William Hague on Phorm!
Following our piece on the campaign against Phorm software proposals, I e-mailed my local MP, William Hague, asking him to represent my views to the relevant authorities. A speedy response appeared in the post, direct from the House of Commons. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Ms Haywood,
Thankyou for your email received 18th March, regarding a new IT technology promoted by ‘Phorm’.
I note the concerns you have raised in this respect, and have sent a copy of your email together with a letter of my own, to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to bring this to his attention and ask for his comments on this issue. I will write to you again as soon as a reply is received.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon William Hague MP
See my original email here
To the Rt Hon William Hague,
As one of your constituents and a partner in an [edited] IT firm, I would like to draw your attention to the issue of privacy related to a new technology promoted by “Phorm” which will soon be utilised by BT, Talk Talk and Virgin.
This technology reads the websites being visited by customers and uses the information to better target advertising. However, there are grave concerns over the method of encoding used to keep user’s details anonymous and over the level of permission needed for this software to install itself and begin running.
I, for one, am suspicious of this software, which bears so much similarity to “spyware” and, indeed, reports that some employees of Phorm are former spyware developers. I do not trust these companies to have so much unprecedented access to my internet usage information -my preferences, habits and political views. Especially when they have so much trouble processing simple customer request over billing etc…
I would ask that you convey my concerns to the relevant political authorities and ensure that, if Phorm is allowed to progress at all, that hefty restrictions are placed on its ability to intrude on consumer privacy.
Feel free to ask for any further information and links. The most useful current resource is the Foundation for Information Policy Research, who have published an open letter on the issue.
Best regards,
Linda Haywood
Partner
24 Hour Trading
Given that I have rarely contacted my MPs -the last occasion being for the tuition fee debate – I feel that this is a good response (especially since he signed and dated it himself!).
RSS
Myspace
LinkedIn
Twitter
Subscribe by Email
Congratulations. I am delighted that our MP is taking this so seriously.
Love the pun.
Good stuff, any objections if I use some of your text for a similar email to my MP?
While its a good begining, im not sure the laymans outline above is anywere near enough to clarify the many legal and tech points in theregister readers http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/phorm_bt_westminster/
and cable forum posters threads.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated-page-122.html
heres the latest news from the
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/03/28/org-and-fipr-meet-with-phorm/
that might begin to clarify some of the more techy parts.
whats seems clear though ,the automatic legal copyright protection for you as a Phorm signed ISP broadband user entering your key strokes and click data on the interweb is being, or will be abused, if Phorm are allowed to install this ISP gifted intercepting “Phorm deep-packet inspection equipmentâ€
and lets be clear on this, no matter weather your opted-in or opted-out with a cookie or not,
_all_ your Broadband stream is being send to this “Phorm deep-packet inspection equipment†were they collect, sort, profile, and only then, anonymise the selected data their interested in.
surely your interweb key entry and click data are your personal copyright, as layed out in the UK and EU copyright law.
the interweb conduit ISPs or any ‘profiling for profit’ companys do not have the right to commit ‘commercial piracy’ in the name of profit or under UK and EU law.
so, without even talking about the RIPA and Data Protection Act you also have:
user’s copyright, ‘commercial piracy’ and the ’safe harbor’ conduit question.
did the UK ISPs in question, infact give up their legal protection in EU law as a mear conduit,by freely signing up and agreeing to ‘a general monitoring of the network’ in that contract for profit.
to put it another way, if for instance, you as a Phorm signed ISP user, were to use your web based Email page to converse with your elected MP,
and in turn, weather they are also using a Phorm signed ISP or not ,were to reply in Email to you,
then both your Email conversations would be passed to this
“Phorm deep-packet inspection equipment†to be collected and profiled before its been Anonymised and passed on to any interested paying advertiser or whoever they deem profitable later.
its interesting that your Govt departments, police etc need to get a court order to use data from this type of “deep-packet inspection equipment†but your ISP can seemingly accept this gifted “Phorm deep-packet inspection equipment†and use it without need to worry about getting such a court order.
heres part of a comment i made elsewere you might find interesting.
-
March 26 15:57
Phorm can maintain all it wants that it retains no information etc, but it doesnt make it true.
infact their very own Coo to the us market, says the exact oposite as already pointed out in Charles tech blog.
for those that didnt see the quote yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/media/20adcoside.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
“â€As you browse, we’re able to categorize all of your Internet actions,†said Virasb Vahidi, the chief operating officer of Phorm. “We actually can see the entire Internet.â€
and their Patent confirmed this very same extensive capability.
here is Phorm’s patent application toread for yourself
http://www.freshpatents.com/Targeted-advertising-system-and-method-dt20060921ptan20060212353.php?type=claims
Marko – I see no reason why not.
IAmTheLaw – thanks for all the info, though I’m not sure we can claim to have copyright on data which others gather about us. Copyright would generally concern ownership, whereas this is much more a privacy (if not a fraud) issue.
My main objection to Phorm is that it takes invasion of privacy to a new level – we can legitimately expect not to have our private transactions scrutinised by nameless third parties without our consent. Market research companies would probably phone tap us if they could. This is akin.
Thanks for the clarification IAmTheLaw – as with many things I can be sketchy on the details. For that reason it is great that knowledgeable people like yourself can be trusted to give an honest opinion to people who don’t fully understand and never will.
To be fair, Rt Hon William Hague responded pretty swiftly in this matter too – props.
As of 3/4/2008
At present BT are trying to say that using 302 type redirects on my browser see:-
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
& dns redirects to temporarily intercept/redirect my URL requests for no other purpose than “Data Gathering”, (Which is illegal without consent), is in their opinion perfectly legal.
And this should be a “trusted ISP” & more important a now so call “Trusted Main Telco”!
I think I am stating the obvious, which has been “conveniently” overlooked by BT Phorm & Others.
I very much doubt that any amendment to the T.O.C or an Opt-in System could ever be Termed legal!
As this would involve the “Account Holder” (& user’s at the same location), the Account Holder would then have been coerced into an illegal act, or aiding & abetting in an illegal Act!
Under all these current Laws
1/ Wire-tapping of Communications designed for end to end personal communications (M.I.T.M attack).
2/ The D.P.A because sensitive data will inevitably be diverted through this system, which could either be emanating from the Server or the Client Side.
3/ The Current Privacy Laws of the Country the Account Holder resides in.
[...] See William Hague’s response to the Phorm debate [...]
There’s nothing to debate. Phorm/Webwise *MUST* be stopped at all costs. My hope is that someone (or some group) with very deep pockets will hit this bunch of criminals where it hurts!
Can someone Please Explain the difference between mirroring data off a Master Router Switch to a Server, & mirroring audio to a recording device?
If you can, then please explain why one is a Wire-tap & the other isn’t????
In the light of the BERR selling Web Surfers Privacy to the lowest form of…., unless something is done about it, I will shortly shaking their dust off my Feet & leaving the WWW.
And here I am “Still stating the obvious”, but BERR is a different matter this
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?9079
Statement about their role does not sit squarely at all regarding the “Letter to the EU” stating that the Phorm/Webwise System could be “legal????”
At the same time stating that the Web User would be presented with an “Unavoidable WebPage”.
The only way an “Unavoidable Webpage can be Served to a Web User is via a Browser Hijack served by the Profiler “before” the Web User even knows that their Surfing is being Intercepted.
The Web Surfer in effect having asked for say MSN gets the Webwise Server Page Instead!
The questions that need asking are how did this firm manage to weasle its way so far into this government.
Why did they get ‘comfort’ from the Home Office?
Why did BERR spend months telling me Phorm was the best thing since sliced bread then finally say ‘it is not BERR’s responsibility to be satisfied or not ‘ ?
Why haven’t the Home Office answered my FOI on corespondence between themselves and the MoJ on Phorm?
Why wont UKCISS let us see Phorm’s un-redacted (censored) application form?
Why asking the Home Office firstly about BT and in a seperate FOI Phorm were the requests refused as they were considered the same request? (not unless they know something we don’t)
Why have they gone to so much trouble to stall and evade legitimate questions by members of the public?
link to all foi’s on my website.
PingusPeriratus
Yep still plugging away!
Why was this ever even partially supported by the “Authorities”, this form of communication is one to one just like the telephones they are both personal electronic communications systems, they are NOT Broadcast Systems.
“And it is perfectly obvious to any Web User that MORE personal information can be & is regularly stored & shared over the internet than can be shared in any hour long voice connection!!!”
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/telephone-tapping-and-interception-of-communications/index.html
[...] I see it as my role to continue the effort to highlight inequitable behaviour (like the old Phorm debate we told William Hague MP about) as well as to make sure that people realised exactly what was happening to their old [...]
[...] See William Hague’s response to the Phorm debate [...]
[...] I see it as my role to continue the effort to highlight inequitable behaviour (like the old Phorm debate we told William Hague MP about) as well as to make sure that people realised exactly what was happening to their old [...]