Thanks for responding. What lot's of people are missing is that there are at least two halves to the Phorm/Webwise equation. Firstly – the bit the ISP's do with their DPI./Layer 7 kit, intercepting (without user consent) and redirecting the browser of their customer (whether opted in or not) and inspecting for the presence of webwise optin/out cookies – there MUST be a Webwise opt-OUT cookie present or the user will get another Webwise invite – again and again – strange form of OptIN when you have to keep a cookie from the service you don't want to be part of…) – because before you even visit the site or service they are intercepting your browser requests…?

Then – if the optIN cookie is found – there is copying and profiling of the surfing behaviour – in ISP managed equipment.

Then, – passing the already collected surfing data and website content data to Phorm managed equipment for channel selction and ad serving.
Here is the official BT diagram –
http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/customer_choice.html

and here are some more reports that make it clear.
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
http://www.fipr.org/0811SCLarticle.pdf
http://www.reed.com/dpr/docs/Papers/ReedDPIHear…

Everyone seems to think the protest is about Phorms ad serving. It isn't. It is about the inerception by the ISP's without consent, and the copying and exploitation and making of derivative works (profiles, and forged cookies pretending to come from the visited website) from website copyrighted content without consent for commercial gain. the primary offenders in this are the ISP's – although Phorm designed the system, and are complicit in the breaches of civil and criminal law involved.

thanks for your attention to this – good blog.

And since this also concerns Section 8 of the Human Rights Act lets make it clear, Phorm YOU have NO AUTOMATIC RIGHT to my or anyone else's PRIVATE DATA!

(YOU HAVE abused my Trust in my ISP in 2006 & 2007!)

It is easy to remove a pin from a Grenade, but make sure you throw it away in time, or it will blow up in your face!

Alex – I’m not sure we will ever see explicit market places in attention – I suspect the values are too small for that. Rather I expect that the trade offs will be more implicit.

Warescouse – when I write a post like this there is often a trade off between keeping the post short and accessible and simplifying generalisations. You are spot on that the issue is more complex than McNealy’s simple statement implies. I used it because it is directionally correct – I believe that people are more concerned about privacy than they need to be at the moment, and that they will get over it at some point.

Revrob – what you say is interesting. I had thought that Phorm’s USP was their ability to track surfing and target on the back of that? Surely it is pretty simple for ISPs to make us view a page of their choice en route to the one we are trying to get to? A link to the discussion you mention would be great.

Alex – I’m not sure we will ever see explicit market places in attention – I suspect the values are too small for that. Rather I expect that the trade offs will be more implicit.

Warescouse – when I write a post like this there is often a trade off between keeping the post short and accessible and simplifying generalisations. You are spot on that the issue is more complex than McNealy’s simple statement implies. I used it because it is directionally correct – I believe that people are more concerned about privacy than they need to be at the moment, and that they will get over it at some point.

Revrob – what you say is interesting. I had thought that Phorm’s USP was their ability to track surfing and target on the back of that? Surely it is pretty simple for ISPs to make us view a page of their choice en route to the one we are trying to get to? A link to the discussion you mention would be great.

Can we make this clear – the issues are – firstly the illegal interception of browsing, and secondly the exploitation of website intellectual property – without consent (I thought ISP’s were into protecting intellectual content nowadays?). The protest is NOT, repeat NOT about behavioural targetting. Got that?
Thanks for the article.

Can we make this clear – the issues are – firstly the illegal interception of browsing, and secondly the exploitation of website intellectual property – without consent (I thought ISP’s were into protecting intellectual content nowadays?). The protest is NOT, repeat NOT about behavioural targetting. Got that?
Thanks for the article.

Having privacy is what democratic societies are dependent upon. If you have no privacy, you have a state that has the ability to persecute, similar to countries such as China. Is this where you want technology to go?

Just because new technology has the ability to intercept and manipulate all a persons http data online it does not automatically follow that it to be acceptable to do it.

What you are saying is no different to stating we live in a gun society – lets get used to it!
Only ostriches are supposed to bury their heads in the sand.

I suggest for starters you read “The internal value of privacy” by Bruce Schneier (BT top security specialist)
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886