin Media
List of participating PR companies
* Citigate Dewe Rogerson, * Freud Communications, * John Stonborough, * Manning Gottlieb OMD
List of participating websites and advertising agencies
* Financial Times, * Guardian Unlimited - No Longer Participating!, * iVillage, * MySpace - No Longer Participating!, * The Telegraph, * The Times (UK Newspaper), * Unanimis, * Universal McCann
If you have any information to add, please email me at: phormwatch at fastmail dot net
Bring it on...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 02:24 GMT
I love malware, oops, I mean 'direct marketing opportunities'. Send me more crap, I just love being spoiled for choice.
Do you need my inside leg measurement as well?
re: Dear HMG Home Office
By Frumious BandersnatchPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 03:09 GMT
I think your plotline has a definite ring to it... ah, yes, ... <a href="http://www.bignothing.co.uk/">Big Nothing</a>.
dec
parasamgate
@Aristotles slow
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 03:54 GMT
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horsePosted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:41 GMT "
My recent letter from VM clearly states they are currently progressing with an "opt-out" policy and that they will be as transparent "as possible" with their customers regarding this solution.
Can we or the Reg come up with a list of non-Phorm broadband suppliers so when we all need to jump ship, we already have decent info to hand?"
heres the thing though, given there are millions on the VM cable that cant easly get a BT line even if they wanted too, is it time to force Virgin Media to open its cable to better providers ?
VM and c&w/ntl/tw befor them have been very good at making bad choices ,but npt picking the obvious stuff, avc for the stb, giving users far better upload rates that any adsl can manage on all the cable packages,.
hell they dont even allow you to rent more thant one single cable modem per account, but you can have 3 stb's without a problem.... but you cant use their internel cable modem's even though the stb's plug into the exact same ubr's,their powered and ready to use.
you might think vm cant run these internal CM's, you would be wrong, the exC&W baguley(hub for the NW) usera use these samsung and older stb's internal modems TODAY, mad VM managers ...
so, it's clear we need to alow 3rd partys on the vm cable unrestricted and un phorm style profiled in any way shape or form, the old AOL did contract for an en user cable rebadge so that proves it could be done, how can thereg and the users get a Be* cable of the future in the UK....!
Well done El Reg et al
By RobbiePosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 04:23 GMT
This is the thin edge of the wedge and if BT (and other ISPs) get away with this, who knows where it will end.
Sadly I'm a BT customer, so as soon as BT change the T&Cs I'm off to another ISP.
Breach of R.I.P.A.
By Leslie BushPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 06:52 GMT
If it is proposed that users have to 'opt in' (by displaying an opt in page), then surely it is necessary to intercept the first call in order to display that opt in page? If that is so, then the technology automatically breaches the Act by unlawfully intercepting traffic.
VM Take note
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:08 GMT
BT are too far embroiled to get any good out of this. But here is an idea.
Virgin Media why don't you state your not going to continue with this half baked idea.
Tell the public the truth that your not happy with the intrusive 'none privacy' aspect of the system.
Tell everybody that Phorm hoodwinked you.
Pick up loads of BT dissatisfied customers.
Become a hero!
Increase your profits respectfully.
Now that's marketing!
Change the law - :-)
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:26 GMT
Dear BT,
"I think I have committed a crime. Its very serious and everybody's up in arms about it."
BT: "Don't worry all you have to do is change the T&C's of the law. That should make it OK again".
"But its really serious.... it could be murder"
BT:"Don't worry, all you have to do is change the T&C's and everything will be OK again. We do it all the time".
"Cheers, I was worried for a second there".
BBC follows El Reg
By Sceptical BastardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:34 GMT
Nice to note that the Beeb is running the story today in its RSS top news stories under the headline " BT advert trials were illegal"
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm
At this rate, the dreadful PR and (and its consequences for Phorm's share price and capitalisation) will render K(u)nt's business unviable.
Congratulations to El Reg for the lead it has taken on this issue.
i wonder
By Peter WhitePosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:52 GMT
i wonder if the reason VM etc can't just dump this technology is the contract they have signed with phorm.
this is not a defense of BT,VM ot TT, (i am totally against phorm) but VM my not be in a situation where it can get out of it without some phorm (sorry just had to do it) of compensation or pay off to phorm to break the contract, unless they can prove poor opt in (up take of the service), there must be a get out clause but it may be they are working towards it but can't say so publically
looking at history 121 media tried a similar product, its share price hit the floor and went back to the drawing board, rebranded to phorm and webwise was built
what gets me is why people are buying shares in a company that made a 10,000,000$ loss last year, which amounted to about 10% of turnover, and a 4,000,000$ loss the year before
i would be curious to see who dumped shares as the sh1t hit the fan and the share price started to fall, could anyone at phorm or bt etc have insider trading added to the list of charges
this just reminds me of the monty python parrot sketch, with bt complaining to phorm the product is dead and phorm saying "its not dead , just tired and shagged out after doing a big pile of sh1te" then at the end phorm offering bt another dead duck
Distorting the truth
By Wayland SothcottPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 08:11 GMT
When you view a web page, the web server sends you the data it wants you to see. 18,000 people viewed web pages that had been distorted by Javascript secretly inserted by BT Phrom.
Secretly intercepting and altering communications, changing the message, as it passes from sender to reciever is not exactly novel or difficult. Quite easy for the carriers of the data since it's sent unencypted.
The fact is we *trust* the data carriers not to peek at the data and not to alter it.
In the case of BT, the biggest carrier of data, THAT TRUST HAS GONE!!
The only way a website can be sure that their page arrives at their customers computer without been peeked at or altered is to encrypt it. HTTPS for all websites.
I love it
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 08:28 GMT
Comments on: BT and Phorm secretly tracked 18,000 customers in 2006
Signed Numbers
By Dave Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:27 GMT
April Fools....
By Matthew Hepburn Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:31 GMT
now that's
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:32 GMT
Revolving doors. Need a revolver.
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:36 GMT
It's quite simple...
By James Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:39 GMT
Surely...
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:41 GMT
Page 1 section 1
By 3x2 Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:41 GMT
Pots and kettles
By Sceptical Bastard Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:42 GMT
So - if it's not legal .... we'll just change the Law!
By James Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:45 GMT
Phorm Free ISP's
By Cris Page Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:52 GMT
Wow, no really WOW
By Alexander Hanff Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:52 GMT
Did I read this right?
By Man Outraged Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:54 GMT
As usual...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:56 GMT
Erm...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:56 GMT
I wish this were an April Fools joke...
By Jonathan Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 11:59 GMT
What is the implication on commercial confidentiality?
By Fluffykins Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:01 GMT
Kent
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:04 GMT
Self Undermining
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:06 GMT
not being a legal bod...
By Damian Gabriel Moran Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
FAO: Phorm Team
By Mr Jolly Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
Just a thought
By Daniel Wilkie Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
Shocked and Appalled
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:13 GMT
Guess what Mr Ertegrul...
By Stefan Paetow Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:15 GMT
BT Broadband Contract
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:16 GMT
time to make a stand
By James McLean Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:17 GMT
It Gets Better
By Captain Jamie Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:17 GMT
El Reg, don't let them off the hook
By Chris Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:19 GMT
A bit ot persistence is required
By Chris W Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:21 GMT
Phorm site
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:24 GMT
Phorm arrogance.
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:24 GMT
re: Damian Gabriel Moran
By Alexander Hanff Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:25 GMT
@Various
By Graham Wood Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:25 GMT
BT Group publishes a code of ethics.
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:26 GMT
re: A bit ot [sic] persistence is required
By Alexander Hanff Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:33 GMT
Oh dear God...
By Ash Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:35 GMT
The cracks are appearing...
By Midnight_Voice Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:37 GMT
Is it just the end users that can sue?
By Grant Mitchell Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:38 GMT
And on that bombshell..Phormgate
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:43 GMT
The only Trials BT should be involved with...
By Alexander Hanff Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:45 GMT
@ Alexander Hanff
By Inspector_Morse Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:45 GMT
Unethical?
By 3x2 Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:46 GMT
Dear HMG Home Office
By Jimbo Gunn Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:57 GMT
opt in security broken
By Peter White Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:59 GMT
central resources needed
By Peter White Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:01 GMT
@Alexander Hanff
By Gianni Straniero Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:01 GMT
Why didn't they come up with an excuse?
By Dave Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:02 GMT
The powerpoint slide contains lies
By Hayden Clark Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:05 GMT
Are the BT Board Asleep on the Job?
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:06 GMT
One of the 18,000
By Alex Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:06 GMT
Isn't this like
By Ian Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:07 GMT
Crimestoppers
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:15 GMT
Urgh...
By Alex Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:16 GMT
@ Alex
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:29 GMT
I see the darkness coming
By Spleen Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:33 GMT
Way to go El Reg, keep up the good coverage!
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:41 GMT
BT - Spying to bring people together
By Carlton Cannon Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:47 GMT
lies, damn lies and then there is PR
By Peter White Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:50 GMT
opt in security broken
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:54 GMT
@Alex
By DM Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 13:54 GMT
Thanks
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:01 GMT
Un berrrrrrr lievable !!!
By Frederick Karno Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:05 GMT
Phorm's Advertisers
By Andrew Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:11 GMT
Would anyone else...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:12 GMT
@Central Resources Needed
By Secretgeek Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:16 GMT
BT should email all the effected users
By William Morton Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:17 GMT
Surely
By Trevor Watt Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:18 GMT
I like phorm's comments.
By alistair millington Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:19 GMT
Phorm - when the truth is stranger than fiction
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:19 GMT
the expigated version
By Slaine Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:24 GMT
oops
By Slaine Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:26 GMT
Come on El Reg
By Andy ORourke Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:36 GMT
@William Morton
By Simplepieman Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:48 GMT
I Love Dissembling - Not
By Julian Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:54 GMT
Interesting...
By Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 14:56 GMT
Harming UK plc (Re: Unethical?)
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:06 GMT
@Simplepieman
By William Morton Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:11 GMT
Now the House of Lords is asking questions
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:19 GMT
@Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse
By Simplepieman Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:21 GMT
Call the Police
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:21 GMT
<no title>
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:27 GMT
Just had a look
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:30 GMT
If they were genuine....
By Daniel Gould Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:32 GMT
All your NDA are belong to Phorm
By b shubin Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:33 GMT
Glad I left
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 15:51 GMT
A thought......
By Peter Stone Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:00 GMT
The Spirit of L. Ron Hubbard Lives On
By RW Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:05 GMT
Computer Misuse Act as well?
By JonB Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:07 GMT
@Cris Page - badphorm.co.uk
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:08 GMT
re: .mil.uk
By Alexander Hanff Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:42 GMT
Data dumps
By Andy Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 16:48 GMT
"a revolution in online piracy"
By Piers Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:00 GMT
An Alternative Viewpoint
By Julian Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:05 GMT
@Andy
By Dave Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:16 GMT
Good to see Phorm back in the headlines...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:31 GMT
It's my lunch time now ...
By StillNoCouch Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:34 GMT
Poor Phorm
By b166er Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:34 GMT
This amused me
By Bob Starling Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:35 GMT
I presume....
By J.Butler Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:36 GMT
Well done El Reg
By Waldo Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 17:41 GMT
This is so disgusting
By Bobby Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:00 GMT
RE: Did I read this right
By system Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:03 GMT
wtf! Srsly!
By tom Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:36 GMT
@dave @andy
By Ivan Headache Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 18:42 GMT
sysip.net injection in forum post
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:08 GMT
@!#* Phorm
By James O'Brien Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:42 GMT
Oh dear Phorm
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 20:45 GMT
PHORM & BT
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 21:03 GMT
deal of the millenium
By Slaine Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 21:18 GMT
Spin, spin, spin...
By Paul Stimpson Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:04 GMT
Once again, wow
By bws Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:35 GMT
Re: PHORM & BT
By Quirkafleeg Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:51 GMT
Government Contracts?
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 1st April 2008 23:51 GMT
Lying by Omission is Admission of Guilt
By Anonymous from Mars Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 00:19 GMT
A solution to the problems!
By Adam Foxton Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 00:56 GMT
Keeping track of Phorm participants
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 01:21 GMT
Bring it on...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 02:24 GMT
re: Dear HMG Home Office
By Frumious Bandersnatch Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 03:09 GMT
@Aristotles slow
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 03:54 GMT
Well done El Reg et al
By Robbie Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 04:23 GMT
Breach of R.I.P.A.
By Leslie Bush Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 06:52 GMT
VM Take note
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:08 GMT
Change the law - :-)
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:26 GMT
BBC follows El Reg
By Sceptical Bastard Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:34 GMT
i wonder
By Peter White Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 07:52 GMT
Distorting the truth
By Wayland Sothcott Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 08:11 GMT
I love it
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 2nd April 2008 08:28 GMT