Talk:Phorm/Archives/2013

Untitled

I just wanted to state, that ling #34 doesnt work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.65.51.146 (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The original referenced page has been deleted, so I've replaced the citation with a link to a news article quoting from it on Ispreview. Lostforwords (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons not to delete this page again

Phorm is notable because they aren't asking us (UK users) if we want all our internet data to go through their servers, and opting out is only the removal of their adverts from our web pages, our data still goes through their servers and is cached for later retrieval and analysis.

Sorry about the CRAP page I just made, but this is a very important thing for UK users, and someone decided that rather than let WP tell us what it is and how it affects us, it should be regarded as an advert and deleted. Someone needs to put a page up so that other (better) editors can clean it up and make it a worthy article. I will add STUB to it.

I would have restored the deletion and edited it, but it isn't even in the history =/

Our privacy is being eroded and this is an advert? PReDiToR (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To anybody considering deleting this page (thinking it's an advert or in some way not noteworthy), be aware that Phorm will very soon become BIG news in the UK. I won't clutter the article page with links but here's a few examples of why it's noteworthy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7280791.stm http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/03/07/phorm_has_been_hatching_its_plans_since_at_least_mid2006.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/06/internet.privacy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/looking_at_the_phorm.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.239.229 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent this message to BT:

Regarding the system known as "Phorm".

Please make a permanent note that I do not condone the use of Phorm, and hereby withdraw all permission for it to be used to intercept, analyse or otherwise deal with any part of the datastream to and from my home computers, or any information about the datasteam to and from my home, including, but not limited to, phone numbers called, websites visited and emails sent.

If you cannot provide a firm and binding assurance that you will not use the Phorm system in any manner of and data pertaining to myself, my family or my computer use, then I will be forced to look elsewhere for a more trustworthy internet service provider.

I still await a response, but feel free to use it as a basis for your own messages.

General comments on article

As someone who has been editing WP for some time I am aware of what it can and cannot be used for. I am also monitoring the Phorm situation carefully, as a BTInternet customer, but remain open minded.

Most of the article is well written and states what Phorm is fairly well. The criticism section is relevant. What is not appropriate is an excess of external links to campaigning sites, and these are the sorts of things that WP 'management' will see as making the article look like advertisement for a particular viewpoint. A much cut down external link list, say with just a link to the Phorm/Webwise site and BadPhorm would be far better. It is important that WP articles have a neutral NPOV regardless of how controversial some see them. Editors will ensure this happens or nominate the page for deletion.

The talk pages of articles are for discussing of the article itself and its content, and must not be used for any sort of campaigning. Dsergeant (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I would like to refer Phorm Comms Team to WP:CONFLICT which outlines Wikipedia's policy on various matters concerned with self promotion. In general authors with a direct involvement with the subject of an article are not under normal circumstances allowed to edit those articles. Phorm Comms Team I understand is part of a PR team working for Phorm on marketting their product, some of his edits show clear signs of self promotion. Dsergeant (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

i have already placed a note on the users talk page. I hope user:Phorm Comms Team does continue to contribute keeping within the guildlines. He/She added some useful references to the article. GameKeeper (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Comment below mentioned in the "Implementation" section needs proper clarification it has not been confirmed & as such should not be in the this section, whether I consider it accurate or not the whole statement needs proper authentication in order to remain in this Section!

"This is enough information to accurately target an ad in [the] future, but cannot be used to find out a) who you are, or b) where you have browsed."[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.141.98 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Currently: "The company drew attention when it announced it was is in talks with some United Kingdom ISPs to deliver targeted advertising based on a user's profile"

As I understand it, they drew attention because of wiretapping peoples' web connections at the ISP level, not because of the advertising aspect? [1] [2] There's quite a difference between an 'advertiser building a profile' and ISPs leaking private data without customer consent and then lying about it [3] [4] 87.194.198.122 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but this was only noted after it announced that it was to "deliver targeted advertising based on a user's profile". After this people started asking how and the articles you refer to were published. I say leave the into as it is. GameKeeper (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That needs to be included within the article somewhere (how it works being one of the major issues). -83.201.188.143 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Oix"?

I'm not clear on the relationshipbetween "Oix" and "Phorm". Assuming that there actually is one, something should be mentioned in the article. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OIX would seem to be the advertising arm of PHORM http://www.oix.com/about/index.html Lostforwords (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Phorm is the name of the company. It has two related 'products': Webwise, which sits in the ISP's network and snoops on their customers, and OIX, which is the part of the system that web sites deal with to generate ad revenue. --Harumphy (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Media links

To note, this page was linked to by two articles in The Register: FIPR: ICO gives BT 'green light for law breaking' with Phorm and Phorm admits censoring Wikipedia article. Joshdboz (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of "Maybe catagorised as adware"

the "Maybe catagorised as adware" doesn't make much sense. Obviously anti-virus scanners -that scan a user's drive for malware- are not going to detect "malware" at the ISP level. And the service sells ads, so there's no doubt that it's "adware", and the advertising aspect is discussed throughout the rest of the article. So this section, although referenced and accurate, serves little point but to pad the article. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be pedantic, I think you'll find tyhe system relies on cookies injected into the communications at an ISP level and a number of companies are debating whether or not those cookies should be flagged. Of course, since the current proposal is to use cookies as the opt-out mechanism, it would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face - you get rid of the cookie but get profiled as a result. *yay* Basiclife (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

marketing team

This section was a blatant copy-vio.

WP article

Phorm has admitted that it deleted key factual parts of the Wikipedia article about the huge controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse[33].

Register article

Phorm has admitted that it deleted key factual parts of the Wikipedia article about the huge controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse.

It's going unless someone re-writes it. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the new wording. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of technical detail on Phorm

Richard Clayton's technical write up on Phorm can be found here: [warning: PDF] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf, (via the Cambridge University Security Blog, http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/), which fills a lot of the tech gaps in the current article. 80.177.98.252 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Updated version now at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080518-phorm.pdf Smartse (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

images and diagrams

A diagram of the data flow from the user, through the ISP, and to Phorm, would be useful, but the non free image in use at the moment isn't very good. It's not free. It's from Phorm, and doesn't really explain what happens to data. Are there any other, clear and free diagrams available? Dan Beale-Cocks 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image for now - despite being non-free, it's the best there is at the moment. When a free image does become available - I haven't found one - then remove the non-free image. Neıl ☎ 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not really the freeness or otherwise of the image, but the lack of information it provides. I suck (and suck hard) at creating graphics, but it'd be nice of someone could create something (after reading the clayton FIPR document) to show the flow of information from users, websites, ISPs and phorm. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the image here Phorming diagram be any use Lostforwords (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia

Note: the following was removed from the article; it's not particularly notable (if it were covered by major newspapers, it would be) and per WP:SELFREF, we really try to avoid discussing Wikipedia within articles not specifically about Wikipedia. - -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Following the publication of an article on The Register, Phorm admitted that it was responsible for removing key factual parts of the Wikipedia article on the company, specifically discussions of the controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with Virgin Media, BT and Carphone Warehouse.[5]

This "wiki-fiddling" was written about by the Guardian "a notable change being that the quote by the Guardian's advertising people is shortened significantly" .[6] Lostforwords (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very many new editors do not know WP's policy on role accounts or COI edits. Phorm's editing of the article isn't really that notable or interesting. The difference between Phorm and those other editors is that Phorm is being watch-listed by many editors who won't let the article move too far off NPOV, and certainly won't let PR types spin it. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this falls into the category Wikipedia:SELFREF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself , the Phorm Wikipedia edits were not that notable UNTIL The Register and The Guardian mentioned them. If its notable enough for multiple press sources to mention then its probably notable here. But I agree it is on the edge of notability. I don't want to be seen as canvasing but would anyone object if I linked this discussion from the WP:Self talk page for an independent view? GameKeeper (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Getting more eyes isn't a bad thing. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has also been mentioned on PC World (magazine) website "Phorm Gussies Up its Wikipedia Entry" [7] and a couple of mentions on Computer Weekly [8] and [9] Lostforwords (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: if it would make sense if it were an article in a different encyclopedia, it's not a self-references issue. In this case it depends on whether this editing incident was notable in the context of the company, and since it hit the press it may well be. Dcoetzee 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links are getting excessive.

There are now 17 external links, if I count correctly. Many of them being anti-phorm sites another chunk being register articles. I propose we dump all the articles as most are cited as sources anyway and cut down the huge number of anti-phorm sites,leaving only the most noteable. Have any been mentioned in the mainstream press? GameKeeper (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen badphorm [Anti-Phorm Campaign] and dephormation mentioned in one or two articles, most recently here [[10]]

The [Anti Phorm League] seems to be mostly entanet related ISPs, so could go I guess, but I have not seen a complete list of ISP's rejecting Phorm on a single site. Lostforwords (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to the Interview "Phorm launches data pimping fight back - Interview with Phorm CEO Kent Ertugrul and its senior vice president of technology, Marc Burgess" should stay in the interest of balance. It also contains a better citation to data still being mirrored if you opt out (page 3) - it is directly attributed to Marc Burgess VP of technology, rather than "a spokesperson". "MB: What happens is that the data is still mirrored to the profiler but the data digest is never made and the rest of the chain never occurs. It ought to be said that the profiler is operated by the ISP, not us." Lostforwords (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did the purge, then I noticed that the 'data pimping fight back' is also a ref (no. 14 at this time), so am tempted to remove that too. There is a roundup of Phorm stories from The Register, that might be a suitable replacement. GameKeeper (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Non UK activity

This is a global organisation - surely their activities are not limited to the UK as this article seems to imply? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

according to the Phorm website - http://www.phorm.com/isp_partners/- 'Current partners include BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media -companies representing approximately 70% of the UK broadband ISP market.', so i'm assuming they havn't recruited any ISPs outside the UK as yet (thankfully) 81.96.251.179 (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times citation in the article states they have been canvassing US ISP's too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have now added a 'globalisation tag'. Although Phorm has offices in USA, UK and Russia and has some time ago run some trials in the US, at least for the moment their only activity, or rather proposed trials, is in the UK. If somebody comes up with evidence that they are actually installing their kit in other countries then I am sure it will be added.Dsergeant (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Like this, you mean? Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This information from the Register only surfaced this week and refers to activity back in 2005 (as 121Media). It also says they are no longer active in the USA. I am not sure whether items from the Register are a reputable source for WP (it doesn't give its own source), but if you want to add it please go ahead. As far as I know, there is no other evidence of them trialing elsewhere, though they are known to have been speaking to ISPs in other countries (like Korea). Dsergeant (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A forum post made in January 2007 by someone claiming to be a Verizon employee,(when phorm was still known as 121media) recently came to light in which it was alleged that a trial was conducted in the US by Verizon "The company that are working with is called 121 Media. I recently helped them to run a trial of the service that covered a significant amount of subscribers. None of them were notified that we were doing this." http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17671786-Re-FiOS-Transparent-Proxying. Unfortunately as a forum post and not a reputable source, I assume it can't be added to the article, although I see no reason to not believe it is genuine. Lostforwords (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Contact from Phorm.

Someone from Phorm has added a message to my talk page regarding inaccuracies in this article. It seems to be a genuine attempt to avoid a conflict of interest and to improve the accuracy of the article. Unfortunately I am very busy with other projects at the moment and cannot give their suggestions the attention they deserve. I could someone else take a look at it? The details are here User_talk:GameKeeper#A_Message_about_the_Phorm_page GameKeeper (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the questionable material now. I hope if Phorm post on this talk page with reasonable requests someone can action their points, as I am likely to be busy over the next month. GameKeeper (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

From Phorm: Help editing the Legality section needed

Hoping someone on the Talk page can help improve the article in this area. As the 16 September 2008 statement by the UK government is meant to replace the various governmental organisations that have commented in the past [See Source listings below, #1 or #2], and that this section is not balanced or neutral, can a neutral editor consider and place the following at the top of the Questions over Legality section:

In the opinion of the UK’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Phorm’s technology can be used in a lawful, appropriate and transparent fashion. BERR issued the following statement [See Source #3] in September 2008:

“The UK is committed to providing a high level of consumer protection. We take our community obligations very seriously especially in the area of data protection and e-privacy. The possible future use of Phorm technology has raised material concerns in this area and the UK authorities are working to ensure that if it is introduced into the market for internet based advertising services, this is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent fashion.

After conducting its enquiries with Phorm the UK authorities consider that Phorm’s products are capable of being operated in this fashion on the following basis:

• the user profiling occurs with the knowledge and agreement of the customer
• the profile is based on a unique ID allocated at random which means that there is no need to know the identity of the individual users
• Phorm does not keep a record of the actual sites visited
• search terms used by the user and the advertising categories exclude certain sensitive terms and have been widely drawn so as not to reveal the identity of the user
• Phorm does not have nor want information which would enable it to link a user ID and profile to a living individual
• users will be presented with an unavoidable statement about the product and asked to exercise a choice about whether to be involved
• users will be able to easily access information on how to change their mind at any point and are free to opt in or out of the scheme.

Future developments involving Phorm will be closely scrutinised and monitored by the enforcement authorities.”

This statement was issued to clarify the UK government’s position on Phorm in reply to the EU letter of June 2008. BERR will have sought the views of the Home Office, Information Commissioner’s Office among others in its reply [see source 1 or 2), and as such, takes precedence over all previous comments.

Sources:

1. 1 - ComputerActive, 22 September 2008: http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2226618/phorm-given-green-light-uk
2. 2 - ZDNet, 16 September 2008: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39488820,00.htm
3. 3 - Computer Weekly, 17 September: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/09/17/232329/bt-presses-on-with-public-phorm-trial.htm

As the BERR statement takes precedence, we request that the following statements be removed:

• The UK Home Office has indicated that Phorm's proposed service is only legal if users give explicit consent.[56]
• The Conservative peer Lord Northesk has questioned whether HM Government is taking any action on the targeted advertising service offered by Phorm in the light of the questions about its legality under the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts.[59] (Clearly the BERR statement is a demonstration of the action the UK government is taking in relation to Phorm and therefore implicitly addresses Lord Northesk’s question)
• On April 9, 2008, the Information Commissioner's Office ruled that Phorm would only be legal under UK law if it were an opt-in service.[60] The Office stated it will closely monitor the testing and implementation of Phorm, in order to ensure data protection laws are observed.[61]

IworkforPhorm (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As the eurpeon union still do not believe it is legal it be wrong to change it, the uk goverment has not made it clear how the system is legal and nithe rhas phorm until the information required to prove it is legal under uk law is there to prove it legal then i can not see any reason to edit it as it is, regardless if you the company phorm like it or not, the article is about verifable information and currently there no proof to verify it is legal and the uk goverment and hproms words are good enough.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) By the way i am not saying it should not be edited only that there not enoguh proof just now to justify it.

It is important to understand the role the EU plays with regard to legal matters. The EU cannot decide that Phorm’s technology is illegal – it can decide that the UK government (or any other EU member state) has incorrectly interpreted EU directives. So this is a matter for the EU and the UK government. In the meantime, the UK government has been very clear on the legality of Phorm’s technology

ZDNet (11 June 2008: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39432962,00.htm) quotes the spokesman for Commissioner Redding as saying: "We are looking into [the BT and Phorm trials], but a national sovereign state's decision can only be challenged if it commits a serious mistake," said Selmayr. "We're looking into it, but so far there has been no indication of that."

So while that is a separate issue, the UK government has made clear how Phorm’s technology can operate in a lawful, appropriate and transparent way. The UK media reporting on the BERR statement (posted above) typically concludes that: “Phorm given the green light by UK government” or “UK gov’t rubber-stamps Phorm technology”. ZDNet (16 September 2008: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39488820,00.htm) described the announcement as follows: “The UK government has said it is confident that future Phorm ad-serving technology will conform to UK privacy and data protection laws ....” ComputerActive (22 September 2008: http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2226618/phorm-given-green-light-uk) uses the following phrases: “The Government has agreed to allow the controversial web monitoring company Phorm to continue its service.” “Following a two-month investigation, BERR said Phorm could operate but only “with the knowledge and agreement of the customer." The London Times (18 September 2008: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/article4775969.ece) describes it as follows: “The Government said that Phorm, the service that tracks internet users’ behaviour as they browse, conforms to European data laws but can be used only with people’s consent.”

Should you want further evidence that the technology complies with BERR’s guidelines take a look at the way that user consent is obtained in the current BT trial (http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/). For example, you can review the webpage used to invite users to participate in the trial – that satisfies BERR’s point about user profiling occurring with the knowledge and agreement of the customer. All the other points are addressed by features of the service as described on the BT Webwise pages.IworkforPhorm (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ISTM that nothing in the cited sources appears to support IworkforPhorm's claim that the BERR statement of September 16th "is meant to replace" or "takes precedence over" earlier comments from official or government bodies.--Harumphy (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Media reporting on the BERR statement (as posted above) frequently pointed out the fact that BERR was coordinating the response to the EU letter on behalf of the UK government. On that basis BERR’s statement is a clear reflection of the opinions of each of the departments and agencies consulted and it makes sense to use this statement as a summary of the UK government’s current position on Phorm. ZDNet (16 September 2008: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39488820,00.htm) makes the case like this - “However, ZDNet.co.uk understands BERR has gathered responses from a number of government departments and enforcement agencies, including the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which is responsible for safeguarding data and privacy laws.” ComputerActive (22 September 2008: http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2226618/phorm-given-green-light-uk) similarly points out - “After consulting with other agencies, such as the Home Office and the Information Commissioner's Office, BERR decided that there was no “inherent reason why Phorm shouldn't be allowed to continue to operate".” Even The Register (12 August 2008: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/12/eu_phorm_letter/) commenting on this said - “The spokeswoman declined to comment further beyond saying that BERR is working on a reply with other departments.” IworkforPhorm (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have still not provide any proof the system is legal until such time the article should nto be changed. BERR are in favor for phorm because mmmm lets see they want to implatment a spying system on uk citzin and what better way that to use yoru equipment that does jsut that. When you provide proof that the article is wrong and i mean proof not a BERR statement then people will be more open to change the article because then it be wrong. Oh and i think you should have a better look at the EU, the EU can and could easily prevent PHORM from being deployed in teh UK or the rest of the Europe they have the power and unless the uk goverment gives them signifcant proof of your system they might exercise that right.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi

I have considered two issues:

• Is the section balanced and neutral;
• Should the three sentences identified by IworkforPhorm be removed or reworded from the section.

I take it on trust that the UK’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has stated and genuinely believes that "Phorm’s technology can be used in a lawful, appropriate and transparent fashion".

Additionally, I believe that the section - when written - was balanced and neutral.

I believe in light of the BERR's stated position that their position should be added to the section (although I do note that the full text of their reply to the European Commission has not yet been released).

I do not believe that BERR's position trumps the courts; specifically I believe that while the UK government and its departments and ministers are entitled to their views, and in the interests of balance and neutrality, are entitled to have their views clearly presented here, these views do not represent legal decisions - such decisions can only be made by the relevant courts. Subject to the caveat below I therefore believe that the three sentences listed by IworkforPhorm can remain in the section.

The "UK Home Office has indicated that Phorm's proposed service is only legal if users give explicit consent". That the Home Office made this indication has not changed as a result of BERR's statement; the Home Office has indicated this in the past. However, should the Home Office's position change then this should be noted and cited.

"The Conservative peer Lord Northesk has questioned whether HM Government is taking any action on the targeted advertising service offered by Phorm in the light of the questions about its legality under the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts." Clearly this remains correct despite BERR's statement.

The "Information Commissioner's Office ruled that Phorm would only be legal under UK law if it were an opt-in service". Again, that the ICO made this ruling remains the case. However, should the ICO revoke this ruling then this should of course be noted and referenced.

Conclusion

This section represents a small part of the overall article. In considering this dispute I have given thought to whether a similar section in an article on a different topic would be considered appropriate. In particular I have considered "criticism" sections. This section seems to me to be broadly reasonable as a section that is clearly marked as containing "criticism" (in this case, questions from numerous parties regarding the legality of the Phorm's activities). The BERR's statement is discussed, though is of necessity brief. The sentences to which IworkforPhorm has objected remain correct, though as noted above should be updated should evidence of a change in position by the relevant parties come to light. I should note that I do not believe that BERR speaks for the ICO or the Home Office; individual government departments can and frequently do hold differing opionions. Further I note that BERR can not speak for the legality of Phorm's actions - they can only voice their opinion that Phorm acted lawfully and legally. This, incidentally, holds true for all parties - the European Commission may hold doubts over the lawfulness of legality of Phorm's actions, however they can not know, nor can they decide, that Phorm acted unlawfully or illegally.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

From Phorm: Page Updates Needed

1. Please update the company fact box to reflect that Steven Heyer is no longer the chairman of the board. Phorm announced on December 1, 2008 that Norman Lamont, Kip Meek, Stefan Allesch-Taylor and Stephen Partridge-Hicks replaced Board members Virasb Vahidi, Steven Heyer, David Dorman and Christopher Lawrence. A new chairman of the board has yet to be named.

2. Please update the “BT Trials” section to reflect the fact that BT’s technical trial with Phorm has now ended. Phorm announced on December 15, 2008 that the trial concluded and following a period of assessment, BT has informed the company that it expects to move toward commercial deployment. and he went on to say that the Commission may have to proceed to formal action if the UK authorities do not provide a satisfactory response to the Commission's concerns.

External Links

• Williams, Chris (2009-02-11). "EU threatens 'formal action' against UK.gov on Phorm". The Register. Retrieved 2009-02-26.

Wikeduk (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC: Big websites urged to avoid Phorm

"Seven of the UK's biggest web firms have been urged to opt out of a controversial ad-serving system." -BBC article. This article is pretty interesting (and notable), however I don't know anything about Phorm and how to integrate the article's content into the wiki. Someone wanna take a look? -M.Nelson (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EC starts legal action on Phorm

A heads up that the phorm article may need changing a little.

EC starts legal action on Phorm (BBC)

"The European Commission has started legal action against Britain over the online advertising technology Phorm."

I believe the appropriate phrase to use is "oh snap". --EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always believed that the US justice system was too trigger happy, but damn if anyone deserves a class action suite it's phorm. Why can't Europeans be more like Americans with respect to ordinary citizens suing businesses for unethical/fraudulent practices? 79.3.223.177 (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

External reference with text that is easier to read

The text on http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-April/042634.html is easier to read than the text on the page currently listed as reference 74, the last reference under the heading "Phorm and Wikipedia". -- Wavelength (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

uk home office and phorm contraversy

This article's content should be summarised and placed in the phorm article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8021661.stm it seems that phorm were consulted by the home office when new policies were being created - extract quote: "The fact the Home Office asks the very company they are worried is actually falling outside the laws whether the draft interpretation of the law is correct is completely bizarre.". Whitehatnetizen (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Added—check it out. --an odd name 17:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Phorm company name change?

Should we create a new topic if Phorm changes their company name?

Their corporate website has deleted all the executive director detail pages and one of those people deleted has removed the word "Phorm" from their work history in their profile on the social networking tool LinkedIn. They've left what they did at Phorm but replaced teh company name with "." and expanded the detail of their previous employment. Maybe they've been dismissed or left the company, or it is possible that the company name is going to change. Thoughts anyone on how to progress if the company re-brands itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikeduk (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

The Financial Times and The Register say this is going to roll out in Brazil. FT paywall/free registration link. Article in The Register William Avery (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken external reference - to Twitter page

The reference to the Twitter page http://twitter.com/AdamLiversage/status/2495860515 is effectively broken (quote from BT's Adam Liversage) as it now displays a Twitter protection error message. Is there an alternative? A cached version?CecilWard (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The tweets of Adam Liversage have now been "protected" (they only visible to selected followers of Adam's tweets) so I have amended the reference to point to a news story showing the tweet this is about: http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-tweet-of-the-week-ex-bt-pr-adam-liversage-on-phorm/ I do not think it is appropriate to include the likely reason Mr Liversage protected his tweets but if anyone has a view on this please comment. In his new business role he will comment on the wrongs of copyright theft. On 7th April 2010 he tweeted with his wife about what to do because she had not picked up an envelope to go with a greetings card she purchased. He suggested scanning and re-printing it which is clearly a violation of copyright and he later said it was just a joke. http://www.flickr.com/photos/revdancatt/4501870721/ Wikeduk (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)