-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is a newly arrived document on WikiLeaks (seems that crytome has
lost street cred now that Home Office use them!). It appears to be an
internal BT report assessing their 2006 trial of Phorm technology.
<URL:http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/British_Telecom_Phorm_Page_Sense_Exte
rnal_Validation_report>
A key point to make is that this trial used slightly different
technology than the current Phorm system that I recently documented (it
apparently appended a JavaScript tag to web pages and redirected the
browser in such a way that the navigation bar in the browser "fluttered"
and tags ended up in some web postings).
It does seem to have been making use of cookies, but they were
apparently placed on people's systems in an "honest" manner prior to the
trial (viz: there was no forgery of other sites in order to trick the
browsers into accepting them).
An interesting sentence early on reads:
Normally the PageSense system deploys cookies directly to user's
machines. BT Broadband terms and conditions prevented this approach.
Looking at BT's current T&C's I find it hard to identify if they have
changed anything yet. The business conditions:
http://www.btbroadbandoffice.com/broadband/terms_busi
don't seem changed in any relevant way from what I can locate on
www.archive.org for 2006. The consumer T&C's are on the page
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/dynamicmodules/pa
gecontentfooter/pageContentFooterPopup.jsp?pagecontentfooter_popupid=134
08
(!) but seem to have been somewhere else prior to April 2007, so I
haven't managed to do a comparison to see if these are changed :(
Anyway --- back to the 2006 trial. The trial was secret, in that users
were experimented upon without their knowledge or consent (which is
generally felt to have been illegal [even with consent it is FIPR and
others view that is illegal -- without consent I can't see much doubt]).
Also, the trial involved the building of browsing histories and the
serving of ads on the basis of that history -- which seems to run
counter to earlier assurances by BT as to the nature of the trial:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/bt_phorm_lies/
"Absolutely no personally identifiable information was processed,
stored or disclosed during this trial"
The "disclosed" has already been shown to be dubious (because of the way
that the technology worked at that time), although the dates don't match
well, it seems to be much the same technology:
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2676.20
[of course the identifiers in the cookies can be leaked in the current
system as well, which is one of the (many) objections to it].
We can now see from the internal document that "processed" is also false
(the system used the data in order to build browsing histories):
Which makes the only thing left intact from BT's statement is the lack
of "storage" (the Phorm system records a distilled down profile against
your personal identifier).... hmmmmm
There's much more in the document, but this is a long enough message
already, so I shall just note that the document contains the throw-away
line "communications regarding advertisement systems and information
collection could lead to negative perception if not carefully handled".
<URL:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=no+shit+sherlock>
- --
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBSEfQh5oAxkTY1oPiEQLjEQCgjp/IjSz0jyqZCtveeH/J0gWkh9QAnilH
mmS6PUjmgRnarzY6ipl1XCA9
=de0C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is a newly arrived document on WikiLeaks (seems that crytome has
lost street cred now that Home Office use them!). It appears to be an
internal BT report assessing their 2006 trial of Phorm technology.
<URL:http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/British_Telecom_Phorm_Page_Sense_Exte
rnal_Validation_report>
A key point to make is that this trial used slightly different
technology than the current Phorm system that I recently documented (it
apparently appended a JavaScript tag to web pages and redirected the
browser in such a way that the navigation bar in the browser "fluttered"
and tags ended up in some web postings).
It does seem to have been making use of cookies, but they were
apparently placed on people's systems in an "honest" manner prior to the
trial (viz: there was no forgery of other sites in order to trick the
browsers into accepting them).
An interesting sentence early on reads:
Normally the PageSense system deploys cookies directly to user's
machines. BT Broadband terms and conditions prevented this approach.
Looking at BT's current T&C's I find it hard to identify if they have
changed anything yet. The business conditions:
http://www.btbroadbandoffice.com/broadband/terms_busi
don't seem changed in any relevant way from what I can locate on
www.archive.org for 2006. The consumer T&C's are on the page
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/dynamicmodules/pa
gecontentfooter/pageContentFooterPopup.jsp?pagecontentfooter_popupid=134
08
(!) but seem to have been somewhere else prior to April 2007, so I
haven't managed to do a comparison to see if these are changed :(
Anyway --- back to the 2006 trial. The trial was secret, in that users
were experimented upon without their knowledge or consent (which is
generally felt to have been illegal [even with consent it is FIPR and
others view that is illegal -- without consent I can't see much doubt]).
Also, the trial involved the building of browsing histories and the
serving of ads on the basis of that history -- which seems to run
counter to earlier assurances by BT as to the nature of the trial:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/bt_phorm_lies/
"Absolutely no personally identifiable information was processed,
stored or disclosed during this trial"
The "disclosed" has already been shown to be dubious (because of the way
that the technology worked at that time), although the dates don't match
well, it seems to be much the same technology:
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2676.20
[of course the identifiers in the cookies can be leaked in the current
system as well, which is one of the (many) objections to it].
We can now see from the internal document that "processed" is also false
(the system used the data in order to build browsing histories):
Which makes the only thing left intact from BT's statement is the lack
of "storage" (the Phorm system records a distilled down profile against
your personal identifier).... hmmmmm
There's much more in the document, but this is a long enough message
already, so I shall just note that the document contains the throw-away
line "communications regarding advertisement systems and information
collection could lead to negative perception if not carefully handled".
<URL:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=no+shit+sherlock>
- --
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBSEfQh5oAxkTY1oPiEQLjEQCgjp/IjSz0jyqZCtveeH/J0gWkh9QAnilH
mmS6PUjmgRnarzY6ipl1XCA9
=de0C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, if we're going to list lengthy sets of legislation which BT may or may not have broken as part of the trial, do we want to try listing the legislation that posting someone else's copyright document might fall foul of?
On 05 Jun 08, at 1343, Alexander Hanff wrote:
Oh I almost forgot. With regards posting the full report to Wikileaks it was simply the first place I thought of. I got home with the loose pages in my hand having read them on the train and realised I needed to get them into the pubic domain as soon as possible
ian
--
Alan=20
Burkitt-Gray, Editor, Global Telecoms Business
"Copyright doesn't apply to journalistic use of works (although I am happy to be told otherwise)," said Alexander Hanff.Oh yes it does.The rule is called "fair dealing" or "fair use".Academics, students, critics, journalists and others can include selective quotes to illustrate their arguments. I don't think there is any rule about what percentage of the original copyright work can be quoted under this rule, but the guideline is that it's probably around 5%. And that depends on the length of the work and the way it's quoted (so you couldn't quote the whole of one chapter of a 20-chapter book, for example).Quoting 100% is definitely a breach of copyright.--
DISCLAIMER: The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by e-mail or by telephone on +44 (0) 20 7779 8888 and then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies thereof. Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC (its subsidiaries and associates) cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this email as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the email may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender. Any views expressed by an individual in this email do not necessarily reflect views of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC (its subsidiaries and associates). This communication is from Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, a company registered in England and Wales under company number 954730 with registered office at Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London
Alan Burkitt-Gray, Editor, Global Telecoms Business
www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com