Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Phorm Talk |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| Can someone explain what is going on here? | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| PI |
| ||
 Registered Member #635 Joined: Mon Apr 06 2009, 11:42PMPosts: 10 | Oh, and expect to see a statement about the same time from PI as well. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| felixcatuk |
| ||
felixcatuk   Registered Member #95 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AMPosts: 1656 | >risk of subversion by commercial interests If you're looking for subversion, look in the mirror Simon. And before you label people who have been campaigning against the illegal use of DPI for the last 12 months 'newcomers' it would be wise to make sure your account is perhaps 24 hours old. That way you might avoid being called the newest of the newcomers to this campaign. PI Registered Member #635 Joined: Tue Apr 07[ image disabled ] BT/Virgin/TalkTalk customers - you don't need Webwise and Phorm, pure and simple. Regulators will not protect you from Phorm. Protect your privacy. Protect your web content. Phorm must be stopped. www.Dephormation.org.uk: Free Anti-Phorm Countermeasures for Firefox Users and Web Sites 21,000 people signed the No. 10 Downing Street Petition Ready to leave BT? Call 0800 800 030 / 0800 328 6738, get your MAC code PhormUKPRTeam/PhormUKTechTeam is a PR consultant from Citigate Dewe Rogerson. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Jim Murray |
| ||
  Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Feb 21 2008, 08:29PMPosts: 309 | I sent this privately last night to one of your key people for comment but have heard nothing back, so I will post here. Two weeks ago a trusted industry colleague mentioned in passing that he had been told by one of Phorm's competitors that Privacy International will soon "feel the heat" from the anti-Phorm lobby. Simon, I do not know who you sent this to but I do know it wasn't to me. If you or anyone else has any concerns whatsoever about anything involving BadPhorm or it's members please feel free to contact me and I will address the issue. I didn't give the comment any real attention at the time, but I certainly will do now. In the past week there has been a substantial surge in hostile emails to us, and even emails to our advisers and Trustees complaining that PI has not taken an aggressive position on Phorm. Almost nothing for six months, and now this. What I want to know is this: how is it that one of Phorm's commercial competitors knew in advance that this activity would take place? Let me put this on the public record right now. I will not tolerate anyone here sending abusive e-mail to anyone. If anyone here feels the need to critcise PI then make sure you do so politely and in a constructive way - they are not the enemy here, remember that. I will be equally clear on the subject of commercial affiliation - BadPhorm has nothing to do with ANY commercial entity and it will stay that way. If I find out that anyone here is using the anti-phorm campaign to further their own commercial ends then I will have absolutely no hesitation in banning them from this site and posting the information about their affiliation and conduct for all to see. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, something here smells rotten. If people here are talking with the enemy's competition (who are in the same business as Phorm) then there's a possibility by any standards in the real world that they are also taking money or advice from them or that they have some other vested interest. Please see above. I am not aware of any such conduct but if I become aware of it action will be taken to deal with it. I've been completely transparent about my relationship with Phorm. It has been a matter of public record and public debate. Now I have to ask just how open and transparent some of the oppoments have been. I have the highest regard for such as Alex Hanff and FIPR, who deserve enormous credit not only for their tireless work but also for their credibility. Now I want to know who these newcomers are. What of their motivation and their interests? I sense that the debate you have created is about to be - or has already been - hijacked by one of the oldest subterfuge tactics of all time. You need to be aware who is lobbying in your name. And if it sounds like I am angry, that's because I am angry. After the fiasco with Google over the past week I'm damned if I'm going to let Privacy International become the meat in the sandwich of commercial tactics by competitor companies in the online ad industry. While I personally think the whole 80/20 Thinking / PI saga could have been anticipated and would have been better avoided altogether I cannot honestly place any blame for it on you or PI. There was a misunderstanding which I strongly suspect was deliberately perpetuated by vested interests, you actions to rectify that misunderstanding were swift and welcome. I will get to the bottom of this but in the meantime you might all want to think very carefully about the implications of what has just happened. Unless you can give me a convincing explanation about what has taken place I will assume that this "battle" with Phorm has been moved by vested interests from a debate over lawfulness and morality to one of commercial advantage and competition. If you wish to contact me by e-mail with details of the individuals behind this recent upsurge in criticism I will be happy to cross-check them against the BadPhorm userbase and take action to safeguard the reputation of BadPhorm and the anti-Phorm campaign as necessary. I have absolutely no wish to see this descend into fight over commercial advantage and I thank you for bringing the risk of that happening to my attention. I have to say it is a situation I had not considered and one to which I will have to give some thought - expect a change to the BadPhorm Acceptable Use Policy in the near future to clarify the position of this site with regard to commercial affiliation. Thanks, Jim. BadPhorm Admin. [ Edited Tue Apr 07 2009, 07:42PM ] Admin/press enquiries : [email protected] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Midnight_Voice |
| ||
 Registered Member #180 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PMPosts: 503 | PI wrote ... Two weeks ago a trusted industry colleague mentioned in passing that he had been told by one of Phorm's competitors that Privacy International will soon "feel the heat" from the anti-Phorm lobby. I didn't give the comment any real attention at the time, but I certainly will do now. In the past week there has been a substantial surge in hostile emails to us, and even emails to our advisers and Trustees complaining that PI has not taken an aggressive position on Phorm. Almost nothing for six months, and now this. What I want to know is this: how is it that one of Phorm's commercial competitors knew in advance that this activity would take place? Unless I'm sorely mistaken, something here smells rotten. If people here are talking with the enemy's competition (who are in the same business as Phorm) then there's a possibility by any standards in the real world that they are also taking money or advice from them or that they have some other vested interest. I've been completely transparent about my relationship with Phorm. It has been a matter of public record and public debate. Now I have to ask just how open and transparent some of the oppoments have been. Simon Davies Director Privacy International (Original posting snipped, but hopefully not distorted) Hi Simon While I haven't emailed you or your trustees, I have certainly made a comment you might regard as hostile in the comments on the Guardian piece, and after being, like everyone else you mention, silent about PI and 80/20 for about six months. I'm not affiliated with anyone, don't work for anyone, and I'm entirely my own man; and I have no financial interest in either seeing Phorm succeed or seeing it fail. But I do have a strong personal interest in seeing it fail, because of the affront to my privacy that I believe it represents. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that for 80/20 to engage with Phorm utterly compromised both 80/20, and more importantly PI, back then. And I said as much. And I think it still compromises you now. Suppose Google offered me some money (they haven't!) just to keep taking the stance I'm taking on Phorm? I'd be compromised, even if I declared it, even if it did not alter my position one iota. People would naturally wonder if that was really the case. That's what's I think happened with PI and 80/20. But I said my piece back then, and haven't mentioned it since; I've given PI and 80/20 every chance to redeem thamselves from what you perhaps now realise was something of a mistake. But the dog never barked; not until recently, and then at Google, and still not at Phorm. I think I may have called this straining at a gnat (albeit a fairly big gnat) and swallowing a camel. Personally, StreetView makes me a bit uneasy, and Google doing BT makes me uneasy also, so I'm with your strictures here, even though there seems to be a school of thought that it's perhaps OK compared with DPI. But whether Google is bad or not, I'm with most people here in thinking Phorm is far worse, because of the way it burrows into the ISP's infrastructure. So we regard it as odd, to say the least, that PI pronounces on Google, and yet not on Phorm. Accordingly, I'm not surprised that you have heard from people on this topic, though I am sorry they have not all been able to be civil. And nor am I surprised that someone in the industry might have anticipated this, and told you it might happen. I'm perhaps more surprised that you didn't see it for yourself; but then perhaps we are all innocents abroad in a cut-throat commercial world. But your vocality about Google, and your silence about Phorm, caused me to mention you once more after this long silence; though my focus here was not Google vs Phorm, but their comments about your involvement with Microsoft. As you may have seen from my comment, I was largely expressing my incredulity that PI and/or 80/20 could have engaged with Microsoft - on work which seemed to me to be entirely legitimate and proper, let me say - and never got reimbursed for any of it. But as you assured us it was true, I believe you. I guess it's just a great pity, with hindsight, that you could not have engaged with Phorm on the same basis, and thus been perceived as being able to comment on Phorm subsequently in a way that was entirely free of commercial bias. Or indeed, to comment on them at all. I'm a nonconPhormist; I won't be conned by Phorm | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| warescouse |
| ||
 Registered Member #452 Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 02:16PMPosts: 11 | felixcatuk wrote ... Much as I admire the work PI and Simon has done in the past I cannot disagree with your request to look in the mirror.>risk of subversion by commercial interests If you're looking for subversion, look in the mirror Simon. And before you label people who have been campaigning against the illegal use of DPI for the last 12 months 'newcomers' it would be wise to make sure your account is perhaps 24 hours old. That way you might avoid being called the newest of the newcomers to this campaign. PI Registered Member #635 Joined: Tue Apr 07My hope is that 80/20 will get away from Phorm as far as possible and that time will be forgiving for them. IMHO while there is continued silence, there will be suspicion and while linkage remains the suspicion will continue. I want to see PI be able to attack CCTV, Google and Phorm etc on an EQUAL footing when necessary. Investigations and dialogue MUST be independent if they want to be perceived as fair, open and honest and of course transparent in the true meaning of the word. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| madslug |
| ||
  Registered Member #266 Joined: Tue Apr 01 2008, 12:11PMPosts: 686 | Simon, Perhaps your industry colleague read the article referred to at http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?10178.0#post_10186 At the beginning, the PR from Phorm had PI supporting Phorm's DPI processes until protesters got that changed to 80/20 doing the PIA which did not read as though any evaluation of the DPI / ISP system has been considered. There is a lot of PR floating about trying to discredit the protesters. It has been suggested that Google is behind funding us - which is a bit of a laugh considering that everyone I know who is protesting is doing so in place of working or in their free time. Not to mention that Google has had many years of privacy protests against it with warnings about how much data all the 'beta' scripts have been collecting. There are only a few protesters that I know nothing about, the rest I take on face value. Perhaps someone who posts here does work for another DPI or BTA company. Would that be a crime? BTA marketers are not competitors to Phorm. Somehow Phorm has convinced the industry that it is only a technology company that provides a BTA service rather than DPI equipment. I have not noticed anyone other than PR agencies posting on forums on behalf of Phorm. No one from the DPI / BTA industry which is a pity as direct engagement could have been constructive. As far as I am aware, the competitors to Phorm are Alcatel-Lucent with their KindSight package of which little has been heard in this country, and possibly Cisco and their joint venture with Feeva which seem to be involved in the USA market. On the outside would be the industry that ISPs sell their logging data to for site ranking purposes and demographics. I am also reminded that it was a 'competitor of Phorm' who leaked info on the contracts that Phorm signed with BT, TT and VM in February 2008. Without that leak, BT would have been running the DPI systems from March last year. If the 'competitor' hoped that they would be welcomed in place of Phorm I hope that idea has since been met with a reality check. Is it a coincidence that it is again a 'competitor' who is trying to pull your chain? Perhaps hoping that if Phorm get in then the doors will be opened for them too. Sorry, DPI is the issue here and it does not matter who is trying to sell it, the protest will be the same. It is time that PI said something about DPI - and it does not matter who is selling the DPI. DPI is doing snooping that invades privacy and steals copyright and commercially sensitive data. So far only FIPR and individuals have been voicing a concern and lobbying about this. Your note suggests that someone else with a more public profile has joined in the lobbying: it would be interesting to know who; perhaps they will identify themselves to the rest of the forum members. Proud to be a Phorm free ISP - www.mADSLax.co.uk - Griffin reseller | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| lardycake |
| ||
| Registered Member #141 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 06:17PMPosts: 86 | Just a quick point - the original post by "PI" talks about "hostile emails" and "complaining" emails NOT abusive email. To my mind there is a difference. Value your Privacy? BT Webwise and Phorm must be stopped. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Phormfree |
| ||
| Registered Member #633 Joined: Sun Apr 05 2009, 11:55AMPosts: 1 | Like the Rev, I have not been influenced for commercial reasons. For employment I do not operate in the IT or marketing sectors and I'm not planning an ISP startup with DPI system of my own. I emailed one trustee myself but I don't consider it was impolite and I'm not the weasel either. What you probably need to consider is that even now, 1 year on, more people know about the Phorm issue than ever before and they are all pretty amazed by the sheer lack of action to put an end to the idea of DPI for this BTA purpose. I do not know for a fact but some of the thousands of interested people are bound to question where is PI in this? It's good to hear from you publicly again after so long, even if the circumstances are not what you would want them to be and I for one will be very interested in what PI and/or 80/20 have to say about the future and the issues going forward. ((I'm Phormfree because I moved ISP)) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| revrob |
| ||
| Registered Member #372 Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:09PMPosts: 198 | The reason we have an expectation of comment from PI is because Simon Davies promised it once the PIA was in the public domain. http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34544568-post5691.html So - what about it? The PIA has been in the public domain for some months now. Are you going to do what YOU said? Nothing to do with competitors or smear campaigns, just holding to your own public declarations. [MOD EDIT linkage added] [ Edited Wed Apr 08 2009, 09:42AM ] revrob | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
 Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 646 | Simon, it wouldn't take a genius to predict that PI would be looked upon unfavourably due to it's links via yourself with Phorm. Maybe if you had done a risk assessment when you signed the Phorm deal that would have been apparent. What would be helpful is if you could bring to the open exactly what the PI position is. When you signed a contract with Phorm, did you agree not to speak about it with your PI hat on? Why is there no-one else at PI that can comment, what is censoring them within PI? As far as this campaign being infiltrated by rogue advertising teams, I haven't seen anything in the forums here or on NoDPI that would suggest that. If companies are lobbying against Phorm, I'd say they are doing so in their own capacity. I don't see the benefit they get from harassing your trustees however as you are still on the perifery of the anti-phorm debate. However if those in the position to stop Phorm won't listen to us, the public, then if Phorms competitors manage to get their ear and have Phorms DPI banned then I see that as a win. For the record I have no affiliation with any competitors, and like many others have sacrificed a good deal of time and money trying to stop this whole farce. http://www.DoNotTrustWebwise.org (Personal opinion and statement in this forum post is my copyright and may not be used nor reproduced elsewhere without my permission. To request permission send a personal message using the button below.) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System