Phorm and the EC
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7998009.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7999635.stm
bbc said:
"The European Commission has started legal action against Britain over the online advertising technology Phorm.
It follows complaints to the EC over how the behavioural advertising service was tested on BT's broadband network without the consent of users.
Last year Britain had said it was happy Phorm conformed to European data laws.
But the commission has said Phorm "intercepted" user data without clear consent and the UK need to look again at its online privacy laws."
It seems that the EU is getting involved and hopefully the law will at least get clarifed here in the UK.
And more good news for us, bad news for Phorm:It follows complaints to the EC over how the behavioural advertising service was tested on BT's broadband network without the consent of users.
Last year Britain had said it was happy Phorm conformed to European data laws.
But the commission has said Phorm "intercepted" user data without clear consent and the UK need to look again at its online privacy laws."
It seems that the EU is getting involved and hopefully the law will at least get clarifed here in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7999635.stm
bbc said:
Amazon has said it will not allow online advertising system Phorm to scan its web pages to produce targeted ads.
Phorm builds a profile of users by scanning for keywords on websites visited and then assigns relevant ads.
It has proved controversial because it scans almost all sites a user visits and there is an ongoing political debate about how a user gives consent.
Last month the Open Rights Group wrote to the world's leading websites asking them to opt out of Phorm.
Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for this cretinous system.Phorm builds a profile of users by scanning for keywords on websites visited and then assigns relevant ads.
It has proved controversial because it scans almost all sites a user visits and there is an ongoing political debate about how a user gives consent.
Last month the Open Rights Group wrote to the world's leading websites asking them to opt out of Phorm.
Wiki opts out now as well!
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/wikipedia-o...
[quote]
Wikipedia told the controversial U.K. advertising firm Phorm on Thursday not to spy on Wikipedia's users, saying the company's plan to monitor what sites people visit on the net invaded people's privacy.
Wikipedia now joins Amazon.co.uk in opting out of the Big-Brother-esque marketing scheme and creating the possibility of a mass opt-out by the net's largest websites.
Phorm wants to pay ISPs -- such as British Telecom -- to let it build marketing profiles of its subscribers by installing boxes inside the ISP that monitor every url users visit and every search they run. Using those profiles, Phorm can charge advertisers high rates to serve targeted ads.
[/...]
[/quote]
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/wikipedia-o...
[quote]
Wikipedia told the controversial U.K. advertising firm Phorm on Thursday not to spy on Wikipedia's users, saying the company's plan to monitor what sites people visit on the net invaded people's privacy.
Wikipedia now joins Amazon.co.uk in opting out of the Big-Brother-esque marketing scheme and creating the possibility of a mass opt-out by the net's largest websites.
Phorm wants to pay ISPs -- such as British Telecom -- to let it build marketing profiles of its subscribers by installing boxes inside the ISP that monitor every url users visit and every search they run. Using those profiles, Phorm can charge advertisers high rates to serve targeted ads.
[/...]
[/quote]
The UK government is being accused of colluded with Phorm when drawing up the guidelines over whether Phorm's service is legal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8021661.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8021661.stm
bbc said:
The Home Office has been accused of colluding with online ad firm Phorm on "informal guidance" to the public on whether the company's service is legal.
E-mails between the ministry and Phorm show the department asking if the firm would be "comforted" by its position.
The messages show Phorm making changes to the guidance sought by the ministry.
Lib Dem Home Affairs spokeswoman Baroness Sue Miller, who has questioned the Home Office about Phorm, said the e-mails were "jaw dropping".
No-one from the Home Office was immediately available for comment.
The e-mail exchanges were released under a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request made by a member of the public and sent to the BBC.
E-mails between the ministry and Phorm show the department asking if the firm would be "comforted" by its position.
The messages show Phorm making changes to the guidance sought by the ministry.
Lib Dem Home Affairs spokeswoman Baroness Sue Miller, who has questioned the Home Office about Phorm, said the e-mails were "jaw dropping".
No-one from the Home Office was immediately available for comment.
The e-mail exchanges were released under a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request made by a member of the public and sent to the BBC.
I have just emailed my ISP enquiring if they are, or will at some future date, be cooperating with Phorm (or any similar software) or permitting it to monitor my internet access.
I also stated that if they ever permitted Phorm (or similar) that I would cancel the account.
If huge numbers of customers contact them in a similar fashion, then they will realise it will cost them more money than they will gain by cooperating with Phorm.
Please contact your ISP and do the same.
I also stated that if they ever permitted Phorm (or similar) that I would cancel the account.
If huge numbers of customers contact them in a similar fashion, then they will realise it will cost them more money than they will gain by cooperating with Phorm.
Please contact your ISP and do the same.
I emailed Demon Internet (my ISP).
Their spokesman replied.
"I am afraid I have no information I can provide."
So, what information does he have, that he cannot provide?
When presented with a slippery answer like that, I assume the worst. I will pursue the matter.
We need to know which ISP's are complicity in this.
The surest way to kill this issue is for huge numbers of customers to move to those ISP's not spying on their customers.
The ISP's would soon drop it if this happened.
Their spokesman replied.
"I am afraid I have no information I can provide."
So, what information does he have, that he cannot provide?
When presented with a slippery answer like that, I assume the worst. I will pursue the matter.
We need to know which ISP's are complicity in this.
The surest way to kill this issue is for huge numbers of customers to move to those ISP's not spying on their customers.
The ISP's would soon drop it if this happened.
Just asked Virgin Media (my ISP) if this is the case and they say they have not signed up to it:
Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
Busa_Rush said:
Just asked Virgin Media (my ISP) if this is the case and they say they have not signed up to it:
Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
It's true.Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
More good and bad news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8135850.stm
Don't like this though from BT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8135850.stm
bbc said:
Shares in the online ad firm Phorm have fallen by more than 40% after BT said it had no immediate plans to use the service that tracks online behaviour.
Although the article does state that BT are only shelving the plans, not canning them totally which is a bit disappointing. However, any pain for Phorm is good Don't like this though from BT
bt said:
"[Our decision has] nothing to do with cost or privacy, it's about resources and priority," he added.
him_over_there said:
Don't like this though from BT
Given that it could be profitable (assuming negative press doesn't cause customer desertion), I think it is their excuse to just exit the thing because it is too much hassle. ie. the resources of dealing with the constant negative press and the legal issues.bt said:
"[Our decision has] nothing to do with cost or privacy, it's about resources and priority," he added.
Edited by Gareth79 on Monday 6th July 21:35
Busa_Rush said:
Just asked Virgin Media (my ISP) if this is the case and they say they have not signed up to it:
Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
Oh good, that makes me a happy Virgin customer, I don't want anyone spying on what I do online, especially given some of the sites I use! (for work purposes)Virgin Media have not implemented the Phorm system - webwise. If we do decide to implement the system in the futre, we will of course make this clear to our customers, and provide them with the appropriate method for opting in or out of the system.
Kind regards
Ryan Bates
Virgin Media
Given that's a very positive statement I'm inclined to believe them.
Eric Mc said:
Where was OUR government in all this?
Is this a case where something positive has emnanated from the EU?
Our Government were appointing Phorm executives to advise on the Digital Britain report, I believe. No conflict of interest though, obviously.Is this a case where something positive has emnanated from the EU?
I hope Virgin see sense and distance themselves from Phorm now that BT and TalkTalk have pulled out.
Article on Talk Talk dropping out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8140368.stm
Don't see many ISPs left for Phorm in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8140368.stm
Don't see many ISPs left for Phorm in the UK
Final nail in the coffin for Phorm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/eu_phorm/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/eu_phorm/
register said:
The UK government today came a step closer to international embarrassment over its failure to act against BT and Phorm for their secret trials of mass internet snooping technology.
The European Commission said it had moved to the second stage of infringement proceedings after the trials, revealed by The Register, exposed failings in the UK's implementation of privacy laws.
BT and Phorm intercepted and profiled the web browsing of tens of thousands of broadband subscribers without their consent in trials in 2006 and 2007.
The furore generated by the scandal forced Phorm to withdraw from the UK market, but police and the Information Commissioner's Office both declined to take any action against the firms.
Today, telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said: "Ensuring digital privacy is a key for building trust in the internet. I therefore call on the UK authorities to change their national laws to ensure that British citizens fully benefit from the safeguards set out in EU law concerning confidentiality of electronic communications."
The provisions of the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications that prohibit "unlawful interception and surveillance without the user's consent" had not been properly brought into UK law, the Commission said.
It has identified three specific failings. Firstly, that there is no independent authority to hear complaints regarding interception of communications.
Secondly, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows those intercepting communications to assume consent if they have "reasonable grounds for believing" it is given. Under the Directive consent must be "freely given specific and informed indication of a person’s wishes".
Finally, RIPA's sanctions against interception only cover "intentional" snooping. The Directive does not allow for such a distinction.
The Commission's move to the second stage of infringement proceedings gives the government two months to respond to a reasoned legal opinion. If the response is unsatisfactory - and judging by Reding's statement only a change in the law would satisfy - the case will be referred to the European Court of Justice, which has powers to impose massive daily fines on governments who do not meet their legal obligations.
The European Commission said it had moved to the second stage of infringement proceedings after the trials, revealed by The Register, exposed failings in the UK's implementation of privacy laws.
BT and Phorm intercepted and profiled the web browsing of tens of thousands of broadband subscribers without their consent in trials in 2006 and 2007.
The furore generated by the scandal forced Phorm to withdraw from the UK market, but police and the Information Commissioner's Office both declined to take any action against the firms.
Today, telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said: "Ensuring digital privacy is a key for building trust in the internet. I therefore call on the UK authorities to change their national laws to ensure that British citizens fully benefit from the safeguards set out in EU law concerning confidentiality of electronic communications."
The provisions of the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications that prohibit "unlawful interception and surveillance without the user's consent" had not been properly brought into UK law, the Commission said.
It has identified three specific failings. Firstly, that there is no independent authority to hear complaints regarding interception of communications.
Secondly, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows those intercepting communications to assume consent if they have "reasonable grounds for believing" it is given. Under the Directive consent must be "freely given specific and informed indication of a person’s wishes".
Finally, RIPA's sanctions against interception only cover "intentional" snooping. The Directive does not allow for such a distinction.
The Commission's move to the second stage of infringement proceedings gives the government two months to respond to a reasoned legal opinion. If the response is unsatisfactory - and judging by Reding's statement only a change in the law would satisfy - the case will be referred to the European Court of Justice, which has powers to impose massive daily fines on governments who do not meet their legal obligations.
Home Office misses Brussels' Phorm deadline
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/phorm_eu
When that deadline passed the government had not responded, increasing the likelihood of a costly court case at the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of heavy fines to be paid by UK taxpayers if judges find in favour of the Commission.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/phorm_eu
When that deadline passed the government had not responded, increasing the likelihood of a costly court case at the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of heavy fines to be paid by UK taxpayers if judges find in favour of the Commission.
TonyToniTone said:
Home Office misses Brussels' Phorm deadline
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/phorm_eu
When that deadline passed the government had not responded, increasing the likelihood of a costly court case at the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of heavy fines to be paid by UK taxpayers if judges find in favour of the Commission.
This boils my wee. The government screw up, the fine comes from tax payers. It should come from their personal pockets.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/phorm_eu
When that deadline passed the government had not responded, increasing the likelihood of a costly court case at the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of heavy fines to be paid by UK taxpayers if judges find in favour of the Commission.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff