Slashdot Log In
Rights Groups Speak Out Against Phorm, UK Comm. Database
Posted by
Soulskill
on Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 AM
from the noted-and-logged-at-our-secure-servers dept.
from the noted-and-logged-at-our-secure-servers dept.
MJackson writes "The Open Rights Group (ORG) has issued a public letter to the Chief Privacy Officers (or the nearest equivalent) for seven of the world's largest website giants (including Microsoft and Google), asking them to boycott Phorm. The controversial Phorm system works with broadband ISPs to monitor what websites you visit for use in targeted advertising campaigns. Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has issued a new report slamming the UK government's plans for a Communications Database. This would be designed to intercept and log every UK ISP user's e-mail headers, website accesses and telephone history. The report warns that the public are often, 'neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.'"
Related Stories
[+]
BT Silences Customers Over Phorm 196 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Register reports that BT, the UK's dominant telecom and internet service provider, has 'banned all future discussion of Phorm and its "WebWise" targeted advertising product on its customer forums, and deleted all past threads about the controversy dating back to February.' Phorm is a controversial opt-out system for delivering targeted advertising that intercepts traffic passing through an ISP in order to profile subscribers via an assigned unique ID based on their online activities. Subscribers can opt-out at the Webwise website but are opted-in again if the Phorm cookie is cleared. Firefox users can install Melvin Sage's Firephorm add-on to manage their interaction with Phorm and Webwise."
Firehose:Rights Group Calls on Big Sites to Boycott Phorm by Anonymous Coward
[+]
EU Investigates Phorm's UK ISP Advertising System 90 comments
MJackson writes "The European Commission has opened an infringement proceeding against the UK after a series of complaints by Internet users, and extensive communication with UK authorities, about the use of Phorm's behavioural advertising system, which uses Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology, by internet service providers. Phorm works with UK ISPs to monitor what websites you visit for use in targeted advertising campaigns, though its methods have raised more than a few fears about invasions of privacy. Similar services in the USA have caused an equal level of controversy."
[+]
BT Drops Phorm, Citing More Pressing Priorities 94 comments
Tom DBA notes a story up at The Register that begins "BT has abandoned plans to roll out Phorm's controversial web monitoring and profiling system across its broadband network, claiming it needs to concentrate resources on network upgrades... BT's announcement comes a day before MPs and peers of the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group are due to begin an investigation of Internet privacy. Their intervention follows the EU's move to sue the UK government over its alleged failure... properly [to] implement European privacy laws with respect to the trials, drawing further bad publicity to the venture." We've discussed Phorm many times in the past.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Can we stop this use of "Controversial"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can we stop this use of "Controversial"? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more than that. It is controversial, I'm afraid.
There's the whole is it/is it not legal debate, the controversy over the police investigations, the government capitulation and potential EU investigation of the whole thing.
There's also the fact the Joe public has never heard of Phorm and wouldn't particularly care or work out the consequences if he did. So it's basically an argument between monied interests, the British police and government on one side and geeks. privacy advocates and the EU on the other.
I'd call that a bit of a controversy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
There certainly is controversy over the handling of Phorm, if not on its intent and the acceptability of its purpose.
When Phorm was trialled without consent the police investigated both them and the ISP and dropped the case (or were asked to by government). The EU got involved and is still trying to get answers out of the UK government about why this happened, why there were no trials and why it's allowed to continue...
Bah, Maybe not controversial amongst the public any further than "they're watching us all
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's quite a controversial statement you've made there!
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that your concerns about the use of the word "controversial" are controversial, but I don't think enough people share your view to justify using that term. :P
Change your ISP (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like Eastern Europe and Soviet Union won (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK and France are slowly but surely turning into the totalitarian states that, prior to 1990, they despised. You can't carry a defensive weapon to protect yourself from a criminal attack. You can't walk down the street without a camera following you. You can't visit websites with nudity or other "harmful" material (censorship of the right to expression). You don't have a right to a trial by your peers (three strikes and you lose ISP access). Your biometric data is being recorded and tracked by the government, and soon I wouldn't be surprised if they make diets mandatory for people with BMI>25 (as has happened in Japan), or else get fined.
Yay. Freedom won. (cough). Or maybe not.
Re:Looks like Eastern Europe and Soviet Union won (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom won.
Well, one version of freedom won. The freedom that says you need the Government to "protect" you from every conceivable source of harm, ranging from fatty foods to cigarettes to automobile accidents to firearms. The sheep can't possibly be trusted to assume responsibility for their own actions/choices so we need to curtail those choices for the public good.
When will people realize that real freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, provided that it isn't harming your neighbor?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"When will people realize that real freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, provided that it isn't harming your neighbor?"
Never.
And even if they did, they'd keep expanding the definition of harm. I've heard people claiming harm for all sorts of things, like having openly gay individuals living next door harms their property prices, or somehow "gayifies" their children and thus harms them.
People will never give up on their drive to interfere with and disapprove of other people's lives. More'
Rowntree Reform Trust (Score:5, Informative)
Privacy Schmivacy (Score:2, Insightful)
But anyway. Gee, look at the time! 1984 all ready.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, anybody who sells ads and click data is not a warm and fuzzy friend of privacy; but I suspect that most, if not all, such really don't want a third party, in collusion with ISPs, to gain a superior position.
Asking Google to respect the users privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get back to you when my sides stop hurting from laughing.
Changing content (Score:2)
Firefox plus any number of anti-advert plugins stop most adverts, so the system would be self-defeating to what is an ever larger percentage of people dumping browsers like Internet Explorer.
Don't expect the UK's privacy head to do anything, he makes a lot of noises like over the adding of 1 million innocent people to the DNA database (which is the largest in the world and larger than all 26 other European countries combined), but has let the government carry on. Deliberately toothless, a good PR job is all
Tories as the new protectors of personal freedoms? (Score:3, Interesting)
I found this comment in TFA (I believe it's taken from the Roundtree Report) intriguing:
"One of them (the National DNA Database) has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, and both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats have promised to scrap many of the others (emphasis mine)."
Is the an instance of the Tories saying simply "we're not Labour," or is this some new-found attachment to civil liberties by a party previously known for devotion to monarchy and deference to authority?
The Conservatives have never been very fond of Brussels either, so I'm guessing it's not a new-found devotion to the concept of EU-wide human rights that trump the authority of the member national governments.
Re:Tories as the new protectors of personal freedo (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Take all the data that the government is collecting and make it public information that any citizen can view. Then, the population will not have an excuse to be ignorant. I thi
Re: (Score:2)
It's seems the UK government is constantly trying to do some and more to stop it's citizens having any kind of privacy.
Privacy? That really depends on who you are. If you're a "nobody" then expect none, but if you're the rich and powerful that set the bullsh*t laws then you hold all the aces on privacy. From The Daily Mail newspaper [dailymail.co.uk]
Google was at the centre of new controversy last night after pictures of Tony Blair's London home were mysteriously removed from its Street View web service. Images of the House of Commons, the entrance to Downing Street and several Government departments were also blacked out. And it also em
Re:I need to find a new country to live in. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting that the government seems to think that whilst the population should be monitored as closely as possible when it comes to their own activities they clearly take the exact opposite view and fight tooth and nail to keep their own details secret. They also appear to want to take this inbalance even further since according to a government minister defending the government from this report on the radio this morning...
They appear to think they can also completely ignore the law if it suits the interests of Wacky Jacky and the rest of them.
Personally I can see the benefit of centralising government databases, done correctly it should save money and allow the government to work more efficiently which can only be a good thing. However, and it is a big however, I would only support the creation of these central databases based on the following ground rules being enforced:
1. I want to be able see every single piece of data the government is holding on me myself and I want an audit log showing me who has accessed this data and a reason as to why they had done so.
2. In tandem with the above I would want a swift and effective system to impartially consider any complaints I might have that my data was not being accessed for a good reason and the ability to correct any incorrect data I came across and I would require the impartial authority to actually be impartial and have the power to block access and effectively punish those responsible if they agree people have abused their priviledge of access to my data.
3. I would want the ability to remove my data completely from government systems should I choose to do so and not suffer any discriminatory restrictions to my access of government facilities if I chose to do so. Obviously I'd accept things may take them a bit longer to process without access to the electronic data but I wouldn't want to, for example, lose my driving licence.
4. I would have to trust the government and believe that they held themselves to the rule of law and did not undertake nefarious and underhand schemes to abuse my data and to be honest about their intentions.
Sadly I don't think the circumstances will ever be met which would allow the above to happen, particulary points 3 and 4 and especially not under the current morally bankrupt bunch of incompetents.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know how you go from "everyone has the blinders torn off at the same time" to "everyone gets sticks in their eyes". Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Re:this won't win me many friends.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, a GE Minigun [wikipedia.org] is a pretty efficient way to mass-uninstall Windows from a server farm. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you know it was 1903 when they outlawed firearms in the UK right?
Actually no, it wasn't until 1997 that they outlawed whole classes of firearms. My understanding is that the previous bits of legislation regulated them but did not outlaw them. In either case, how does that change my original point? When the populace meekly surrenders one right why should they then act surprised when the government seeks to curtail other rights? You set the precedent -- don't be surprised by the results.
I also can't help but notice how my original comment has been modded into oblivion
Re: (Score:3)
In 1997 under 125K had firearm licenses
After 1997 around 125K have firearm licences. The difference is that they are now not allowed handguns.
1997 is not a significant date for this "rights" discussion. You had zero right to defend yourself with those firearms for a long time before that. The handgun ban was brought in to stop nuts shooting up schools. And it did.
The British public has no appetite for guns and hasn't had for many years and I sure as fuck don't want armed chavs roaming the streets.
I'm sorry,
Re:this won't win me many friends.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
Historically, men had the right to rape their wives, now they don't.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
Historically, fathers had the right to decide who their daughters married, now they don't.
Historically, rich men had the right to horsewhip peasants who were rude to them, now they don't.
We've given up all of these rights, but I don't see you many people claiming that society would be improved by getting them back. If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument than 'well, that's what it used to be, back before 1903 when society was basically rubbish for anyone below the upper middle class'.
Parent