Posts by Darren Winter 10 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Oct 2007
I fired off an email to BT about what they'd been doing, planned to do etc and was gratified to receive a reply from a young lady detailed to respond to such requests. I'm posting the email address here so those of us that are worried about Phorm can ask questions and get replies from BT. Maybe they'll take notice of the volume of mail, assuming enough of us get in touch (hin, hint). Send your emailed questions to Emma Sanderson at:
emma.sanderson@bt.com
"Until that day Ofcom will be on hand to make sure the ad breaks are long enough to get the kettle on, and don't intrude into our programming."
I'm confused here, Reg - wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago (March 20th, fact fans - 'Ofcom says yes on more TV ads') that you reported that:
- two breaks instead of one would be permitted in a 30-minute show
- adverts shown immediately after the opening credits
- films to have ad breaks every 30 mins, instead of every 45 at present
- an overall increase in the number of adverts
So how exactly do these proposals 'not intrude into our programming'?
I hate Sky. Their programming is drivel: they're hideously expensive considering everything is funded by (it seems) Ocean Finance and Jamster adverts; they have a curious reluctance to develop any programmes of their own that aren't quiz shows or the worst Terry Pratchett books.
But thank the Lord that they introduced Sky Plus!
Phorm are mentioned on bt.com - you have to find the section on Webwise (and enable scripts if you're running Firefix/NoScript).
They appear briefly in a FAQ about webwise, which seem to be touted as something akin to McAfee Site Advisor with the added advantage of "better" advertising - if that's not an oxymoron like fresh-frozen, friendly fire or military intelligence.
There is a curious entry in the FAQ. One of the questions says 'What have Phorm got to do with Russia and China?' and basically the answer is that they have a team of cheap developers in Moscow, but nothing to do China. I don't recall them being linked with China.
Does this mean we're slow on picking up on something? Are Phorm linked with communism and censorship?
Paris, because for her and Phorm's records aren't very good
A word of caution to those using trackmenot - read this blog post first:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/trackmenot_1.html
Specifically:
" ... every twelve seconds -- exactly -- the program picks a random pair of words and sends it to either AOL, Yahoo, MSN, or Google. My guess is that your searches contain more than two words, you don't send them out in precise twelve-second intervals, and you favor one search engine over the others.
... some of the program's searches are worse than yours. The dictionary includes:
HIV, atomic, bomb, bible, bibles, bombing, bombs, boxes, choke, choked, chokes, choking, chain, crackers, empire, evil, erotics, erotices, fingers, knobs, kicking, harier, hamster, hairs, legal, letterbomb, letterbombs, mailbomb, mailbombing, mailbombs, rapes, raping, rape, raper, rapist, virgin, warez, warezes, whack, whacked, whacker, whacking, whackers, whacks, pistols"
Apologies to the creators of trackmenot if this has been fixed - thought it best to mention it before we all install it.
Yes, the comments above about it clogging up the web with extra traffic are founded, but without resorting to such lame clichés as "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" there's an element of truth in it. Imagine how much bandwidth would be freed if we could reduce the amount of adverts being delivered now? If the Phorm model worked, more people who don't currently host ads might be motivated to start doing so; or greedy companies/newspapers (Times, Telegraph, for shame!) might simply have more ads than before. Are we prepared to put up with some clogging now to perhaps free up some bandwidth for the future?
As I said before I'm not a tecchie so if my interpretation of the facts is completely bogus, then I apologise now. We're all in this together, the anti-phorm army!
Paris, because we've given her a hard time lately and she fell over the other day, cut her chin and her boyfriend just stepped straight over her...
Just read this comment on a blog:
"A new tool to fight Phorm: http://www.dephormation.org.uk/
This Firefox plug-in cannot stop Phorm from monitoring every web site you visit, reading your web mail (unless you use gmail via secure http) etc but it can at least mess up the tracking system. It’s a start.
What is really needed is a program to randomly surf the net while your PC is idle, filling Phorm’s logs up with rubbish. If enough people did it, their data would become worthless and their ad click rate would drop. Hitting them in the wallet is the only language these asshats seem to understand :("
Would this last work - is it possible to write a program that finds random content to mess up Phorm's data? I imagine it would have to function around a keyword, rather than be totally random - we don't want to be accidentally looking at sites covering kiddie porn, terrorist activity or Chelsea Football Club - so perhaps if you type in a phrase like "chocolate fireguard" or "cheese clogs" into your hypothetical Firefox add-on it would merrily go away and visit said sites whilst you do nothing.
I'm not a tecchie, just someone interested in the issues, so can anyone say whether this would work?
From http://denyphorm.blogspot.com/
Do you want to know if you were part of the illegal BT trials last summer? If so you can send a Subject Access Request to BT's Data Controller under the Data Protection Act (DPA). You will need to send a £10 cheque or postal order but they are required by law to respond to the request within 40 days.
You can read the Information Commissioner's Office Guidelines on your rights regarding SAR under the DPA by downloading the following PDF directly from their website:
Make sure you send Subject Access Requests as "Registered Post" should you need to issue a complaint against BT for failing to adhere to the SAR within the 40 days.
Phorm PR People revealing their true selves...
Either the link is wrong or the Beeb have changed it, because now it only points to a glossing-over piece by Julia Caesar with no interview, or indeed anything of substance. Obviously it must have worked at some point because people above have commented on the interview - but there's no sign of it now.
Paris, because even she might ask more difficult questions than the BBC
... a call from a nine year old saying that they think someone fancies them!
The police don't investigate actual crimes, like theft, breaking and entering, vandalism or muggings, so I hardly see them bothering with this.
Paris, because she's rich enough to follow Frankie's advice and Arm The Unemployed. If they're hanging around doing nothing, they may as well be a vigilante army!
Forgive the naivety of my question (if indeed it is a naive question), but will the combination of Firefox and Adblock throttle these wonderful, life-enhancing adverts? In fact, by being able to use the *phorm* wildcard combination, might it be even easier to cut adverts off than it is now?
If this is so, then this might the kick in the goolies that IE needs. If everyone knows how simple it is to cut almost all ads of at source - rather than, as one earlier commentator said, wait for doubleclick to steal more of your life away - might this be the start of IE's long-awaited trip down the dumper?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
