Posted on March 11th, 2009 by Barry Collins

Lib Dems were wrong to gag Phorm

It’s not often I find myself defending Phorm, but at the House of Commons today the behavioural advertising service was genuinely hard done by.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Miller invited a hand-picked panel of internet experts and politicians to a roundtable discussion entitled: The Internet Threat: Who needs privacy when we can have relevant ads? A title that makes its stance on behavioural advertising pretty damned clear. And there were only two companies mentioned in the press release: BT and Phorm.

She further loaded the dice by picking a selection of renowned Phorm critics including Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who’s spoken out against Phorm and its like in the past; Dr Richard Clayton and Nicholas Bohm from the Foundation for Information Policy Research, the organisation that branded BT’s secret Phorm trials “illegal”; and Jim Killock from the Open Rights Group.

Nothing wrong with that, and the credentials of the panel are beyond dispute. But for some reason, Baroness Miller wasn’t prepared to give Phorm a seat at the table, relegating its CEO Kent Ertugrul and various flunkies to the back of the room with us journalists. BT were invited to speak, but declined.

Phorm eventually had its say: Ertugrul sat waving like the smart kid in the classroom that the teacher deliberately avoids, until finally Baroness Miller relented and let him speak, but he certainly wasn’t given the same “airtime” as the rest of the panel.

It was, to some extent, a kangaroo court, with the defendant struggling to get a word in edgeways, while the prosecution generally repeated the same charges. It only served to invoke a degree of sympathy for Phorm – former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis even asked Ertugrul for his business card, as he clearly wanted to get both sides of the story.

The sad thing was Miller didn’t need to gag Phorm. The most interesting exchanges occurred when Berners-Lee and Ertugrul were briefly allowed to debate openly with one another. There were highly intelligent, articulate people on the panel: they didn’t need protection. They more than held their own when they were allowed to directly exchange views with Phorm.

Democracy is best served by an open debate. Of all people, you’d have thought the Liberal Democrats would have grasped that.

Tags: Baroness Miller, BT, Phorm, Tim Berners-Lee

Posted in: Newsdesk

Permalink

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Social Bookmark this article: What is this?

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

12 Responses to “ Lib Dems were wrong to gag Phorm ”

Stephen Mainwaring Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Don’t worry Barry – Kent Ertugrul and his PR army will have plenty of opportunity to say their side of the story in a town hall meeting they are hosting next month.

This will surely be a one sided event packed to the rafters with on message Phorm-ites.

I wonder if the event will be recorded on video?

We are still waiting for the video of last years event. It was promised to be released un-edited but it never materialised.

On the point about democracy: democracy is best served by a government, a regulator, and a police force upholding laws which already exist. It is not served by letting a company spy on an eight year old child and getting away with it.
John Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Kent Ertugul and Phorm have spent the past year lobbying parliament. Were those who object to the interception of their web browsing invited to give an opposing viewpoint at any meetings that took place?

Lets not confuse the issue though. It isn’t behavioural advertising that is the issue, it’s the method of collecting the data.
Neil Maybin Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
This event was about “Online Privacy and the Interception of Internet Communications”, not Phorm. If Phorm was not offering this technology, another company such as NebuAd would. Phorm had around fifteen minutes’ airtime in a two-hour event which covered the wider issues of the integrity of communications, privacy and how behavioural profiling can be reasonably and safely carried out. Not bad going, I would say.
kittyscat Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Phorm have been busy treating many MPs also in their words Eurocrats to the wine and dine treatment to get this system in place. About time someone stopped them.

There is a large discrepancy in the privacy statements between Phorm, OIX and BT with the customers DATA the pawn in the middle.

Read them all before you decide Kent was gagged he has been gagging news about Phorm for over 12 months. But the OIX shows that the internet adverts need more information than BT and Phorm say they harvest.

As some explain this! There is server A on BT’s network intercepting your connection and server C on Phorms side passing on info to the advertisers stuck in the middle is server B with personal data on which seems no one has claimed to be responsible for.

Either way your connection is intercepted read and saved with a UNIQUE ID number since this is UNIQUE then as time passes then your personal data will be visible this is more UNIQUE than names as just how many Smiths are there but there will only be one number for you.

Then there is the copyright infringement of websites interlectual property.
Mark Antony Thompson Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
It’s probably for the best that they didn’t let a Phorm PR rep, or Kent himself on the panel. Sure, you can argue that it loads the dice, but there have been plenty of previous occassions in the past where this issue has been attempted to be debated and the Phorm people deliberately muddy the water and give even worse ‘non’ answers than politicians. They just spew forth such PR babble that it is difficult to decide if they don’t want to answer a question, don’t know the answer, or are just trying to cover something up.

For over a year now I have been trying to get an answer to a very simple question. If I do not ‘opt in’ to Phorm/Webwise. Will my internet browsing still be monitored and will any of my traffic go anywhere near Phorms equipment/services/programs (regardles of whether they are running on the ISP’s or Phorms kit).

That is a simple question surely, yet you try and get a simple answer from someone from Phorm and it just doesn’t happen, they will always qualify their answer in some way which leaves it open to question as to whether your traffic still gets ‘touched’ or ‘profiled’ in some way by Phorm and in effect you have only ‘opted out’ from receiving the ads.

Over 21000 people signed a petition on the 10 downing street site, it was in the top 5 petitions for almost the full year it was running, yet a year on and Phorm have done nothing to allay the fears that many people have with regards to having what amounts to spying technology placed at the heart of the ISP.
Janet Marshall Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Barry, how can you work for a PC mag and not understand the real issue is not Behavioural Ads at all. People accept junk mail from businesses they have had dealings with or from businesses they have allowed to share their details. What people do not accept is snooping which is exactly what ISPs want to use Phorm’s system to do for profit. Deep Packet Inspection for spying and profit – THAT is the issue here.

And you say Phorm was not given their time? As someone said already Phorm HAS has their time. They just manipulate it and unfortunately they are transparently bad at doing so – for example, employing a PR firm to edit Wikipedia content that is negative to their company (even though it is true and was later reinstated when they were “caught at it”). Secondly they held the Town Hall Meeting last year and said it would be recorded and available on line “unedited” (their word, not mine). That was an untruth. They did not make that video available at all. That caused embarrassment for at least one well known man from Privacy International who happened to be working with Phorm in another capacity. He had been assured the video would be released and it never was.

Barry. When you look back at the last year… When you look at how BT ran two trials of Phorm technology without asking customers… When you see who Phorm were before they changed their name from 121Media… And when you learn that an ISP bans discussion of the issue and deletes all posts on their customer forums (i.e. BT)… And when you review the words about 121Media’s software on respected anti-virus/adware company websites like F-Secure… Surely you see the issue here is not Behavioural Advertising as such? Surely it is clear to you that we’ve heard what Phorm is about?

Those of us following this story have listened in great detail to how Phorm’s system works and we know how they work at high level to try and get their system into a place where the consumer cannot choose to avoid it. Failing to Opt In does not stop data being taken through their system, and that is unacceptable. I don’t mind adverts. I do mind being snooped on. I won’t be watched. No thanks. Phorm has had nothing new to say. Neither has BT – check their General Broadband Support forum posts in the last week…

Stop Phorm. Now.
Barry Collins Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Thanks for all the comments. In response to some of the points you’ve raised.

Stephen and John – I’ve not personally been to any of the previous Phorm sessions, and I’m not sure if privacy advocates were given a chance to speak at those. But even if they weren’t, shouldn’t the elected politicians have given the company a decent chance to put its case? BT were invited, but Phorm weren’t – that seems wrong to me. But the issue is that influential politicians – like David Davis, who sought out the Phorm CEO’s business card – will probably now hear Phorm’s unmediated case, without it being challenged by the experts in the room. Wouldn’t it have been better to let Phorm make its case and have it challenged by Berners-Lee, Clayton etc with all the politicians present?

Neil – with respect, it’s slightly misleading to suggest the meeting wasn’t about Phorm. It’s the only company in the UK currently proposing to run such a scheme, and it (along with BT) was the only company mentioned by name on the agenda.

Mark – We may have some more news on the opt-in/opt-out issue later today.

Janet – I never suggested the issue was behavioural advertising. This blog post was about due process, and giving Phorm a chance to make its case. I’m not defending the Webwise system and never have.

Barry Collins
Online Editor
Nick Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I do have to agree. If a discussion is going to be raised regarding the behaviour of a person or company publicly then that person or company must, by all sensible definition be present.

If they give useless answers (and if you want examples look at Gordon Brown’s responses to questions) then keep asking those questions until you get answers. At the end of the day, this will go through. Phorm will be applied, there’s no getting away from it. Most people won’t know or care. Those with a bit more savvy will block the ads.

Now, if the government really were serious about privacy then they would repeal the endless amounts of legislation to monitor our movements and the desperate database to track every facet of our lives.

It is the bad publicity they fear, because then they can’t just do it and hide from the end result. BT were dishonest, Phorm are crooks, the government should have given them a say (the fact it hasn’t is a RP stunt – they’re still allowing the thing to happen) and traffic through BT will have adverts thrown at you and your traffic monitored. That data will then be sold to someone else.

Of course the solution is to change provider, however how long is it going to be before the concept works and turns our rubbish broadband network into just a cluttered junk yard of sponsorship? Heck, if you want cheap fast connections (or what passes for such in the UK) you have to make a compromise somewhere.
Neil Maybin Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Barry – Point taken about the need for Government to hear and understand the arguments. However if Phorm fails to establish a revenue stream or additional funding, who should we engage with? NebuAd? Adzilla? It’s the ISPs such as BT who take the commercial and legal risks in implementing interception-based advertising. BT was invited to speak on the panel at Wednesday’s meeting but declined. As for the companies providing the technology, they may be here today and gone tomorrow, but as long as Government is willing to tolerate what they do there will always be another to take their place. Neil.
Barry Collins Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Neil – BT’s failure to show up was both cowardly and reprehensible. It’s excuse that it was “too close” to the situation is utter nonsense. I take it BT won’t be sticking its oar into the Digital Britain report or discussions on next-generation access, because it’s too close to those too.
Barry Collins Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Although not as reprehensible as my incorrect use of “it’s”. Damn WordPress and its uneditable comments
NoDPI Says:
March 21st, 2009 at 2:55 am
perhaps this should be read and understood…….

deep packet inspection: the end of the internet as we know i t ?

http://www.freepress.net/node/49008
“…Chris Riley, policy counsel for Free Press and co-author of the paper. “DPI-enabled discrimination will reduce consumer choice and diminish the innovation at the edges that makes the Internet valuable. No short-term benefit can outweigh these long-term harms….”

http://www.freepress.net/files/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf

“….DPI technology itself need not be anti-consumer if it is used to resolve congestion or security problems
without harmful discrimination.

But the value of DPI as marketed by prominent vendors derives
instead from real-time monitoring and control of the Internet, uses that are explicitly contrary to the
principles of an open Internet and to consumer choice…..”