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…..”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.