Headlines - Survey says: 57% of people would leave Phorm-adopting ISPs

[Andaho]

A rather extreme view you have against it...

I don't understand why you see it as invasion to your privacy, the data is not stored and is simply used to display a targeted advert on a site that would usually give general adverts - it's as simple as that! The best ideas are simple!

Do you refuse to use google because of their adwords? - They spied on what you entered into the search!!!!! AND TARGETED ADVERTS AT YOU!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!

Sites have been 'spying' on you for years within their own network of sites... cookies! - Perhaps even hexus generate adverts on the site based on what key words it picks up from forum threads you have read - we wouldn't even know if they are, the cookie would simply contain a few numbers that only the server knows what they mean.

And it will not be necessary to leave your ISP or leave the internet because they will have a system set up for extremists like yourself to opt-out.

You sound like some crazy nut to me... lets imagine marketing and advertising on a smaller scale.... lets say you go to a computer trade show... a marketing agency might be there from a company that couldn't be... They position themselfs for their target audience... They might stand in an area next to a kiosk selling similar products, having spied on you seeing that you are interested in that so they hand you a leaflet as you walk past them... OH NO! invasion of privacy, you walked past them and they shoved a leaflet in front of you!!! AND it was after SPYING on you, because they saw you were interested in the other kiosk!!!!! OH NO!

No offence intended, I'm just answering your extremist views in the appropriate way

[nichomach]

No, Andaho, you're not, and I'll explain why.
1) Cookies? Can turn them off, thanks.
2) Google? Using them is a choice.
Phorm is imposed at the ISP level without the consent of the user. Their initial take was that it should be opt-out and that the opt-out would only affect whether the ads you received from participating sites were targeted, not whether the scumbags harvested your data in the first place. They still want to do that.

You can trust them to not abuse your data if you like, but the fact is that they and their BT partners spent months lying through their teeth about whether they were already testing the system on BT Broadband users.

Kent Ertegrul and his merry men have a proven track record of distributing spyware and adware, including drive-by installations without user consent, they lied by claiming approval from Privacy International for Phorm, and they're attempting to sidestep the law by "selling" the monitoring servers to their partners (whilst harvesting the data off them) and then stating that because the partners "own" the Phorm boxes, Phorm aren't intercepting your communications. Their actions all along have veered between a mere cavalier disregard for the truth to wilful deceit.

The prevailing opinion is that they have already committed between 30,000 and 100,000 separate offences under RIPA (because each unauthorised wiretap - which is what a Phorm-monitored connection is - is a separate offence); their answer? "It's legal, because...errr...the lawyers that we pay to say it's legal, say it's legal...". The only reason that they haven't been prosecuted is because nobody in the police, Home Office or ICO fancies going after BT as a co-defendant. As I say, go ahead and trust them with all your browsing data if you like, but calling people "extremists" for wanting to have nothing to do with them is just ****ing stupid.

[Andaho]

You can trust them to not abuse your data if you like, but the fact is that they and their BT partners spent months lying through their teeth about whether they were already testing the system on BT Broadband users.

It is only IF they were to abuse the data, then it would be against the law. Microsoft have already tried it when then wanted to record data about software being legal or pirate copy. But had to give up on those plans due to data protection or privacy laws. - If whoever governs stuff like this was bold enough to go after microsoft, why would they be scared of going after BT?

As customers we already trust our service providers with sensitive information, like bank accounts, credit cards, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, even full credit history from credit checks!... If you don't trust your current ISP with data protection, then them implimenting Phorm is the least of your worries when they hold all this other MUCH MORE important information on you.

[nichomach]

You're confusing and conflating multiple issues;
1) They've ALREADY broken the law, and lied about it - it's just that none of the authorities are willing to prosecute; RIPA's there to benefit government and business after all, not us, despite what we were told when it was ramrodded through.
2) Microsoft already use WGA to check whether a copy of Windows, etc is legit, but that doesn't collect identifying information, just a yes-or-no which may be used to determine whether the software should be disabled/degraded or not. Microsoft do not sit there monitoring all your web traffic and selling the data. And nobody "went after" Microsoft - aside from the press, and WGA is very much still with us.
3) You know what? Phorm aren't the service provider. If I set up a direct debit with my ISP, that is subject to the DPA, banking regulations, swathes of layers of confidentiality, and the ISP may only use that data - a limited subset of data at that - for agreed purposes. They are a company with whom I have a direct contractual relationship, and they are required to comply with the law. Phorm, on the other hand are a shady bunch of former malware pushers with whom I neither have, nor want, any contractual relationship, who bung ISPs a wedge to let them, without the users's consent, snoop on, use, and very possibly abuse their data, and have a proven track record of lying through their teeth. Spot the difference?

[Erkal]

This is just another case of corporate powers changing the way we will see things. It's life. It happens all the time. Live with it Or go and live in isolation on an island

The apathy of that statement is why the big corps. are getting away with doing what they want, until the sheep get off their backsides and stop taking the easy option. (i include myself in this). we will only ever get what we are given not what we want.

[Saracen]

A rather extreme view you have against it...

I don't understand why you see it as invasion to your privacy, the data is not stored and is simply used to display a targeted advert on a site that would usually give general adverts - it's as simple as that! The best ideas are simple!

I do not trust Phorm. I do not trust them to have my browsing data and I will not agree to it. In fact, as you may have gathered, I object vehemently to it. I do not, for instance, not trust them to data warehouse this browsing data. And we have no way to know to what extent warehousing will take place, what form of data mining they'll do and what use it will be put to.

Do you refuse to use google because of their adwords? - They spied on what you entered into the search!!!!! AND TARGETED ADVERTS AT YOU!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!

The difference is that the control over what I put into Google is in MY hands, as is whether I choose to use Google or not. And it doesn't scan my entire browsing activity, does it?

And, for that matter, despite my reservations about Google, they aren't Phorm and don't have their background.

Sites have been 'spying' on you for years within their own network of sites... cookies! - Perhaps even hexus generate adverts on the site based on what key words it picks up from forum threads you have read - we wouldn't even know if they are, the cookie would simply contain a few numbers that only the server knows what they mean.

Again, only if you go to those sites and ONLY while you are on those sites. There's an implicit contract - when you go to a site, you allow them to monitor what you do on that site. It doesn't give them the ability to watch your online activity everywhere else, does it. And if you don't want to go to that site, you just don't go. We don't have that option with Phorm.

And it will not be necessary to leave your ISP or leave the internet because they will have a system set up for extremists like yourself to opt-out.

According to the way Phorm have explained that so far, all opting out achieves is a cookie being placed on your machine declining targeted ads. But that isn't my objection. My objection is to them having ever seen my browsing activity in the first place. And again, according to Phorm, if you browse from a different PC, you need to opt-out again in order to be opted out. If you clear cookies, you need to opt-out again. Sorry but no, that simply isn't acceptable.

As a matter of principle, this sort of scheme should be opt-in only, so that only if you are aware of it and explicitly accept it will your data be analysed. Otherwise, anyone that isn't aware of what they plan gets analysed without their explicit consent. And further, all I need to do to end up with Phorm analysing my activity is to do a reinstall or clear cookies and forget to go back and opt out again. Not an acceptable state of affairs.

But my main objection is that Phorm (or similar) ever get my data in the first place. The way Phorn works from what I've read of it, ALL port 80 data goes via Phorm, opted out or not. The opt-out only controls whether they target ads or not.

So yes, it will be necessary to leave my ISP is they go ahead with Phorm, and I will do so.

You sound like some crazy nut to me... lets imagine marketing and advertising on a smaller scale.... lets say you go to a computer trade show... a marketing agency might be there from a company that couldn't be... They position themselfs for their target audience... They might stand in an area next to a kiosk selling similar products, having spied on you seeing that you are interested in that so they hand you a leaflet as you walk past them... OH NO! invasion of privacy, you walked past them and they shoved a leaflet in front of you!!! AND it was after SPYING on you, because they saw you were interested in the other kiosk!!!!! OH NO!

No offence intended, I'm just answering your extremist views in the appropriate way

That's utter drivel. You can push an analogy too far, you know, and that is far too far. I'm not going to try to argue with some straw man you set up. I've told you what I object to, and it's a company I do not trust and object to being involved with having ANY access to my browsing data.

[nichomach]

Well, I FINALLY got an answer from the Information Commissioner's Office:

19th May 2008

Case Reference Number PEC0194415

Dear Mr Palmer

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the use of Phorm’s targeted online advertising product by ISP’s.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

We understand that this issue has provoked concern. We have now had the opportunity to consider the concerns raised by a number of individuals, and by other interested parties, in this area. We have also had detailed discussions with Phorm about the way in which their product works, and the way in which they consider they are addressing privacy concerns.

As you may be aware the Information Commissioner advises on and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which deals with the processing of personal data, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR), which contain provisions relating to the use of cookie type devices and the processing of internet traffic data.

The Information Commissioner does not have responsibility for advising on or enforcing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

Following our consideration of the concerns raised with us, and our discussions with Phorm and the ISPs involved, we have produced a detailed statement of our views on the issues we consider relate to the legislation we enforce. You can access this detailed view here here.

It is important to clarify that our current view, as set out in this statement, is based on our understanding of the information available to us at this point. We will be looking carefully at what happens in practice, and any further concerns this raises, in the upcoming BT trial.

We are continuing to engage with Phorm and relevant ISP’s in advance of any roll out of the technology to ISP customers to ensure that any public use of the product is transparent, and based on individuals understanding what they are agreeing to.

We will keep our website Information Commissioner's Office - ICO updated with any further statements about this issue.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Sent on behalf of

********************

Casework and Advice Manager

- name omitted by me.

So, they'll be LOOKING at Phorm, but they decline to claim jurisdiction with regard to RIPA, which means that, as I said, no-one in government's interested in enforcing RIPA when it might work for the citizen, only when it works against the citizen.