Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Media Sightings |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| from the birmingham post | ||
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| compo |
| ||
 Registered Member #18 Joined: Mon Feb 25 2008, 06:31PMPosts: 39 | Website spying is just bad Phorm Mar 17 2008 By Chris Tomlinson Phorm - potentially unwanted adverts? I love this "To start with, no one’s going to trust a company called Phorm. It sounds like a mutant insect alien hybrid sent to suck out our brains and not the greatest piece of branding. Considering they recently re-branded from 121Media, a company known for distributing adware, they could have done a better job." and this is classic "Phorm is run by Kent Ertegrul, another name that doesn’t exactly instill you with confidence. He is described as a serial entrepreneur, not just a common or garden one! For those who don’t know the difference, the serial type is usually dodgier." [ Edited Thu Mar 20 2008, 11:25PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
 Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | Good article, I do wonder why they called them selves Phorm, the use of ph as f on the internet is now firmly assosciated with phishing. I guess Phorming will become a new term bandied about regarding how ISPs have themselves become spyware companies. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Paladine |
| ||
| Registered Member #181 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 10:48PMPosts: 50 | My email to the author: "Hi Chris, First I wanted to thank you for bringing this story to the people of Birmingham (and your internet readership of course), it is a vital issue of civil liberties that everyone should be made aware of. However, whereas the article was quite amusing and light reading (which is a good thing given the week we have had) it did fail to mention some critical points which your readership should know about. Firstly, given the situation with regards to Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and unlawful interception of communications, I feel it is of critical importance your readers should be aware of how Phorm stands with regards to RIPA. RIPA states very clearly that all parties in a communication must give their consent before interception of a communication is lawful. In the case of someone browsing the Internet, this would include the person doing the browsing and the organisation or individual (publisher) who's web site is being read. That said, this system could never be legal as current UK law stands and in fact would be a criminal offence. This leads us on to the serious implications this has for users who "Opt In" by accepting new Terms and Conditions. Since it would be a criminal offence to intercept the communication without the consent of the "publisher" if a customer was to initiate a communication with a website that has not given it's consent to the interception, they could be liable for criminal action as they may be classed as complicit for initiating a communication they know is going to be intercepted (illegally). Furthermore, it is in the interests of your readers to note that the government think tank for policy on privacy (Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR)) have stated in an Open Letter to the Information Commissioner that this technology is illegal in the UK under RIPA. I think it is also in the interests of your readers to know that BT secretly trialled this technology in June 2007 without even attempting to obtain consent and when questions were asked when people noticed strange behaviours with their Internet connections, BT categorically denied any responsibility and advised their customers it must be spyware. In documents leaked from BT this week and a subsequent statement from BT, it has been confirmed that this secret test was actually being carried out. This raises very serious concerns into whether or not BT acted in a criminal fashion under RIPA. At face value it would seem that this is in fact the case given that even the non-authoritative response from the Home Office last week (which has been heavily criticised for being inaccurate in its interpretation of consent on behalf of the "publisher") clearly states that consent must be sought in order for the interception to be lawful. Again this is reiterated by FIPR. If this is the case (which I firmly believe it is) then we have a clear example of why we need to protect these liberties in the first place. If criminal law is not enough to stop a corporation which in reality has enough money to pay for top legal advice, then where does this betrayal of our privacy rights end? Lets not forget this is also a Human Rights issue given our rights to privacy in our private lives and communications. Some more sinister consequences of this system with regards to shared computers are outlined below. One example is domestic abuse. Say for example a female victim of domestic abuse is searching for support groups or information about leaving her husband/partner and this happens to get picked up by the profiler because the sites she is looking at are not on the "blacklist". She spends several days doing this whilst her husband/partner is at work, then one night he logs on and starts browsing the net. He happens upon a site which is using the OIX advertising platform and sees ads related to his partner's/wife's recent browsing habits. We could potentially see tragic consequences, even deaths as a result of severe violent reactions to the discovery. Other examples are child abuse victims, people with medical conditions they have kept hidden from the family etc. Even less "serious" scenarios where one's partner is looking for a birthday gift for you and you happen to use the computer after a profile has been built up could lead to upsetting consequences. There is a lot that really doesn't seem to have been thought of when assessing the impact this technology could have on the more vulnerable members of our society and it simply must be stopped at all costs. In closing, I thank you again for bringing this issue to the people of Birmingham and hope you consider the points I have raised above for any future article you choose to write on this issue. Sincerely, Alexander Hanff" Deny Phorm the right to intercept web pages and support the Deny Phorm Campaign Visit: http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
| Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | Paladine, I think the way the article is written is more likely to attract your average internet users attention than if it were more in depth and detailed. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Al |
| ||
| Registered Member #44 Joined: Thu Feb 28 2008, 03:44PMPosts: 47 | The article has been written by Chris Tomlinson, who is Head of Digital at WAA, who are a marketing company "with specialists in branding, advertising, digital, direct marketing and PR." So we could be witnessing 'sour grapes' that WAA didn't get the PR contract rather than journalistic integrity. Also, WAA have a contract to improve public perceptions of Birmingham. The article is also published in a blog on WAA's website. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
| Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | I have to say that since this whole phorm thing I have really seen the complete uselessness of the media, how can a PR company write articles for a newspaper? | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Phormic Acid |
| ||
| Registered Member #22 Joined: Mon Feb 25 2008, 11:11PMPosts: 93 | Good spot. It confirms my own definition of the phrase. Serial Entrepreneur n. businessman or woman who lurches from one financial disaster to the next. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
Powered by e107 Forum System