|
|
|
| Is Phorm under investigation by the Police? |
| Sunday, September 07, 2008 at 13:08 by Mark Benson |
News that the City of London police are taking a keen interest in the forthcoming trials of the controversial advertising system Phorm has set alarm bells ringing in the sector. Those in touch with events at the Phorm will be aware that the group has created an advertising system which logs the websites you visit, your interests and general online activity in order to offer the ‘perfect' adverts for you.
There has been, and continues to be, much debate about whether this tracking system is legal and if it breaks the rules of the Data Protection Act. Despite the concerns expressed by many of the public the share price of Phorm raced ahead this week on expectations that the service will shortly be in place to the wider market.
However, it has to be said that at this moment in time the Phorm system is being pushed through against consumer wishes and quite who will publically sign-up for the service when it is available to the masses remains to be seen. There is the chance of a consumer backlash if their favourite sites were to begin collecting data about their internet usage without their express permission. This is one story which is set to run and run. |
|
| |
 
|
|
| The Phorm share price has not raced ahead. At close on Friday, 6 September 2008 Phorm (PHRM:LSE) shares were 675p down 10% on the day, and down 5.26% on the week.
|
|
|
| Its the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that's key, not just DPA. Without the explicit consent of both parties to the communication, customers *AND* the web site publisher, intercepting the communication for marketing is clearly illegal.
For good reason; its a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and effectively mass industrial espionage.
Other laws are also likely to be applicable, such as Copyright (Phorm copies pages without consent, and uses the content to the disadvantage of the publisher to promote competitors), Fraud (creating fake cookies, and redirections), Computer Misuse Act...
Its why marketing people must never be allowed to design and operate communication networks.
The people who really ought to be subject to a Police inquiry are British Telecom Directors. They trialled Phorm's systems in secret in 2006/7, intercepting the communications of tens of thousands (some say hundreds of thousands) of their subscribers without their knowledge or consent.
As Bill Hicks so rightly put it, advertising and marketing people are "the ruiners of all things good". |
|
|
| It's amazing how many media outlets try to talk up a share price.
Phorm shares are down more than 70% from their peak of £35.75 when this 'ISP level' spyware was announced. An increase of 112p to close at 675p is hardly racing ahead.
And let us not forget that this week saw the phorm shares hit their 52 week low of 600p
Mud sticks - and Phorm are coverd in it!
|
|
|
| The issue is less about the DPA than it is about RIPA - illegal interception of communications is way more serious, and can hardly be claimed to be accidental. |
|
|
| It's not just the Data Protection Act that Phorm have broken, there is also the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which makes it illegal to intercept electronic communications without a warrant or permission. Phorm's software does not just log what sites you visit, it scans everything you do, using Deep Packet Inspection, and it presents you with faked copies of websites, with any alterations it wants to make. In fact, it will completely remove all privacy if you let yourself get hooked up to it. That's why the government has been desparate to avoid a prosecution, as they plan to do the same thing, only on an even bigger scale. |
|
|
| You can post your thoughts or comments on this topic here
Since I was One of Many subjected to the Trials in 2006 & 2007 & other alignment tests 2006 2007 & 2008, I cannot possibly comment on any possible legal proceedings at this point.
All I can say is that some of the DATA INJECTED into my Browser User Agent String Applications was not just for advertising purposes & I consider some of it to be highly illegal! |
|
|
| the point missed here is also copyright, as phorm / Webwise make a mirror copy without any implied consent as they are not the requestor of the page, if then processes the page to make a derivative work (the data digest which is url, keywords and search terms) again with no implied consent, then uses that information for commercial gain
a number of people think the ripa and dpa will get glossed over as hm gov seem to be involved, but the copyright ,design and patents act is more likely to be an issue as it is worldwide so harder to get round.
what will happen if a UK BT customer opted in to phorm / webwise visits a US website? who is liable for the copyright infringement of the system, the user? as they have opted into the system, BT as they operate the gifted servers doing the infringment or phorm the providers of a system which could be seen by many as illegal
although the legality of the system is yet to be tested in court
we wait and see, bt my guess would be BT to be liable as technically it is THEIR servers doing the the interception and processing
we wait and see with great interest |
|
|
| Seems to me that you have not researched this story very much have you? I mean, it's very shallow and frankly, whilst it does expose the tip of the issues, it's just misguided because it really does not begin to scratch the surface of the seriousness of what the ex-spyware company Phorm are up to. This is ONLY my opinion. Readers can decide themselves if they think this activity is illegal and also if Phorm are an ex-spyware company. Search the web and you'll find the answers! Try PoepleOnPage, or Phorm's previous name 121Media, or ContextPlus. Or take a look at how F-Secure and Norton AntiVirus classify the software which Kent Ertugrul's firm produced (Kent is CEO of Phorm and was also in charge of 121Media). Phorm's share price has fallen significantly and any recovery is only temporary until someone dumps a lot of shares at the best price they can get. Unethical. And not wanted, not by consumers nor traders it seems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
