The ultimate way to work out what someone is interested in would be to intercept his web-browsing traffic and search it for keywords. And that is exactly what companies such as Phorm and NebuAd enable internet-service providers (ISPs) to do (see Technology Quarterly). Equipment in the ISP's network scans passing web pages for keywords that are then used to target ads. The ISP then gets a cut when someone clicks on an ad, which is why ISPs are so keen on the technology.Until now, Internet ads involved a content site partnering an ad serving technology company. They planted a cookie in a customer's computer and delivered ads to the user depending on the country/state/town of the customer, day of the week, hour of the day etc.
Ad technology companies like Doubleclick (Now owned by Google) provide services to several content sites. In a way, this allows Doubleclick to track the web usage behaviour of the clients, albeit, only partially.
Now, the new proposal tries to target a user's behaviour completely, by bringing in the ISPs. Until now, the ISPs made no money from the Internet advertising. The money stayed with the content sites and the ad serving companies. ISPs will certainly like the proposal from Phorm and NebuAd.
Personally, I don't feel this is a major violation of customer's privacy data. Customers have agreed to view ads in content pages. How these ads are customised shouldn't get them worked up too much.
As for myself, I use Adblock in Firefox and filter out all the ads from the sites that I visit regularly.
" [b]Personally, I don't feel this is a major violation of customer's privacy data.[/b] Customers have agreed to view ads in content pages. How these ads are customised shouldn't get them worked up too much."
ReplyDeletethats a shame, you dont seem to care, or perhaps you just dont realise how this Deep Packet Inspection/interception works or what it does?.
take a look at this short video to get a very small idea of what they can do today.
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/
still think you dont need to worry or take back control of your payed for datasteams ?
are you happy loosing all that money being unlawfully made off your copyrighted content from this very site in unlawful derivative works?
the sort version is 'they make an "unlawful derivative work",(thats a very bad thing), it's made without consent of the website content owner, or the ISP end user...'
the information is out there if you want to learn the truth if you want to read it.
basicly Phorm/Webwise (and NebuAd etc)is using Deep Packet Inspection/Interception Hardware kit that sits directly on the other side of your ISP payed for Broadband connection, (as does NebuAd in the US etc).
you might not see the ads, BUT YOU CANT GET AWAY FROM IT or HIDE FROM IT, no matter what you install on your end of the wire/PC,router etc.
if you stay with the ISP thats installed and activated it, you are paying your ISP to be wiretapped without court order for their profit,
for no finantial benefit to yourself,
your allowing your ISP to wiretap your childrens every move and datastream entry etc.
this special DPI kit has every single bit of your PCs web comunication (if your browser can see it, so can the Phorm interception for profit kit) sent through it, every single web page even password protected HTTP pages you request/click and enter are then also fully scaned/collected into their kits ram, processed.
and under UK and EU law (and US law i assume), an "unlawful derivative work" is made without consent of the website content owner, or the ISP end user (should they refuse to take part in any trials, their datastream is still collected.and processed at the DPI, but dont then get sent and see the ad’s onscreen)for commercial profit, and without paying you any due fees then owed for unlawful use of your data property.
apparently these are some of the laws broken by not getting Express/Explicit, and informed consent of both partys (end user AND the website content owners)or paying the profits of this unlawful derivative work to the owners of the content.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (see derivative works)
Data Protection Act 1998 (IP addresses are legally defined as personally identifiable data)
this basic laymans copyright might be helpful to outlines the problems BT have placed themselves in during the prior trials without getting consent.
and dont forget many websites already have explicit terms against commercial use of the sites webpage content in their notices, potentially including this very site infact.
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths
go read the longest DPI/Phorm and the Phormettes Uk cable forum thread were all these points are being talked about, the one place on the net infact were all your questions can be worked through
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-virgin-media-phorm-webwise-adverts-updated.html
BTW theres also the question of criminal commercial piracy of your (C)datastream and that of the website owners copyrighted content.
ReplyDeletean "unlawful derivative work" is made without consent of the website content owner, or the ISP end user (should they refuse to take part in any trials, their datastream is still collected.and processed at the DPI, but dont then get sent and see the ad’s onscreen)for commercial profit, and without paying you any and all fees then owed for unlawful use of your data property.
and that is a clear violation of this
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g107
"
...
107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c (1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a) makes for sale or hire, or
(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or
(d) in the course of a business —
(i) sells or lets for hire, or
(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
(iii) exhibits in public, or
(iv) distributes, or
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
"
and this
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_6#pt1-ch6-pb5-l1g110
"110 Offence by body corporate: liability of officers (1) Where an offence under section 107 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members “director” means a member of the body corporate.
"
Dear Anon:
ReplyDelete1. People in US and probably EU countries are far too paranoid. The ACLU Pizza campaign is rather funny and I laughed. I am not that paranoid. If my pizza delivery person controls what I should eat etc., I would not deal with that company. I will make my own pizza and eat.
2. My data is not entirely personal. A lot of my personal data reaches my service providers. They mine it for useful information and market things better to me. If I am an idiot and fall for products which I do not need, then I am to be blamed. Not the marketers. Your only issue could be, two or three companies coming together to share their customer data and create detailed customer understanding.
To me, personally, if this will benefit me, I will accept it. I consider focused advertisement as a benefit. (Contrary to the weak Guardian pitch on Phorm helping identifying phishing sites.)
3. Others making money by analysing my personal data. I think this is a non-argument. Others keep observing me and follow my activities and try to make money of this. If I look hungry, they come and sell me food. If I look thirsty, they sell me a drink. I am not too worried by others making money of me. I don;t see any illegality here.
4. Explicit consent/permission, opt-in/opt-out are procedural issues and law of the land. If companies attempt to break the law, they need to be docked appropriately. If they lie and cheat, they need to be hanged for the same. However, as a technology and concept, if it can work within legal limits, it is something I will welcome.
The problem is the technology si not within legal limits, it is in blatant breach of several laws, directives and regulations.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies the rub...
Badri If you can't see the implication & the resulting havoc it will inflict not just on the WWW, but the Public in General "then I pity YOU!"
ReplyDelete...or not - unless you listen to the non-legally qualified and recently proved-wrong defamers of this intiative across the 'pond', this system is now legally accepted. Badri, it is refreshing to see you taking an open minded view of this system- If like me you wish to monetise your blog(i will be with phorm when they finally launch) then this makes the hassle much more worthwhile. I think the tin-foil hat brigade who posted here are sort of freedom nazis... nice blog, too
ReplyDelete