|
|
|
| Phorm reveals a new chairman and a new strategy |
| Wednesday, April 08, 2009 at 23:56 by Mark Benson |
Under fire targeted advertising company Phorm has today revealed a new chairman in the shape of ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, and a new strategy to help the image of the business. Since moving from a beta stage system to a full working order targeted advertising service the company has received significant criticism from those fighting for privacy.
In simple terms, the service allows Internet service providers to anonymously monitor the websites visited by their customers and use the system to target adverts which they are more than likely to act upon. There are issues regarding privacy with some parties suggesting individual clients can be traced while the company is adamant the system uses anonymous tags and is non-traceable.
However, today saw an interesting development with an attack on Google and other search engines on the Internet. The company is trying to highlight that they are not the only online service which should be dragged into the privacy storm with Google, amongst many, known to operate a similar target type of system. The company argues that it has set the "gold standard" with regards to online privacy and others need to follow suit. As the Phorm system moves closer to full release we are sure to see many fireworks over the coming days, months and years. |
|
| |
 
|
|
| Phorm is unique in the UK. There are many behavioural advertising companies, but only one that wants to install little black boxes in your ISP.
This is to snoop on everything you do via the web, just so they know what you are interested in. The man who invented the web said it was like putting a TV camera in your living room, but only worse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7936625.stm
What on earth is our country coming to? |
|
|
| google and phorm are not using the same technology are they? Google uses cookies etc which people can block if they wish. Phorm wants to be in the ISP listening in to all the data. Not the same. |
|
|
| "with Google... known to operate a similar target type of system" - there are many forms of behavioural targeting on the internet but Phorm's system is unique in that it is the ONLY one currently in use which uses Deep Packet Inspection to intercept communications at the heart of a users ISP. That is why it has attracted so much more criticism than Google. Because it is technically, morally, and legally very different from Google. Phorm's interception of communications represents a catastrophic corruption of privacy. |
|
|
| My opinion is that Phorm are trying to confuse the issues. They would like people to think that it is Behavioural Advertising that is the sin, all the privacy campaigners are up in arms about. Hence the attack on Google, who coincidently, are associated with behavioural advertising. The privacy campaigners are actually up in arms with Phorm because they use Deep Packet Inspection to get their data. The difference? An Analogy. Standard Behavioural Analysis looks at the destination and the postmark of packets of data that are being sent. It makes its analysis using the envelope of the data. Deep Packet Inspection opens the envelope, reads the contents and effectively snoops on all the content. That is why privacy campaigners are up in arms about Phorm WebWise product. The two types are totally different. |
|
|
| What Phorm is doing is much more insidious than Google. Phorm is a completely different kettle of fish. There's also the significant concern of function creep. |
|
|
| Oh dear.... you have to be pretty confused to make 10 separate errors in a three-paragraph news item .
And Phorm just *love* it when people do that, as they take it as validating their claim that people only dislike Phorm because they don't understand it.
But Kent is finding that many of us 'tiny minority' of anti-Phorm protesters do understand it, and understand it very well. In fact the more you understand it, the worse it seems...
1. They might have wheeled him out for the first time publicly here, but Lamont's been in place for a while now.
2. Phorm have a new strategy? I didn't see one announced.
3. Since when was Phorm 'fully working'? We have good reason to suppose that the latest BT trial identified issues that still need to be addressed.
4. The privacy storm started when Phorm announced that they were working with UK ISPs a year ago. Nothing to do with it moving out of beta. Which (see 3) it hasn't yet anyway.
5. The ISPs don't anonymously monitor the websites. We all know who our ISPs are. Don't we? Perhaps you meant that the customers were anonymous, though. Which would be a bit weird, as the ISP must be using the customer's IP address all through the dialogue so it knows where to send the packets.
6. The ISPs don't target the adverts. Phorm, via its OIX system, targets the adverts. As a third party to the transaction. Don't think that Phorm sells your ISP a system to do this, and then goes away. It's Phorm (previously known as rootkit-using adware company 121Media) who stores all the collected data and then serves the adverts (and could do who-knows-what-else with the data as well).
7. 'More than likely' to act on? Better than 50% probability? I don't think even Phorm, in their wildest dreams, would claim *that*. I think you mean 'more likely, allegedly', don't you?
8. Re tracing, there is no argument. Phorm puts the 'anonymous tag' into a cookie which it drops on every site you visit. So, every site you visit can read your tag, marry it up with your IP address and any other information you give, and trace you with it. For DoubleClick and its like, your Phorm tag is a way easier device for tracking you than even its own tracking cookies. If they choose to use it for that purpose.
9. As has been mentioned above in the comments, Google doesn't track via DPI that you can't stop your ISP using, even if you want to. But if Phorm want to argue that Behavioural Tracking is equally bad, no matter who does it, that's fine by me. Rather shooting themselves in the foot, though, don't you think?
10. Phorm 'the gold standard' for online privacy? Seems to me the gold standard is when your privacy is respected completely, and no profile data is collected at all. Phorm's 'standard' is a tarnished one at best.
Well, that'll do for now. I could go on about a couple of other issues you don't mention; that a major beef is the way Phorm datascrapes the websites it visits for clues as to what you like, and then tries to ensure you buy *somewhere else*, thus depriving the website owner of their rightful income from the investment they made in attracting you there; and that Phorm is illegal on four separate counts under UK law.
But as you wound up by saying 'As the Phorm system moves closer to full release we are sure to see many fireworks over the coming days, months and years', I'll say - "Well, you sure got that bit right".
Midnight_Voice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
