Post by: sandyman on March 28, 2008, 04:32:08 AM
Sir Tim said his data and web history belonged to him.
"I think consumers rights in this are very important - we haven't seen the results of these systems being used He said: "It's mine - you can't have it. If you want to use it for something, then you have to negotiate with me. I have to agree, I have to understand what I'm getting in return."
In essence what they plan on doing is intercepting your web browsing data stream, sending it to a profiling server and then serving you up ads based on the results. Even if you opt out the data will still be sent to the profiling server.
It should also be borne in mind that the guy behind Phorm has a history of being involved in Spyware, his programmers are based in Russia and the servers in China.
Personally speaking if my ISP carries on with its plans to introduce this I will drop them immediately. I pay them to provide me with a data conduit, nothing else.
Sandy
Post by: Paddy on March 28, 2008, 07:28:00 AM
Not that there aren't other companies already doing this in the US - although I'm not aware that they have Russian and Chinese ties.
As I posted in the earlier thread on this topic: Adzilla and NebuAd sell exactly this sort of service:
http://venturebeat.com/tag/coadzilla/
QUOTE
NebuAd offers its packet inspection software to internet service providers, the services you use to access the internet. NebuAd then turns around and provides the traffic information to advertising networks.
QUOTE
ISPs are also required to mail or email documents to their users asking for permission to track their surfing habits, Dykes said. There is more than one way of going about getting agreements, however, and our concern is if ISPs prefer to simply bury a clause in the inevitable legal agreements that accompany every modern service.
Finally, users will be able to permanently opt-out through a separate NebuAd service called Fair Eagle, assuming they know of its existence. NebuAd, in response, says its opt-out option is obvious enough; it is stated on its Web site.
Finally, users will be able to permanently opt-out through a separate NebuAd service called Fair Eagle, assuming they know of its existence. NebuAd, in response, says its opt-out option is obvious enough; it is stated on its Web site.
Still doesn't give one the warm and fuzzies, does it? It will be nteresting to see if Phorm will have to provide the same complete opt out option - I'm not sure if the legalities are different in the US.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 28, 2008, 10:26:02 AM
Post by: Highmac on March 28, 2008, 11:13:36 AM
On reflection, Sandy, even a change of ISP may not help. There are only two practical ways of getting broadband in the UK - through cable (VirginMedia) or over a landline.... that means a BT line (which is my route to VirginMedia). So if BT signs up to Phorm, it probably doesn't matter which ISP you go to. You can bet BT will have a clause in its contracts with ISPs..... Or am I being even more cynical/naive than usual
Post by: sandyman on March 28, 2008, 11:47:28 AM
QUOTE(Highmac @ Mar 28 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A link to the Berners-Lee interview for anyone who missed it.
On reflection, Sandy, even a change of ISP may not help. There are only two practical ways of getting broadband in the UK - through cable (VirginMedia) or over a landline.... that means a BT line (which is my route to VirginMedia). So if BT signs up to Phorm, it probably doesn't matter which ISP you go to. You can bet BT will have a clause in its contracts with ISPs..... Or am I being even more cynical/naive than usual
On reflection, Sandy, even a change of ISP may not help. There are only two practical ways of getting broadband in the UK - through cable (VirginMedia) or over a landline.... that means a BT line (which is my route to VirginMedia). So if BT signs up to Phorm, it probably doesn't matter which ISP you go to. You can bet BT will have a clause in its contracts with ISPs..... Or am I being even more cynical/naive than usual
Neil
Because of the way the system works other ISP's who lease bandwidth from BT do not have to be part of this scam. Some have already stated that they will never be party to this scheme or others like it.
The good news is that even our bunch of elected
have decided to look into Phorm The Register. I'd write to my MP but phrases including the words Chocolate and Fireguard spring to mind when I think of him Sandy
Post by: Highmac on March 28, 2008, 12:52:29 PM
PS - thanks for the PM!
Post by: Gregg on April 07, 2008, 09:09:56 PM
QUOTE(sandyman @ Mar 28 2008, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Phorm are in negotiations with AT&T, Comcast & Verizon in order to bring you the "benefits" of their wonderful system.
This may be bad form, but I can't help but notice the grammar. I first learned of the "British" way when working with a gent from London. He would always use "are" when I would use "is". So, you probably missed my thread many months ago about a headline in the newspaper. I can't remember it, except for the crucial part. It was something containing "The Couple Are". So is that how you'd say it over there, or would you say "The Couple Is"?
Post by: sandyman on April 08, 2008, 04:12:23 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Apr 8 2008, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(sandyman @ Mar 28 2008, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Phorm are in negotiations with AT&T, Comcast & Verizon in order to bring you the "benefits" of their wonderful system.
This may be bad form, but I can't help but notice the grammar. I first learned of the "British" way when working with a gent from London. He would always use "are" when I would use "is". So, you probably missed my thread many months ago about a headline in the newspaper. I can't remember it, except for the crucial part. It was something containing "The Couple Are". So is that how you'd say it over there, or would you say "The Couple Is"?
Strictly speaking I should probably have said Phorm is rather than are. However both would be acceptable to most people over here. I would say the couple are since there are two people involved. However the finer points of English grammar are not one of my intellectual strengths. I was taught quite a lot of grammar at primary school but almost none at high school. I should point out that our High Schools were different to what Americans call High Schools.
I probably know more about Fench grammar than English grammar.
Sandy
Post by: Gregg on April 08, 2008, 07:14:23 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on April 08, 2008, 12:04:02 PM
QUOTE
Over here, both choices are not accepted.
I beg to differ. There's no problem with that pform of English. I assumed "Phorm" had more than one employee! But I still have trouble with "the data are!" 
What if there is only one bit of data (a data 'point')? Is it still plural? 
All y'all just keep us on our toes!
Post by: kimmer on April 08, 2008, 12:20:19 PM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Apr 8 2008, 05:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... so the conjugation of the verb follows the rule for non-plural subjects.
Oh lordy. I hated English class. I still don't remember all this stuff. Makes my head hurt.
QUOTE
Over here, both choices are not accepted. You seem to indicate that the British are more forgiving, unless we're talking Henry Higgins.
I don't know, Gregg. If we can turn "disrespect" into "diss", or say "I googled that", and all the other weird things we seem to come up with; why is are vs is an issue?
Post by: sandyman on April 08, 2008, 02:45:55 PM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Apr 8 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sandy, I believe that most "Bringlish" speakers would say "Phorm are". That's my observation anyway. And the logic is apparently the same as yours for "couple". The "Anglish" logic is that the word itself is singular, so the conjugation of the verb follows the rule for non-plural subjects. Over here, both choices are not accepted. You seem to indicate that the British are more forgiving, unless we're talking Henry Higgins.
Or in Cockney, a la Eliza "'enry 'iggins"
"Anglish" is nowadays very flexible
Sandy
Post by: Highmac on April 09, 2008, 07:10:04 AM
The papers I work for have a 'singular' style for companies and groups (though police and football clubs are plural - I have no idea why!), but it does lead to grammatical complications (as in the previously mentioned couple). Getting round it, to avoid it reading strangely, is to refer to managers or bosses to get into plural. The company is.... Company bosses are....
Post by: Gregg on April 09, 2008, 07:25:44 AM
Editors violate the rules all the time. I've noticed a preponderence of paried sentence fragments, with the second one commonly beginning with "Which". Apparently they think their readers will get lost in a long, complicated sentence. (...or the typesetter lost the comma box)
And speaking of the family of "a" plurals, I also see many stories about referendums (sic), or hear about them on the broadcast news.
Over here, most sports teams have names that are already plural. It throws the journalists for a loop when one isn't.
And speaking of sports and grammar, this combines the two!
Post by: sandyman on April 09, 2008, 08:34:36 AM
Still, I suppose I could try installing Privoxy on my router. That would replace some, but not all, of them.
Sandy
Post by: Jack W on April 09, 2008, 09:57:56 AM
QUOTE(sandyman @ Apr 9 2008, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How to beat Phorm, for now anyway, The Guardian use Safari. It's a pity Safari doesn't have all the nice extensions that Firefox has though
Still, I suppose I could try installing Privoxy on my router. That would replace some, but not all, of them.
Sandy
Still, I suppose I could try installing Privoxy on my router. That would replace some, but not all, of them.
Sandy
Subsequently to clicking on the link above, there were several cookies installed in my cookie jar.
But all of them were set to expire at the end of the current session.
(I deleted them immediately after finding them.)
This shows how easy to get unwanted cookies installed on your system.
Keep on checking them!
- Jack
Post by: Xairbusdriver on April 09, 2008, 10:07:52 AM
I'm wondering if something like Witopia's personalVPN would be a more complete way to 'block' Phorm? Again, my understanding of personalVPN is too shallow to determine if it would have any bearing in this situation. I'm probably hoping for too much here. I suspect that Phorm would can still monitor in and out going traffic to you but it would simply assign the 'anonymous' IP address to it instead of what it actually is.
Post by: sandyman on April 09, 2008, 11:14:17 AM
Sandy
Post by: Mayo on April 09, 2008, 11:53:04 AM
In order for Phorm to work you must connect to the Internet via an ISP server that is affiliated with Phorm. When using a VPN server you bypass your ISP server altogether because you are actually connecting to the Internet via the VPN server.
Using Apple's Network Utility it is easy to run a traceroute and see exactly how your Internet connection is routed... If I connect in the normal fashion I go through the Charter.net server. If I connect via personalVPN I am routed through the VPN server; Charter appears nowhere on the traceroute log because my gateway to the Internet is now the personalVPN server and not one of Charter's servers. Data is encrypted up to the point where it exits the VPN server; it is again encrypted when it returns via the VPN server.
The personalVPN server is accessed via an icon in the Finder Menu Bar. A user can choose to always connect via VPN or use it selectively; there are no limits on data transmission.
Post by: sandyman on April 10, 2008, 09:57:20 AM
As far as I am aware you don't have the same sort of data protection legislation as the UK and the EU have. There may be other ways of dealing with it but I really don't know enough about privacy regulations in the US
Sandy
Post by: Jack W on April 10, 2008, 12:56:37 PM
Personal VPN sounds very interesting. And the $40/year isn't all that prohibitive.
Could I completely bypass Time-Warner Cable servers?
What would I lose?
What other advantages?
Any disadvantages?
How do I connect to the VPN server? Via the network setup?
Could I completely bypass Time Warner? Probably not, since their cable connects me to the imternet.
Oh, well! :Drats!:
- Thanks, Jack
Post by: Mayo on April 10, 2008, 01:12:41 PM
If you have any questions that aren't answered in my previous posts, fire away!
Post by: krissel on April 11, 2008, 12:22:28 AM
QUOTE
Ironically, the company Phorm and the ISPs are seeking to emulate is well placed to become their most powerful enemy. Google has amassed significant lobbying muscle in Washington DC. Indeed, ambitious UK politicians like Labour's Milibands and the Tories' George Osborne and David Cameron line up to brown-nose the Googleplex. And if you had spent billions to acquire and serve people's web searches, would you be happy that other companies are planning to hijack them direct from HTTP streams and pump them into their own ad targeting network? Thought not.
This is an interesting quote:
QUOTE
We've all seen this movie before, writ large: you can easily think of the happy-clappy revolution of the web's first ten years as a mainstream medium as its own version of the 1960s. If you do that, then the emergence of Phorm and the reaction to it is a signal the come-down is taking hold. Tracked and exploited, web users are entering the fear and loathing of the 1970s.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/is..._target_market/
Heres' an "explanation" of how this is supposed to work:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_documents/
Post by: Mayo on April 12, 2008, 11:01:16 PM
I'm sorry that I didn't include this info in my previous posts; it's just been so long since I experienced a problem that I plumb forgot about these issues...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on April 13, 2008, 03:27:44 PM