Bad Phorm

[sammyc]

Judging by his post, I'd say dust.

heh

Seems like this Phorm discussion is gathering momentum elsewhere on the web.

Phorm is illegal!

Gov advisors: Phorm is illegal | The Register

why, is this not the death knell for it then?

[Lucio]

is this not the death knell for it then?

Unfortunately not, this is a panel of advisers, the same type who said it was ok to go to war with Iraq. It would still have to go before a judge (and probably quite a senior one at that), for it to be ruled as illegal.

To be fair, I think their technology crosses a line only because they monitor everyone's traffic regardless. If it was clear cut that unless you opt-in, your traffic will not, under any circumstances be monitored by Phorm then the majority of the opposition will drop away because then the system isn't that far removed from your typical adware cookie and would require that a user agrees to what it does.

Who knows, maybe then it'd even be a good way to get a speed boost? If the majority don't sign up to PHorm and they have to move you to a different network if you do, maybe you could get a better contention ratio

[sammyc]

ok i see what you're saying, thanks.

[Lucio]

PS. I'm very much against it at least with regards to their opt-out stance.

Again, for the sake of fairness, Phorm have said it's up to the individual ISP to decide on deployment. For instance, Carphone Warehouse have publicly stated it's opt-in only and BT have said they're considering their options. Virgin, as always, have been rather tight lipped

Personally, I think this is going too far regardless, the concept of Phorm's technology is a bad thing because it's allowing people who are technologically unaware to sign away their right to privacy without realising quite what they're doing.

For example, my other half when I filled her in as to why I'd been e-mailing BT with her name on (She's the bill holder), she was quite puzzled as to why I was upset because she doesn't realise the potential dangers, and to be fair, I wasn't 100% sure until I read up more about the technology and the company background.

[TheAnimus]

I'm having a heated discussion with someone on another forum about it - it's not that he doesn't mind it, he actually thinks it's a really good idea and is happy to be on it.

If I'd not known him on that forum for as long, I'd swear he was deliberately arguing, but he's a long time poster that I've credited with plenty of intelligence, so I guess he's serious :-|

This is the thing, this is what i've been trying to get to santa, for many people, espesually those who are low income/tight, very tight. The idea of Phorm is a good one, it will be cheaper for them.

There has been suggestions that adverts can be mutually beneffical if employed correctly. Think about an add in the journel of people who study elasticity, for some software that could better model elasticity. Because they got a extra few hundread licesnses sold, they can sell it for less, all the users are happy because a product they didn't know existed they now get the benefits from and like it....

Now whilst i don't for a second think these people have the awnser to make that pipe dream a reality, i like the idea of targetted ads, they do make sense, i'd sooner sit through 30 seconds of adds for a jag xk, than 30 seconds of all day long freshness.

Also its not as if all ISPs would opt in for this, those that didn't would obviously cost more, but people like me would pay it.

[Salazaar]

If, as it would now seem, Phorm is to be an explicitly opt-in service ISPs could do a very good trade in offering ad (i.e. Phorm) supported low cost packages along side their main ones.

For example BT have options 1, 2 and 3 at various prices, how about adding option 0? Pay say £10pm for high speed full access Phorm supported service. That way if you want low cost access and don't mind the privacy issues you can have it, if not there's always the regular packages.

[Agent]

If you're talking about the general level of monitoring in this country then I agree, but I don't see Phorm as anything more than a minor symptom of a much, much bigger problem. I don't see much point in getting all wound up about Phorm when it's apparently so easy to get around and when time and energy would be much better spent addressing the bigger surveillence problem.

And the bigger surveillance problem isn't going to be solved overnight. It can only be tackled in a way which requires it to be broken down and tackled into smaller, manageable and focused ways. Pressuring the authorities on a system like Phorm is just one of these ways.

Its also only easy for to get around for those in the know. In fact its going to be difficult for the majority of the population who do not have a clue how to use a computer to the level we do. Its like saying "changing a cam chain in a car is easy"....yeah, of course it is, if you're a mechanic.

If, as it would now seem, Phorm is to be an explicitly opt-in service ISPs could do a very good trade in offering ad (i.e. Phorm) supported low cost packages along side their main ones.

For example BT have options 1, 2 and 3 at various prices, how about adding option 0? Pay say £10pm for high speed full access Phorm supported service. That way if you want low cost access and don't mind the privacy issues you can have it, if not there's always the regular packages.

Thats great in theory, but how long would it be before all the 'normal' packages end up being Phorm based and then a 'Premium' package with a mark-up for those that don't want a Phorm service?
Sure, it could be used to help subsidise a net subscription, but on the flip side it could also be used to do the opposite (get paid twice).
Then there is the question of how well will this be advertised? Hidden in T&C's small print? using marketing such as "Phorm helps your on-line experience by protecting and offering you the best deals online - for FREE!"?

It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong, but corporations are greedy people and the majority only have their pockets at heart.

[Salazaar]

Thats great in theory, but how long would it be before all the 'normal' packages end up being Phorm based and then a 'Premium' package with a mark-up for those that don't want a Phorm service?
Sure, it could be used to help subsidise a net subscription, but on the flip side it could also be used to do the opposite (get paid twice).
Then there is the question of how well will this be advertised? Hidden in T&C's small print? using marketing such as "Phorm helps your on-line experience by protecting and offering you the best deals online - for FREE!"?

It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong, but corporations are greedy people and the majority only have their pockets at heart.

That's where market forces come into play.

There is obviously a demand for services without Phorm otherwise there wouldn't be the number of people moaning about it that there are. Even now, without Phorm having actually been rolled out anywhere, people still opt to pay extra to companies like Zen for essentially the same product but with significantly better service, why wouldn't they do so for a Phorm free service?

On the side, your point about paying twice... Well yeah, that's the point. Strangely enough these ISP are in it to make a profit for their shareholders! If you, as the consumer, don't like the way they do it choose a different service and deny them the chance to make their money.

[Agent]

That's where market forces come into play.

There is obviously a demand for services without Phorm otherwise there wouldn't be the number of people moaning about it that there are. Even now, without Phorm having actually been rolled out anywhere, people still opt to pay extra to companies like Zen for essentially the same product but with significantly better service, why wouldn't they do so for a Phorm free service?

On the side, your point about paying twice... Well yeah, that's the point. Strangely enough these ISP are in it to make a profit for their shareholders! If you, as the consumer, don't like the way they do it choose a different service and deny them the chance to make their money.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying there as such there, but it still doesn't address the point: Just because Joe public doesn't know his internet connection is being monitored, doesn't mean he wants it monitored.
If Phorm does go ahead in any way, it needs to be 100% crystal clear what the punter is signing up to. Thats without even considering this is being run by a bloke who helped run an ex spyware / rootkit company. Promises about what he plans to do with the data don't sit to well with me.

Sure, if someone wants to sign up for Phorm, that's their right. I just don't believe that it will be done in a way where most people will understand what the actual concerns are in the first place without a techie explaining it to them.

[Salazaar]

I suspect that even if no-one else does, the competition will go to great lengths to explain why you wouldn't want it and therefore why you should sign up with their service.

You do have a point but I don't think it's worth getting all that worried about it.

[Saracen]

This is the thing, this is what i've been trying to get to santa, for many people, espesually those who are low income/tight, very tight. The idea of Phorm is a good one, it will be cheaper for them

......

Now whilst i don't for a second think these people have the awnser to make that pipe dream a reality, i like the idea of targetted ads, they do make sense, i'd sooner sit through 30 seconds of adds for a jag xk, than 30 seconds of all day long freshness.

Also its not as if all ISPs would opt in for this, those that didn't would obviously cost more, but people like me would pay it.

That's fair enough. If people want ads, or are prepared to put up with them, then that's their affair. Personally, I don't and am not. But it's not even primarily the ads that I object to - it's the data harvesting and analysis. My browsing habits are MY business, not some questionable (or non-questionable, for that matter) company.

If a system like this is implemented, then in my opinion it ought to be explicitly an opt-in system. If that doesn't happen, then that it is being done is something that needs to be made absolutely and explicitly clear to subscribers, and there needs to be a provision to fully and totally opt-out.

And by "opt out" I do not mean that you just don't get the ads. I mean there must be NO passing whatsoever of my browsing data to this company. And I also mean that I do not have to go to Phorm's website to opt out, and I don't have to have a cookie to enforce it. Anything less than that is utterly unacceptable to me.

Personally, I regard having to opt out of this to be intrusive and obnoxious. Let those that want ads opt-in, rather than passing data of anyone that simply hasn't opted out.

[santa claus]

That's fair enough. If people want ads, or are prepared to put up with them, then that's their affair. Personally, I don't and am not. But it's not even primarily the ads that I object to - it's the data harvesting and analysis. My browsing habits are MY business, not some questionable (or non-questionable, for that matter) company.

If a system like this is implemented, then in my opinion it ought to be explicitly an opt-in system. If that doesn't happen, then that it is being done is something that needs to be made absolutely and explicitly clear to subscribers, and there needs to be a provision to fully and totally opt-out.

And by "opt out" I do not mean that you just don't get the ads. I mean there must be NO passing whatsoever of my browsing data to this company. And I also mean that I do not have to go to Phorm's website to opt out, and I don't have to have a cookie to enforce it. Anything less than that is utterly unacceptable to me.

Personally, I regard having to opt out of this to be intrusive and obnoxious. Let those that want ads opt-in, rather than passing data of anyone that simply hasn't opted out.

Tbh Saracen (and others) despite your articulate and incisive contributions, there are those who will probably never grasp the full implications of Phorm's proposed spyware; it will dawn on them one day if this insidious initiative is ever allowed.

Fortunately, the greedy are having to review their plans to make money by spying on people, thanks to the informed opinion promulgated widely through fora like Hexus. Thank you for giving us a voice.

Btw, here's a nice link about Phorm's plans and China-based servers.

[TheAnimus]

That's fair enough. If people want ads, or are prepared to put up with them, then that's their affair. Personally, I don't and am not. But it's not even primarily the ads that I object to - it's the data harvesting and analysis. My browsing habits are MY business, not some questionable (or non-questionable, for that matter) company.

If a system like this is implemented, then in my opinion it ought to be explicitly an opt-in system. If that doesn't happen, then that it is being done is something that needs to be made absolutely and explicitly clear to subscribers, and there needs to be a provision to fully and totally opt-out.

And by "opt out" I do not mean that you just don't get the ads. I mean there must be NO passing whatsoever of my browsing data to this company. And I also mean that I do not have to go to Phorm's website to opt out, and I don't have to have a cookie to enforce it. Anything less than that is utterly unacceptable to me.

Personally, I regard having to opt out of this to be intrusive and obnoxious. Let those that want ads opt-in, rather than passing data of anyone that simply hasn't opted out.

But it is out in, if you choose an ISP that opts in. Such a change in contract and T&C would surely let you escape any contract.

Tbh Saracen (and others) despite your articulate and incisive contributions, there are those who will probably never grasp the full implications of Phorm's proposed spyware; it will dawn on them one day if this insidious initiative is ever allowed.

Fortunately, the greedy are having to review their plans to make money by spying on people, thanks to the informed opinion promulgated widely through fora like Hexus. Thank you for giving us a voice.

Btw, here's a nice link about Phorm's plans and China-based servers.

This is because nothing has been said about how this is going to be all ISPs.

Also no one has said how this is evil. Plenty of people use loyalty cards at the supermarket, for less than a 1% saving.

And there has been no reason yet as to why free market forces wouldn't work to create a 'free' ISP. As stated i belive in the commercial sucess of such a venture i'd happily start one if the need arose.

[Salazaar]

Tbh Saracen (and others) despite your articulate and incisive contributions, there are those who will probably never grasp the full implications of Phorm's proposed spyware; it will dawn on them one day if this insidious initiative is ever allowed.

Fortunately, the greedy are having to review their plans to make money by spying on people, thanks to the informed opinion promulgated widely through fora like Hexus. Thank you for giving us a voice.

Btw, here's a nice link about Phorm's plans and China-based servers.

I'd lay off the happy pills, the men with the black helicopters might come for you...

Yes, Phorm is a very bad idea but it's not being institued by the government, it's not an enforced entity, it's an idea based on commercialism. And like anything based on commercialism it'll live or die by whether it makes money. If the people affected by it don't like it they'll change and it'll lose money and die, just like DRM did.

Although it looks like it could be widespread in a free market there will always be a choice, especially if it is a highly marketable choice like not being spied on.

And I seriously doubt that yours, mine or anyone elses ranting on tech forums (even lovely ones like Hexus ) made a blind bit of difference to FIPR's actions.

[Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas'] office first said it planned to look into Phorm on 29 February. It told El Reg it only learned of the ISPs' data pimping plans two days before they were publicly announced on 14 February.

[santa claus]

But it is out in, if you choose an ISP that opts in. Such a change in contract and T&C would surely let you escape any contract.
This is because nothing has been said about how this is going to be all ISPs.

Also no one has said how this is evil. Plenty of people use loyalty cards at the supermarket, for less than a 1% saving.

And there has been no reason yet as to why free market forces wouldn't work to create a 'free' ISP. As stated i belive in the commercial sucess of such a venture i'd happily start one if the need arose.

If you really want to understand what is going on it might help if you were to put a little more effort in. The net is rife with fuller examples and more explainations than can be given here.

The consumers currently targeted are to be those of Virgin Media, Talk Talk and BT; that sucks in millions of people most of whom have no idea that this Phorm thing is going on. The intention of this thread is to open eyes. If after opening your eyes you decide penny-pinching apathy is more important to you than preserving your civil liberty, go back to bed and sleep it off until it's all over.

Way to go theAnimus. Bob Dylan won't be covering your eventful life in a protest rendition will he? Back to bed sleepyhead

[sammyc]

Another point as a fairly new nontech user is unless threads like this put potential problems right under my nose, people like me just go along happily unaware of most of the info-gathering or pitfalls because you don't have a thorough knowledge of how the net works.

to quote myself here... whichever side you are leaning toward,

If you really want to understand what is going on it might help if you were to put a little more effort in.... The intention of this thread is to open eyes.

^^ this point is one I feel is valid either way, purely for bringing the debate to the notice of the slightly more dimwitted among us (i.e. self.)