麻豆官网首页入口

Another question obviously is if customers choose not to opt in to Phorm whether their browsing data will still go through the Phorm network.

There are lots of unanswered questions about BT and Phorm.

Not least, how will they get consent from the publishers/ecommerce sites for interception of their private communications with visitors/prospective customers?

Or how BT propose to obtain a copyright licence for the content of the web pages they mirror [=copy], process, adapt and sell.

Let alone the myriad personal privacy concerns.

BT can't even explain how they get consent to intercept private communications to display their 'invitation page', or why it is necessary for people who didn't opt in to anything to perpetually retain a cookie with a value 'opted out'.

BT Webwise is unwarranted mass surveillance, mass industrial espionage, mass copyright infringement.

All of which is bad enough, but there's still the rather serious matter of the trials they conducted in 2006 (18000 people in Reading) and 2007 (tens or even hundreds of thousands of people in South of England and Scotland) without consent of customers or the web sites they were using.

Phorm and BT still face a Crown Prosecution Service enquiry into that rather outrageous 'faux pas'.

And the EC are taking an interest too, in particular Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a right to a private life.

This episode has the capacity to completely undermine trust and confidence in the UK communication infrastructure, for private personal and commercial use.

I believe Sony BMG is currently being sued in the US for collecting data on children without their parents' consent. A $1m payout to settle the suit is reportedly close to agreement.

Interesting to see if this may apply to Phorm's activities.

Opt out schemes just rely on public ignorance. It's getting away with it on a technicality, the ISPs and Phorm know that. But they'll be able to get away with it and make a quick buck - so they don't care.

It's a dodgy, underhand way of getting away with doing something that the majority people don't want you to do.

This is coupled with the general population's lack of understanding with anything even remotely technical relating to computing or technology.

Take the Internet Explorer exploit which has been in the media recently, the majority of people don't understand. When on the train yesterday, I heard a lady speaking to someone on the phone. She was convinced that Internet Explorer was broken because of something she heard and that's why her Internet wasn't working. She'd got the message from Microsoft, but not understood it at all. It was just 'broken'. That's why Phorm knows they can get away with this.

Anyone who cares about their privacy or understands the technical details will have moved away from these providers long ago, but as usual the vast majority of the public will be taken advantage of because they're not equipped to make the choice for themselves.

It's not their fault - you can't expect everyone to have a technical level of understanding. This is where strong regulation is required to protect the public

A far bigger issue is that even if a BT customer has opted-in (or not opted-out) of Phorm, the websites that customer may visit have no such option. Phorm will still spy on the interaction that customer has with a web site.

This is entirely different to what Google, etc do. Search engines merely record the public pages on the site, Phorm will record the pages actually viewed by particular visitors. Big difference!

So a someone opted into Phorm may visit a web site selling televisions. He may look at a particular model. When he then visits a site hosting Phorm's targeted ads may be presented with ads for that same television from that site's competitors. This is industrial espionage, pure and simple.

To put this into context, its a bit like Tesco being able to record the contents of the shopping trolleys of people shopping at Morrison, Sainsbury, Asda, etc.

Virgin Media are still considering whether to adopt Phorm, but if they do I don't intend to remain a customer.

My attempts to use the Data Protection Act to opt out of any future implementation were met with a load of PR-guff about how my browsing experience would be enhanced.

I suspect that any opt-in by BT will be cloaked in similar terms, relying on fear and ignorance to persuade the public to sign up to prevent nasty viruses and those pesky adverts (from non-Phorm partners, of course).

As previous posters have explained, there are still far too many unanswered questions about the whole system.

If Virgin decide to adopt Phorm, I will immediately cancel my account with them and choose an ISP that does not spy on users.

Anonymously or not I don't care, the sheer audacity of advertisers beggars belief.

As far as I know, both the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the Government have said that the scheme MUST be opt-in, in order to comply with legislation.
Let's hope that these bodies will ensure that the law is observed.
In otgher words, my ISP is obloged to take me straight to www.UrlOfMyChoice.com, not redirect my request multiple times to some third party server. I don't see how the law can allow that to happen unless the customer specifically opts-in.

Adverts on the internet are a fact of life and one will never escape them. So, anything that can be done to make them of interest to me personally is a good thing in my opinion.

However there needs to be appropriate restrictions / protocols / protections associated with the collection and use of my data. If it's non-personalised, i.e. just indexed around an IP address / PC, then it's no worse than tracking cookies that tell their owners which websites they've visited.

I am on BT and, when they started their opt in trial, got an e-mail from them asking if I'd like to sign up. At first I didn't realise what it was, had I not been savvy about such things I would have thought it sounded like a good idea. Annoyingly I deleted the e-mail but remember the text went something like 'a new service to improve your browsing experience based on your browsing history.' Before you think about it in any detail this sounds like a reasonable idea and you may click the opt in button before you actually decide.

Fortunately I didn't opt in as I realised quite quickly what it was. I wonder how many people did so without realising.

Therefore, even if it is an opt in service they will still get hundreds of thousands across the major ISPs signing up in ignorance. It's nothing against the user, they're just not being given enough information.

BT and Phorm are indeed relying on general ignorance of the technical aspects of this 'Webwise' product.

Users will be invited to 'Opt-In' via a browser hijack. What this invitation really is, is a chance to 'Opt-Out'.

BT and Phorm can then pay lip service to the ICO statement that any such system must be Opt-In.

A real Opt-In would involve customers deliberately visiting a page and indicating their desire to receive targetted advertisments... but that will never happen.

It's spyware / adware, plain and simple. Regardless of what legal mumbo-jumbo they use to justify it, that's what it's doing. There's even a pop-up box asking if you want to use it or not. Anyone that's still dumb enough to click yes on such popup boxes on the internet pretty much deserves to have bad things happen.

Still, this may deprive legitimate websites of potential advertising revenue; not much though as it's only going to apply to a small number of UK users, but the whole system must be opt-outable by each website as well, like how robots.txt works against search engines. Otherwise they're violating copyright law, and data interception laws, by not getting permission from both parties.

Opt-in, Opt-out - what's the difference when your browsing will still be intercepted by the Phorm "Webwise" system whatever option you choose.

I would leave any ISP that imposes this system on their customers even if I wasn't bothered about my privacy. The tampering with browsing traffic is reason enough to take my business elsewhere.

Even if you "opt-out" of Webwise, each time you try to browse to a website their system intercepts your browser's request for that page, examines it for one of their forged "Webwise-uid" tracking cookies, and if it doesn't find one redirects your browser to Webwise.net so that it can read your browser's Webwise.net cookies to determine that you have opted-out, before redirecting your browser back to the original site you were trying to visit; it then intercepts that request, forges a "Webwise-uid" opt-out tracking cookie for the original site, and finally redirects the browser to the page you wanted to go to in the first place.

User's of my favourite browser are likely to have problems with BT Webwise if they block third party (cross-domain) cookies as my browser blocks all access to all cookies after a cross-domain redirect. This is a really neat privacy enhancing feature to stop web sites from sharing cookies across domains using the redirect method (as used by Phorm), unfortunately on a "phormed" connection it will not only stop Webwise accessing its cookies, but also block cookies for the site you are visiting after a Phorm Webwise redirect occurs. This could for example result in the content of your shopping cart going missing, or you being logged out of a forum when you try to post.

I'm also concerned about the adverse impact Webwise could have on free content and smaller e-commerce sites - currently web sites get to choose if they wish to share data with a behavioural targeting system and are only likely to if they will benefit from doing so. With Webwise the web site has no choice in the matter even though it may well not be in their interest. An e-commerce site for example is unlikely to gain anything from its communications with its own customers being used to target its customers with adverts for its competitors. A site publishing camera reviews doesn't need Phorm to be able to charge camera shops a premium to advertise on its site, but Phorm will exploit its content without paying the site and target its visitors whenever they visit a Phorm partner site. This will create unfair competition for advertising that would otherwise have gone to sites providing valuable content and is therefor likely to drive down the amount such sites can charge for advertising.

The of course there is the privacy issue - normal tracking systems only get to see a small amount of my browsing traffic, the Phorm Webwise system gets to see all of your normal browsing, every site you visit, every page you view, every search in every search engine - There is no hiding from your ISP they're in a position of trust and should not be abusing it by deploying such a system.

#9. BabyChunder

Adverts are way of life for most Internet users, but only if you don't care enough to find out how to remove them.

If you want rid of them switch to Firefox, and download the AdblockPlus extension. You reduce the amount of advertisements displayed by about 99%

Every time I use a browser without it I'm staggered how awful the Internet is actually is for most people

BT don't ask for customer consent before hijacking the customer's browser with their webwise invitation (even though they were looking for another site).
BT continue to hijack browser requests even if you do opt-outof Webwise. There is no way out of this, unless you retain a Phorm/Webwise cookie. Odd to have to retain a cookie to NOT visit a site/use a service? If it was truly opt-IN that would not be necessary.
Phorm copy browser content and profile it, and exploit it commercially without consent of the webmaster, as they snoop without consent on the browsing patterns of the Webwise user.
Phorm's name is associated nowadays with so much negative publicity including the exposure of their 121Media past, that advertisers will think twice before associating their brands with Phorm/Webwise/OIX.
The whole thing is fraught with danger at present given the Congressional and court action proceeding in the USA. BT could be liable for mass actions from US website operators.
Any ISP wanting to avoid the risks of legal action both in US, UK and EU will steer clear of Phorm. There are other ways of organising behaviourally targetted advertising that do not play fast and loose with privacy and the law, the way Webwise does.

I wonder how many people expressing moral indignation about their privacy being invaded use products like Adblock Plus (mentioned by davehanc) without thinking about double standards?

Adverts may be "a way of life" for Internet users, but more importantly they are the way many websites cover their costs and earn a living for the people that create them. Blocking ads is just as much theft as using pirate software.

Phorm is nothing more than a targeted way to display ads to people. The privacy concerns have been hyped up by the same people who like inventing conspiracy theories.

Web users who object to ads should take a few minutes to consider what the internet would be like if free content didn't exist and you had to pay real money to access everything.

If you don't like ads don't use the web and stop freeloading off everybody. We give away little bits of privacy all the time, even by registering on this site to post comments. Get over it.

I've just had a thought, If a computer has many users will the 'enhanced browsing experience' be tailored for every user or will all users recieve the same adverts?

For instance dad looks at cars, brother guitars, uncle pornography and little sister ponies. You can imagine the problems this would cause with inapropriete targeted advertising especially if there are no users set up and everyone is using the same login. Or will adult sites be given special rights to opt out some how? You can choose which tracking you want?

As NoPhormPlease@2 quite rightly said, just too many unanswered questions....

It is NOT targeted advertising that campaigners are objecting to,
it is:
1) INTERCEPTION of all their web traffic by the ISP (BT) without the consent of both the user and the site owner visited
2) COPYING, PROCESSING & SELLING the intercepted data to an advertising agency (phorm)
3) COPYRIGHT infringement by carrying out 2)
4) FORGING of cookies carried out during 1)

All of the above are very likely illegal under current UK laws. It is surely in the public interest for the DPP to bring a test case to establish the legality of all this before it is implemented.

@julian moss who said "The privacy concerns have been hyped up by the same people who like inventing conspiracy theories"

I don't think so. If Phorm's products were so good and people wanted them, why were they not successful when their company name was 121Media?

For anyone who is not a "Person who likes inventing conspiracy theories" I'll explain...

121Media can be found on the internet as responsible for some of the most annoying adware software ever created. Just look up "ContextPlus", "Rootkit" and the world beating and abandoned "PeopleOnPage"

F-Secure and Nortan Symantec did not classify them as software that ought to be removed for nothing!!

Phorm and their Webwise product is just a way of getting aroound the anti-virus protections we have now. Full stop.

BT should be prosecuted for the trials in 2006 and 2007. Everyone who agrees should write to their MP (and the Crown Prosecution Service who are looking into this now)

And let's remember that there are now over 19500 signatures on the Downing Street Website Petition against Phorm's system.

PS - I don't wear, nor do I own a Tin Foil Hat! Get over that.

#16 julianmoss

Where shall I start?

Firstly, I'm amazed at your expression of moral indignation, after all, should I choose to employ an ad-blocker, then I'm simply giving myself a 'more relevant browsing experience'. Isn't that what this is all about, or is somebody attempting to 'monetise' MY browsing habits?

To say that Phorm/Webwise is nothing more that a way of displaying targetted ads is to delude yourself. I'd like to think that you are more 'switched on' that that, and so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that Phorm/Webwise employs a technology called 'Deep Packet Inspection' to examine the minutiae of the data stream from my PC as it passes through my ISP Network to the website that I wish to transact with. IOW, you are inspecting EVERYTHING I do. I grant you that 'you say' that you will discard all but the 'keywords' and urls that you need to assign me to a 'channel', but that's only after you've had a good look at everything first. I'll also grant you, that you say that you'll discard all of this once I've been assigned to a 'channel', but that's actually disingenuous too isn't it, as assigning me to one or more channels is just another way of holding data against the u(ser)id that you've already allocated to me and placed in a 'cookie' on my PC. To quote from the Phorm/Webwise example, you can delete my search string 'Paris Hotel'because you've already assigned me to the 'Paris Hotel' channel, yes?

Now lets look at who has 'double standards'. There you are suggesting that I may be 'stealing' by blocking ads, when I was under the impression that it was YOU all along that was stealing both my data strings and just as importantly, the content from the websites that I visit. If I go to the Ocado Website to look for some nice champagne to see in the New Year with, and then I find that I am being served adverts for champagne from an OIX partner, I'd suggest to you that YOU are trying to steal my custom from Ocado? That's how it works isn't it? That sounds like you freeloading to me.

Now, I've no particular objection to advertising, and I've no particular objection to targetted advertising. I've noticed that Phorm like to compare themselves to Google, but I've never quite fathomed out how they think they are similar? I do agree that both can serve targetted ads, but only Phorm/Webwise's Deep Packet Inspection looks at every single bit that flows down the network from my PC. I can excercise my own personal choice whether to use Google or not and whether to keep or delete Google's cookies. It makes me feel like I'm in control. To 'so called' opt out of Phorm's Webwise, I actually have to have an opt-out cookie on my PC so they can check it every time? so they're always going to be there checking I've still opted out. Heaven forbid that cookie gets accidentally deleted! That seems like a very odd sort of 'opt out' to me? I understand that even if I do opt out, that my data STILL passes through the data profiler anyway, and that I have 'your word' that you'll just ignore all my data?

Let me tell you, when you were still 121Media before the company renamed itself to Phorm, I spent many many hours as a volunteer Moderator for the support forum of one of the best known Anti-Spyware companies assisting thousands of users in the removal of your Spyware and Rootkits from their PCs. I find it somewhat ironic that the only way I can now avoid having my own internet privacy compromised by you is to end my long time relationship with my current ISP - BT and move to an ISP that has pledged never to have dealings with any company employing such invasive technology as Phorm's Webwise.

I still have trouble seeing the difference between the BT Webwise system and telephone tapping.

As far as I can gather, the system works this way: when you are chatting on the telephone, sorry internet, with your friend/supplier/financial adviser, BT listen in and write down what you both say. After the conversation is over they reduce their notes down to a few keywords and throw the original notes in the bin. Then they sell your keywords to other people you might call, sorry visit.

Best guess at the moment is that even if you opt out they will still listen to your call, sorry surf, and take notes, but they won't create the keywords before the throw the notes away.

I have a few problems with this, even ignoring the fact of someone listening to my communications. I don't trust BT to throw the notes away. Even if they do I don't trust them to do so irretrievably. Even if I choose to opt in to this system, the people I am talking to haven't, yet their side of the conversation is also monitored.

Actually I can think of one difference between Webwise and phone tapping. Phone tapping doesn't slow down your telephone call, whereas adding an extra layer of monitoring, or filtering, always slows down Internet browsing.

Why is it that anything to do with the internet means ISPs and others think they have the right to monitor what you do, where you go and what interests you?
Why do they think that all this C..P that they produce and send out is wanted or welcome for users?
Why is it that what should be a pleasurable experience is hi-jacked by advertisers, emailers, spam, spyware, et al?
I use my computer for the pleasure it gives me, to give me another outlet to the world, to learn, to follow news stories, to read opinions,
to communicate and so on.
Throw advertising rubbish at me that I do not want to see, interrrupt me in what I am doing, and spoil my experince and I will return to the quill, carrier pigeon, old fashioned mail and buy in the shops instead of via the internet.

I am not a BY customer or one of its many add on cmpanies nor will i be.

To retain a cookie to opt out of a service is not acceptable on my machine as i routinely remove cookies during malaware scans.

I suspect most people will ,so after your first scan the cookie will be taken off you will then be in the scam.
You should have to opt in to this scheme by name explicitly in your terms and conditions,YOUR data is being shared with MANY third parties without your explicit consent,this in my book is not what data protection is about and it is BT's responsibility to ensure the credibility of all 3rd parties your data is sent to.Do you honestly think they are going to do this ???

Just a quick word to manufacturers about net advertising at present i actively block them as best i can and will continue to do so.But any that do sneak through i would never consider your products ever.

Where does this leave people,well i would suggest people who can leave. If your current terms and conditions do not mention Phorm by name, GET OUT !!

As someone that hosts a few websites - none of which cost me enough that I feel the need to put advertising on in the first place, I get hit with a stealth increase here.

The user visits my pages, and generates x amount of traffic, then Phorm follows them and generates some more traffic. So I get to pay for the increased bandwidth and Phorm get the gain for those that choose to visit me. Care to remind me who are the freeloaders again please?

On top of that there's the whole interception thing - nobody here would stand for the Royal Mail opening all their post, making notes on the content and then resealing it, and then sending junk mail based on the contents of the post examined - apart from nothing else it's illegal for Royal Mail to do so. This is absolutely no different in concept.

The fact that the ICO, City of London Police & the Home Office have all dodged their duty speaks volumes. We're not in danger of becoming a surveillance society, it happened years ago and it stinks!

@NoPhormPlease (post #2):

Just a couple of points of fact (I agree with you on the rest):
1. The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EC, the EU, etc. It's part of the Council of Europe which is older (founded 1949) and larger (47 member states) than the EU. It was founded partly as a result of the vision of a politician who spoke approvingly, in the last days of the Second World War, of the need to create "The United States of Europe". His name was Winston Churchill and I believe that Margaret Thatcher was a big fan of his. :-)

2. The ECHR does not "take an interest". It can only examine cases brought to it by people who claim that their treatment by the judicial system of their country is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (which again has nothing to do with the EU). So for them to get involved, someone would have to sue BT/Phorm and lose, probably going as far as the House of Lords first.

julianmoss wrote (#16):
>>Blocking ads is just as much theft as
>>using pirate software.
Er... no. Blocking ads at the browser level is just a more efficient way of ignoring them. Unless a site's terms-of-use state that I will personally read and inwardly digest everything on every page including the ads, no visitor can be guilty of anything.

Sites charge for ads in one (or both) of two ways: cost-per-click (when someone clicks on the ad) and cost-per-view (when the ad is displayed). The second of these is presumably on the basis that even if I didn't click on Ford's advert, I at least had the logo in my eyeline for a few seconds, like when it comes on behind the touchline at a televised football match.

Now presumably nobody is going to tell me that I am stealing by failing to click on the ads, any more than I am stealing from ITV by not calling the number on-screen when someone tries to sell me insurance.

So we're left with not reading the ad which the site thought I'd seen - after all, the site has no way to tell if I've got an ad blocker, any more than ITV knows if I left the room when the stupid jingle from the commercial came on. In that case, it seems to me that the only possible "theft" is the site taking money from the advertiser while saying that I saw the ad, when they have no way of knowing that. Presumably the advertisers and the host sites have reached a compromise over this which is reflected in the cost-per-"potential"-view rate card. And if take-up of ad blocker add-ons doubles, the rates should go down.

By the way, has anyone seen an official ad-blocker plug-in for Google's Chrome browser? Me neither. Funny, that. I wonder why? :-)

"enhance my browsing experience"?
PR waffle and corporate-w**k.

"Stealing" by blocking adverts?!
Stealing what exactly?

The connection to the internet?
No, I pay my ISP.

The content of the website?
It's FREE to visit websites (and those that are Pay Per View or Pay Per Access have a LOG IN box to prove you have paid before giving you the content).

So what is there to steal?
NOTHING that's what.

If I decided to watch TV and then go off to make a cuppa in the advert break, am I stealing TV too? NO I AM NOT.

The channels get paid regardless of if I watch an advert or not - same with websites (although as someone's already mentioned, some ads are pay-per-click which the reader has to click on to generate 拢拢). Just because I don't click on the advert does not mean I am a THIEF!

I don't go to every shop I see advertised or buy every product I see advertised as IT DOES NOT WORK ON ME; I HAVE A BRAIN, COMMON SENSE AND INDEPENDENT THOUGHT. Unlike a lot of people these days unfortunately.

#21: "I still have trouble seeing the difference between the BT Webwise system and telephone tapping."

There isn't any difference. A third party is listening in, and even if one end of the "conversation" has consented by opting in, there is no guarantee that the other end [the intended website to view] has. The ISP is in a privileged position, just as the telecommunications carrier is in a telephone conversation.

I think there needs to be a court ruling on the application of RIPA, not just an opinion expressed by the Information Commissioner. Even in these crunched times I'd contribute 拢25 to help fund a test case.

In one site I manage every page has a comment in the code with a reference to a public statement:

--
Interception of website data

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; Computer Misuse Act 1990; Data Protection Act 1998

Some ISPs are using a system called Phorm or Webwise, which involves the interception of pages from sites and either altering the data shown to end users or/and making use of intercepted data to vary advertising and search results. This is of dubious legality. For the avoidance of doubt, the site owners have not given the consent required by various Acts of Parliament to the interception of data. The Phorm/Webwise system is not under the control of end users (except that they can opt out) and end users of this site viewing pages in a browser are not affected by this notice. A similar notice is automatically included in the HTML code of each page served.
--

#21: "I still have trouble seeing the difference between the BT Webwise system and telephone tapping."

There isn't any difference. A third party is listening in, and even if one end of the "conversation" has consented by opting in, there is no guarantee that the other end [the intended website to view] has. The ISP is in a privileged position, just as the telecommunications carrier is in a telephone conversation.

I think there needs to be a court ruling on the application of RIPA, not just an opinion expressed by the Information Commissioner. Even in these crunched times I'd contribute 拢25 to help fund a test case.

In one site I manage every page has a comment in the code with a reference to a public statement:

--
Interception of website data

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; Computer Misuse Act 1990; Data Protection Act 1998

Some ISPs are using a system called Phorm or Webwise, which involves the interception of pages from sites and either altering the data shown to end users or/and making use of intercepted data to vary advertising and search results. This is of dubious legality. For the avoidance of doubt, the site owners have not given the consent required by various Acts of Parliament to the interception of data. The Phorm/Webwise system is not under the control of end users (except that they can opt out) and end users of this site viewing pages in a browser are not affected by this notice. A similar notice is automatically included in the HTML code of each page served.
--

It's kind of Basic common sense on a Communications Channel(as Phorm puts it in their patent), are Web Users prepared to give up proper control of their Web Browser to a Third Party (Phorm or not)?
{that is effectively what happens when this Proxy is doing its merry dance!}

I would say that is totally opposite to all the current recommendations by the ICO for Individuals & Companies to take proper control of their own Security measures to protect themselves online!

It the Web User does not properly control of the contents of the web browser her/she does not have proper control of the PC either!

"Now that trial is over - and though BT is saying nothing beyond the statement issued by Phorm - it looks certain to push ahead with the deployment of the technology."

- What part of saying nothing makes this look certain to push ahead?

Just a comment about the 'if you opt-out our data will still go through the Phorm system'; if you wish to be anonymous there are plenty of tools which will accomplish this.

A setup (which is open source and free) which would enable you to do this is called Privoxy through the Tor network.

In short this puts all your network through an encrypted multi-endpoint network where all communications are not only encrypted but also sent from some other Tor participant. This is not ideal as you are reliant on the Tor network speed but for general web browsing it is more than adequate and as speeds increase...

Also... In combination with Firefox plugin 'Foxy-proxy' you can switch this on and off with two clicks :)

If BeThere go with Phorm and the concerns I have (mirrored in a number of posts above) aren't resolved to my satisfaction I will terminate my contract. I will find an ISP not using Phorm and use their services. I am fully "cloud" based and don't care which ISP I use.

Until these companies and their clients realise that (a) an ISP is just another utility and (b) it is EASY to change ISP they will continue to deceive and promote services such as Phorm. Phraud. Phoney. Phatuous.

Phorm! GO AWAY. WE DON'T WANT YOU!

@16 - You are having a larf aren't you? Since I paid for the broadband, the hardware & the electricity to run it all, anyone putting an unrequested advert, or anything else I hadn't specifically requested, on my screen as theft of my pixels, bandwidth and electricity. Please explain why you think otherwise. As sTeamTraen said at 26, if I'm expected to pay for the content of a site I'd have to log in and possibly hand over credit card details. If I'm not expected to then as far as I can see those producing the site have chosen to make usage of their site free.

BT has a long track record of doing every damn thing it can to extract the maximum revenue possible from customers' private data that they hold (occasionally info they don't technically hold*), so because they've made no specific comment along the lines of "we won't be using this after all" a reasonable interpretation is that it's an undeclared declaration of their intentions to use it in the future.

* I specifically joined my ISP because they don't require a BT line and they're not Virgin. I expressed the desire to be ex-directory and a little while later I was able to find my phone number on BT's website, despite being XD and despite not even being a BT customer. Any number listed on the website automatically gets included in the BT PhoneDisc which is sold to any business who wants to buy it from BT, and the neat bit of the disc is you can search phone numbers by name only, no address or other information required. Telemarketers (and businesses even more shady and intrusive than them) love this software.

De-regulation has brought no changes that benefit the consumer whatsoever and has made no difference to BT's monopoly. Phorm is yet another reason not to have anything whatsoever to do with BT.

A good discussion about this nasty "phorm" by Steve Gibson of Security Now is located at




for interested users.

A very interesting discussion CabSavLane, looks like we have more than just phorm to be wary of now, oh joy. I personally would not trust a company that edits out unfavourable comments from a wikipedia entry. And to think they'll be deciding which ads are in 'my best interest'

From wikipedia-
In early 2008 Phorm admitted editing the Phorm article on Wikipedia. Phorm admitted removing a quotation from The Guardian's commercial executives describing the opposition they have towards its tracking system, and deleting a passage explaining how BT admitted misleading customers over covert Phorm trials in 2007. These changes were quickly noticed by Wikipedia editors who reversed deletions made by Phorm. [67]

[67] ^ Chris Williams (2008-04-08). "Phorm admits 'over zealous' editing of Wikipedia article", The Register. "Send in the clowns"

"There are lots of unanswered questions about BT and Phorm."

I do have to agree on the post above....I have been following this from Oklahoma because anyone tracking your ISP and if someone from UK is talking to me then they are tracking my ISP.....!!!

Is there anyone here on this board that has experienced this?

Just curious if you have friends in US and talking to them I would think your friends are being tracked, do you agree?