Jump to content

Phorm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patchen (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 16 January 2014 (→‎Stopphoulplay.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Phorm
Company typePublic (AIM: PHRM)
IndustryOnline advertising
Founded2002[1]
HeadquartersLondon, UK [2]
Area served
United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Romania, Turkey, China
Key people
Steven Heyer (chairman),[3] Kent Ertugrul (chief executive officer and chairman)[4]
ProductsPageSense, ProxySense, Open Internet Exchange (OIX), Webwise, PeopleOnPage, ContextPlus, Apropos
RevenueDecrease U$ 688,843 in interest income (2007)[5] [needs update]
Decrease US$ -48 million (2008)[6] Decrease US$ 30.5 million (2011)[2]
Websitewww.phorm.com

Phorm, formerly known as 121Media, is a digital technology company known for its contextual advertising software. Phorm is incorporated in Delaware but announced plans to incorporate in Singapore in 2012.[2][7] Founded in 2002, the company originally distributed programs that were considered spyware, from which they made millions of dollars in revenue. It has since stopped distributing those programs after complaints from groups in the United States and Canada, and announced it was talking with several United Kingdom Internet service providers (ISPs) to deliver targeted advertising based on the websites that users visit. Phorm currently partners with ISPs Oi, Telefonica in Brazil, Romtelcom in Romania[8][9] and TTNet in Turkey.[10] In June 2012, Phorm announced that it would raise £20m for a 20% stake in its Chinese subsidiary.[11]

The company's proposed advertising system, called Webwise, is a behavioral targeting service (similar to NebuAd) that uses deep packet inspection to examine traffic. Phorm says the data collected will be anonymous and will not be used to identify users, and that their service would even include protection against phishing (fraudulent collection of users' personal information). Nonetheless, World Wide Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee and others have spoken out against Phorm for tracking users' browsing habits, and the ISP BT Group has been criticised for running secret trials of the service.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office had voiced legal concerns with Webwise as it is currently implemented, and has said it would only be legal as an "opt-in" service, not an opt-out system. The European Commission had called on the UK to protect Web users' privacy, and opened an infringement proceeding against the country in regard to ISPs' use of Phorm. Some groups, including Amazon.com and the Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other collaborative wiki projects), have already requested an opt-out of their websites from scans by the system. Phorm has changed to an opt-in policy. According to Phorm’s website, the company will not collect any data from users who have not explicitly opted into its services. Users must provide separate consent for each web browsing device they use.[12]

Company history

In its previous incarnation as 121Media, the company made products that were described as spyware.[13] 121Media distributed a program called PeopleOnPage,[14] which was classified as spyware by F-Secure.[15] PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine, called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a rootkit called Apropos,[14][16] which used tricks to prevent the user from removing the application and sent information back to central servers regarding a user's browsing habits.[17]

The Center for Democracy and Technology, a United States-based advocacy group, filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission in November 2005 over distribution of what it considered spyware, including ContextPlus. They stated that they had investigated and uncovered deceptive and unfair behaviour. This complaint was filed in concert with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Internet Center, a group that was filing a similar complaint against Integrated Search Technologies with Canadian authorities.[18]

ContextPlus shut down its operations in May 2006 and stated they were "no longer able to ensure the highest standards of quality and customer care". The shutdown came after several major lawsuits against adware vendors had been launched.[17] By September 2007, 121Media had become known as Phorm,[19] and admitted a company history in adware and stated it had closed down the multi-million dollar revenue stream from its PeopleOnPage toolbar, citing consumers’ identification of adware with spyware as the primary cause for the decision.[20]

In early 2008 Phorm admitted editing its article on Wikipedia. Phorm admitted removing a quotation from The Guardian's commercial executives describing the opposition they have towards its tracking system, and deleting a passage explaining how BT admitted misleading customers over covert Phorm trials in 2007. The changes were quickly noticed and reversed by the online encyclopedia's editors.[21]

Phorm currently resides in Mortimer Street, London, UK with staffing levels of around 35.

Financial losses

The company made a loss of $32.1 million in 2007,[22] a loss of $49.8 million in 2008 and a loss of $29.7 million in 2009. 2010 was by no means better, with a net loss of $27.9m By the end of 2010 the company had lost more than $107 million, with no perceivable revenue stream.[23] In 2011, Phorm reported losses of $30.5 million and conducted an equity placing of £33.6 million, which paid off the company’s debt.[2]

Proposed advertisement service

Phorm had worked with major US[24] and British ISPs—including BT Group (formerly British Telecom), Virgin Media, and TalkTalk (at the time owned by The Carphone Warehouse)—on a behavioral targeting advertisement service to monitor browsing habits and serve relevant advertisements to the end user. Phorm say these deals would have given them access to the surfing habits of 70% of British households with broadband.[1][25] The service, which uses deep packet inspection to check the content of requested web pages, has been compared to those of NebuAd and Front Porch.[26]

The service, which would have been marketed to end-users as "Webwise", (in 2009 the ((BBC)) took legal advice over the trade mark Webwise), would work by categorising user interests and matching them with advertisers who wish to target that type of user. "As you browse we're able to categorise all of your Internet actions", said Phorm COO Virasb Vahidi. "We actually can see the entire Internet."[1]

The problem for newspapers is that a story headlined 'Two Dead in Baghdad' isn't very product-friendly, ... [b]ut if you know who is looking at the page, that's where the opportunity is.

Kent Ertugrul, CEO of Phorm[27]

The company says that data collected would be completely anonymous and that Phorm will never be aware of the identity of the user or what they have browsed,[28] and adds that Phorm's advertising categories exclude certain sensitive terms and have been widely drawn so as not to reveal the identity of the user.[29] By monitoring users' browsing, Phorm even says they are able to offer some protection against online fraud and phishing.[30]

Phorm formerly maintained an opt out policy for its services.[12] However, according to a spokesman for Phorm, the way the opt-out works means the contents of the websites visited will still be mirrored to its system.[31][32] All computers, all users, and all http applications used by each user of each computer will need to be configured (or supplemented with add ons) to opt out.[33] It has since been declared by the Information Commissioner's Office that Phorm would only be legal under UK law if it were an opt-in service.[34]

Implementation

A diagram showing how Phorm's "Webwise" system creates copies of its tracking cookie in each domain the end-user visits, based on the report published by Richard Clayton.[35]

Richard Clayton, a Cambridge University security researcher, attended an on-the-record meeting with Phorm, and published his account of how their advertising system is implemented.[36]

Phorm's system, like many websites, uses HTTP cookies (small pieces of text) to store user settings. The company said that an initial web request is redirected three times (using HTTP 307 responses) within their system, so that they can inspect cookies to determine if the user has opted out. The system then sets a unique Phorm tracking identifier (UID) for the user (or collects it if it already exists), and adds a cookie that is forged to appear to come from the requested website.[36]

In an analysis titled "Stealing Phorm Cookies", Clayton wrote that Phorm's system stores a tracking cookie for each website visited on the user's PC, and that each contains an identical copy of the user's UID. Where possible, Phorm's system strips its tracking cookies from http requests before they are forwarded across the internet to a website's server, but it cannot prevent the UID from being sent to websites using https. This would allow websites to associate the UID to any details the website collects about the visitor.[37]

Phorm Senior Vice President of Technology Marc Burgess has said that the collected information also includes a timestamp. Burgess said, "This is enough information to accurately target an ad in [the] future, but cannot be used to find out a) who you are, or b) where you have browsed."[30]

Incentives

In 2008 Phorm considered offering an incentive, in addition to the phishing protection it originally planned, as a means to convince end-users to opt into its Webwise system. The alternate incentives, suggested in a Toluna.com market research survey carried out on behalf of Phorm, included further phishing protection, a donation to charity, a free technical support line, or one pound off opted-in users' monthly broadband subscriptions.[38]

Following the decision by Wikimedia Foundation and Amazon to opt their websites out of being profiled by Phorm's Webwise system, and as an incentive for websites to remain opted into the Phorm profiling system, Phorm have launched Webwise Discover. The Korean launch of this web publisher incentive was announced in a press conference in Covent Garden, London, UK, on 3 June 2009.[39] A poll conducted by Populus [40] on 2075 individuals revealed that 66% either liked the idea or liked it a lot, after being shown a demonstration video.

Website publishers are invited to upload a web widget which will provide a small frame to display recommended web links, based on the tracked interests of any Phorm-tracked website visitors (those whose ISP uses Phorm Deep Packet Inspection to intercept and profile web traffic). There would be no charge to the website, and Phorm do not stand to make any money from Webwise Discover; however, there are plans to display targeted adverts in the future.[3] The widget would only deliver link recommendations if the user was signed up for targeted advertising with a Phorm-affiliated ISP, the widget would be invisible to everyone else.. [4] At the press launch Phorm spokespersons admitted that at present not a single UK ISP or website has yet signed up to Webwise Discover system, [5] although they emphasised it was part of the current Korea Telecom Webwise trials. Legal advice has been offered to websites considering signing up to the OIX system by Susan Singleton.[6]

Legality

The Open Rights Group (ORG) raised questions about Phorm's legality and asked for clarification of how the service would work.[41] FIPR has argued that Phorm's online advert system is illegal in the UK. Nicholas Bohm, general counsel at FIPR, said: "The need for both parties to consent to interception in order for it to be lawful is an extremely basic principle within the legislation, and it cannot be lightly ignored or treated as a technicality." His open letter to the Information Commissioner has been published on the FIPR web site.[42]

The Conservative peer Lord Northesk has questioned whether the UK government is taking any action on the targeted advertising service offered by Phorm in the light of the questions about its legality under the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts.[43]

On 9 April 2008, the Information Commissioner's Office ruled that Phorm would only be legal under UK law if it were an opt-in service.[34] The Office stated it will closely monitor the testing and implementation of Phorm, in order to ensure data protection laws are observed.[44]

The UK Home Office has indicated that Phorm's proposed service is only legal if users give explicit consent.[45] The Office itself became a subject of controversy when emails between it and Phorm were released. The emails showed that the company edited a draft legal interpretation by the Office, and that an official responded "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted." Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on Home Affairs, Baroness Sue Miller, considered it an act of collusion: "The fact the Home Office asks the very company they are worried is actually falling outside the laws whether the draft interpretation of the law is correct is completely bizarre."[46]

The Register reported in May 2008 that Phorm's logo strongly resembled that of an unrelated UK company called Phorm Design. They quoted the smaller company's owner, Simon Griffiths: "I've had solicitors look at it and they say we'd have to go to court. [Phorm are] obviously a big player with a lot of clout. I'm a small design agency in Sheffield that employs three people."[47]

Until 21 September 2010, Phorm's Webwise service also shared the same name as BBC WebWise.

Monitoring of the Phorm website using a Website change detection service allerted interested parties to changes on 21 September 2010. Phorm's website had been edited to remove references to the word 'Webwise'. Phorm's Webwise product had become 'PhormDiscover'.[48]

The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) Trade Marks and Designs Registration Office of the European Union website CTM-Online database lists Phorm's application for use of the 'Webwise' trade mark name. The British Broadcasting Corporation is listed as an opponent on grounds of 'Likelihood of confusion'. The City of London based legal firm Bristows wrote to the OHIM on 22 September 2010, withdrawing the BBC's opposition saying, "The British Broadcasting Corporation have instructed us to request the withdrawal of the above Opposition No. B11538985" [49]

On 28 October 2010, BT removed the Webwise pages from their company website although it was not until 12 November 2010 that all pages had finally been confirmed as removed by forum contributors at the campaign group 'NoDPI.org'[50]

As of 22 June 2012, VirginMedia have not removed their Phorm and Webwise faqs pages from their customer-news section.

European Commission case against UK over Phorm

European Union communications commissioner Viviane Reding has said that the commission was concerned Phorm was breaching consumer privacy directives, and called on the UK Government to take action to protect consumers' privacy.[51] The European Commission wrote to the UK government on 30 June 2008 to set out the context of the EU's interest in the controversy, and asked detailed questions ahead of possible Commission intervention. It required the UK to respond to the letter one month after it was sent. A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) admitted on 16 August that the UK had not met the deadline.[52]

On 16 September, BERR refused The Register's request to release the full text of their reply to the European Commission, but released a statement to the effect that the UK authorities consider Phorm's products are capable of being operated in a lawful, appropriate and transparent fashion.[29] Unsatisfied by the response, the European Commission wrote to the UK again on 6 October. Martin Selmayr, spokesman for Reding's Information Society and Media directorate-general said, "For us the matter is not finished. Quite the contrary."[53]

The UK government responded again in November, but the Commission sent another letter to the government in January 2009. This third letter was sent because the Commission was not satisfied with explanations about implementation of European law in the context of the Phorm case. Selmayr was quoted in The Register as saying, "The European Commission's investigation with regard to the Phorm case is still ongoing,"[54] and he went on to say that the Commission may have to proceed to formal action if the UK authorities do not provide a satisfactory response to the Commission's concerns.

On 14 April, the European Commission said they have "opened an infringement proceeding against the United Kingdom" regarding ISPs' use of Phorm:[55]

If the Commission receives no reply, or if the observations presented by the UK are not satisfactory, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion (the second stage in an infringement proceeding). If the UK still fails to fulfil its obligations under EU law after that, the Commission will refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

That day, in response to a news item by The Register regarding the European Commission's preparations to sue the UK government, Phorm said their technology "is fully compliant with UK legislation and relevant EU directives. This has been confirmed by BERR and by the UK regulatory authorities and we note that there is no suggestion to the contrary in the Commission's statement today."[56] However, BERR denied such confirmation when they responded to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request also made that day:[57]

An examination of our paper and electronic records has not revealed any such material. To add further clarification for your information, BERR has never provided such a statement to Phorm and has never confirmed to the company “that their technology is fully compliant”.

In January 2012, the EU dropped its case against the UK government.[58]

Reaction

Cambridge University professor Ross Anderson (left) and World Wide Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee have raised concerns regarding internet privacy and Phorm.

Initial reaction to the proposed service highlighted deep concerns with regards to individual privacy and property rights in data.[59] Phorm has defended its technology in the face of what it called "misinformation" from bloggers claiming it threatens users' privacy.[60]

Most security firms classify Phorm's targeting cookies as adware. Kaspersky Lab, whose anti-virus engine is licensed to many other security vendors, said it would detect the cookie as adware. Trend Micro said there was a "very high chance" that it would add detection for the tracking cookies as adware. PC Tools echoed Trend's concerns about privacy and security, urging Phorm to apply an opt-in approach. Specialist anti-spyware firm Sunbelt Software also expressed concerns, saying Phorm's tracking cookies were candidates for detection by its anti-spyware software.[61]

Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, said: "The message has to be this: if you care about your privacy, do not use BT, Virgin or Talk-Talk as your internet provider." He added that, historically, anonymising technology had never worked. Even if it did, he stressed, it still posed huge privacy issues.[59]

Phorm has engaged a number of public relations advisers including Freuds, Citigate Dewe Rogerson and ex-House of Commons media adviser John Stonborough in an attempt to save its reputation,[62] and has engaged with audiences via moderated online webchats.[note 1] [dead link]

The creator of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has criticised the idea of tracking his browsing history saying that "It's mine - you can't have it. If you want to use it for something, then you have to negotiate with me. I have to agree, I have to understand what I'm getting in return." He also said that he would change his ISP if they introduced the Phorm system.[63] As Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, Berners-Lee also published a set of personal design notes titled "No Snooping", in which he explains his views on commercial use of packet inspection and references Phorm.[64]

Simon Davies, a privacy advocate and founding member of Privacy International, said "Behavioural advertising is a rather spooky concept for many people." In a separate role at 80/20 Thinking, a consultancy start-up, he was engaged by Phorm to look at the system.[65] He said: "We were impressed with the effort that had been put into minimising the collection of personal information."[66] He was subsequently quoted as saying "[Privacy International] DOES NOT endorse Phorm, though we do applaud a number of developments in its process." "The system does appear to mitigate a number of core privacy problems in profiling, retention and tracking... [but] we won't as PI support any system that works on an opt-out basis."[67] Kent Ertugrul later said he made a mistake when he suggested Privacy International had endorsed Phorm: "This was my confusion I apologise. The endorsement was in fact from Simon Davies, the MD of 80 / 20 who is also a director of privacy international."[30]

Stopphoulplay.com

Ertugrul has set up a website called "Stopphoulplay.com", in reaction to Phorm critics Alexander Hanff and Marcus Williamson. Ertugrul called Hanff a "serial agitator" who has run campaigns against both Phorm and other companies such as Procter & Gamble, and says Williamson is trying to disgrace Ertugrul and Phorm through "serial letter writing". Hanff believes the Stopphoulplay website's statements are "completely irrelevant" to his campaign and that they will backfire on Ertugrul, while Williamson laments that Phorm "has now stooped to personal smears".[68]

When it launched on 28 April 2009, Stopphoulplay.com discussed a petition to the UK Prime Minister on the Downing Street website.[69] When originally launched the web page claimed, "The website managers at 10 Downing Street recognised their mistake in allowing a misleading petition to appear on their site, and have since provided assurances to Phorm that they will not permit this to happen again". That same day, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was used to request confirmation of the claim by Phorm and on 29 April Phorm removed the quoted text from the website and replaced it with nothing. The Prime Minister's Office replied to the FOI request on 28 May, stating they held no information in relation to the request concerning Phorm's claim.[70]

A day after the site's launch, BBC correspondent Darren Waters wrote, "This is a battle with no sign of a ceasefire, with both sides [Phorm and anti-Phorm campaigners] settling down to a war of attrition, and with governments, both in the UK and the EU, drawn into the crossfire."[71]

The site was closed down in September 2009 and now redirects to the main Phorm site.

BT trials

After initial denials, BT Group confirmed they ran a small scale trial, at one exchange, of a "prototype advertising platform" in 2007.[72] The trial involved tens of thousands of end users.[73] BT customers will be able to opt out of the trial—BT said they are developing an improved, non-cookie based opt-out of Phorm—but no decision has been made as to their post-trial approach.[74]

The Register reported that BT ran an earlier secret trial in 2006, in which it intercepted and profiled the web browsing of 18,000 of its broadband customers. The technical report states that customers who participated in the trial were not made aware of the profiling, as one of the aims of the validation was not to affect their experience.[75]

On 4 June 2008, a copy of a 52 page report allegedly from inside BT, titled "PageSense External Technical Validation", was uploaded to Wikileaks, a site that hosts anonymously-submitted sensitive documents. The report angered many members of the public; there are questions regarding the involvement of charity ads for Oxfam, Make Trade Fair and SOS Children's Villages, and whether or not they were made aware that their ads were being used in what many feel were highly illegal technical trials.

FIPR's Nicholas Bohm has said that trials of an online ad system carried out by BT involving more than 30,000 of its customers were potentially illegal.[76]

BT's third trial of Phorm's Webwise system repeatedly slipped. The trial was to last for approximately two weeks on 10,000 subscribers, and was originally due to start in March 2008,[31] then pushed to April and again to the end of May; it has yet to occur. The company is facing legal action over trials of Phorm that were carried out without user consent.

On 2 September 2008, while investigating a complaint made by anti-Phorm protestors, the City of London Police met with BT representatives to informally question them about the secret Phorm trials.[77] On 25 September the Police announced that there will be no formal investigation of BT over its secret trials of Phorm in 2006 and 2007. According to Alex Hanff, the police said there was no criminal intent on behalf of BT and there was implied consent because the service was going to benefit customers.[78] Bohm said of that police response:

Saying that BT customers gave implied consent is absurd. There was never any behaviour by BT customers that could be interpreted as implied consent because they were deliberately kept in the dark. As for the issue of whether there was criminal intent, well, they intended to intercept communications. That was the purpose of what they were doing. To say that there was no criminal intent is to misunderstand the legal requirements for criminal intent.[78]

On 29 September 2008, it was announced in BT's support forum that their trial of Phorm's Webwise system would commence the following day.[79] BT press officer Adam Liversage stated that BT is still working on a network-level opt-out, but that it will not be offered during the trial. Opted-out traffic will pass through the Webwise system but will not be mirrored or profiled. The final full roll-out of Webwise across BT's national network will not necessarily depend the completion of the work either.[80]

Civil liberties campaigners The Open Rights Group urged BT's customers not to participate in the BT Webwise trials, saying their "anti-fraud" feature is unlikely to have advantages over features already built into web browsers.[81]

Subscribers to BT forums had used the Beta forums to criticise and raise concerns about BT's implementation of Phorm, but BT responded with a statement:

Our broadband support forums are designed to be a place where customers can discuss technical support issues and offer solutions. To ensure that the forums remain constructive we're tightening up our moderation policies and will be deleting threads that don't provide constructive support. For example, we have removed a number of forum discussions about BT Webwise. If you do want to find out more about BT Webwise, we provide lots of information and the facility to contact us at www.bt.com/webwise. We hope you'll continue to enjoy being part of the support community.[82]

According to Kent Ertugrul, BT would have completed the rollout of its software by the end of 2009.[83] The Wall Street Journal, however, reported in July 2009 that BT had no plans to do so by then, and was concentrating on "other opportunities". Phorm's share price fell 40% on the news.[84]

On July 6, 2009 BT's former chief press officer, Adam Liversage, described his thoughts using Twitter: "A year of the most intensive, personal-reputation-destroying PR trench warfare all comes to nothing...". He ended his comment with "Phantastic" [85]

In October 2009, Sergeant Mike Reed of the City of London Police answered a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. He confirmed the crime reference number as 5253/08. In his response, he stated that after originally passing case papers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in December 2008, the police were 'asked to provide further evidence, by the CPS in October 2009.' Asked to 'Disclose the date when that investigation was reopened' he said that it was 'On instruction of the CPS in October 2009.' In Sergeant Reed's response he named the officer in charge as 'D/S Murray'.[86]

On 25 February 2010, it was reported that the CPS continued to work on a potential criminal case against BT over its secret trials of Phorm's system.[87] Prosecutors considered whether or not to press criminal charges against unnamed individuals under Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.[88]

It was not until April 2011 the CPS decided not to prosecute as it would not be in the public interest, stating that neither Phorm nor BT had acted in bad faith and any penalty imposed would be nominal.[89]

In April 2012, reports said that an officer of the City of London Police had been taken to lunch by Phorm. A police spokesperson was quoted as saying they were aware of the allegation, and that while no formal complaint had been received, "The force is reviewing the information available to it before deciding the best course of action." The spokesperson also highlighted that, "City of London Police were not involved in an investigation into BT Phorm and that the decision not to investigate was prompted by CPS advice".[90]

Advertisers and websites

Advertisers which had initially expressed an interest about Phorm include: ft.com, The Guardian, Universal McCann, MySpace,[91] iVillage, MGM OMD, Virgin Media[92] and Unanimis.[93] The Guardian has withdrawn from its targeted advertising deal with Phorm; in an email to a reader, advertising manager Simon Kilby stated "It is true that we have had conversations with them [Phorm] regarding their services but we have concluded at this time that we do not want to be part of the network. Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company."[94] In response to an article published in The Register on 26 March 2008, Phorm has stated that MySpace has not joined OIX as a Publisher.[94] The Financial Times has decided not to participate in Phorm's impending trial.[95]

The ORG's Jim Killock said that many businesses "will think [commercial] data and relationships should simply be private until they and their customers decide," and might even believe "having their data spied upon is a form of industrial espionage".[96] David Evans of the British Computer Society has questioned whether the act of publishing a website on the net is the same as giving consent for advertisers to make use of the site's content or to monitor the site's interactions with its customers.[97]

Pete John created an add on, called Dephormation, for servers and web users to opt out and remain opted-out of the system; however, John ultimately recommends that users switch from Phorm-equipped Internet providers: "Dephormation is not a solution. Its a fig leaf for your privacy. Do not rely on Dephormation to protect your privacy and security. You need to find a new ISP."[98][99]

In April 2009, Amazon.com announced that it would not allow Phorm to scan any of its domains.[100] The Wikimedia Foundation has also requested an opt-out from scans, and took the necessary steps to block all Wikimedia and Wikipedia domains from being processed by the Phorm system on the 16th of that month.[101]

In July 2009 the Nationwide Building Society confirmed that it would prevent Phorm from scanning its website, in order to protect the privacy of its customers.[102]

Internet service providers

MetroFi, an American municipal wireless network provider linked to Phrom, ceased operations in 2008.[24] Three other ISPs linked to Phorm all changed or clarified their plans since first signing on with the company. In response to customer concerns, TalkTalk said that its implementation would have been "opt-in" only (as opposed to BT's "opt-out") and those that don't "opt in" will have their traffic split to avoid contact with a WebWise (Phorm) server.[103] In July 2009, the company confirmed it would not implement Phorm;[104] Charles Dunstone, boss of its parent company, told the Times "We were only going to do it [Phorm] if BT did it and if the whole industry was doing it. We were not interested enough to do it on our own.”[105]

Business news magazine New Media Age reported on 23 April that Virgin Media moved away from Phorm and was expected to sign a deal with another company named Audience Science, while BT would meet with other advertising companies to gain what the ISP calls "general market intelligence" about Phorm. NMA had called the moves "a shift in strategy by the two media companies".[106] A day later, the magazine said both companies' relationships with Phorm actually remain unchanged.[107]

Although Virgin Media were reported to have 'moved away from Phorm', in November 2010 they were the only UK based ISP to still carry information about Phorm's Webwise system on their website.[108] In addition, Phorm partners with international ISPs Oi, Telefonica in Brazil, TTNET-Türk Telekom in Turkey, and Romtelecom in Romania.

Countries Post United Kingdom

South Korea

Phorm announced the beginning of a Market Trial in South Korea via RNS on 30 March 2009.[109] Subsequently they announced via RNS on 21 May 2009 that they had commenced the Market Trial.[110] The document quotes T. J. Kang

TJ Kang, Executive Vice President of KT said: "KT is pleased to be working with Phorm in Korea to introduce this groundbreaking technology."

On 8th Jul 2009 Phorm indicate that the trials are proceeding as expected.[111] In their Notice of 2009 Interim Report & Accounts, published 14th Sep 2009, Phorm stated they were "Nearing completion of a substantial market trial, launched in May, with KT, the largest ISP in South Korea".[112]

The existence of the trial in South Korea was publicised by OhMyNews on 2 September 2009.[113] On the 9th September 2009 OhMyNews announced that the trial had been shut down.[114] The articles indicate that the trial ran for 100 days on 1000 Households in the Songpa Gu district of Seoul and have been voluntarily shut down as a result of controversy. There is also mention that the activity and its methodology will be the subject of an investigation by KCC the South Korea Communications Commission.

Note that whilst the trial had been shut down prior to or on 9 September 2009 Phorm still consider that they are 'nearing completion' of the trial on 14 September 2009. In addition during 'Markets Live' 7 September 2009 from FT Alphaville Cannacord, Phorms Nominated Advisor NOMAD, is quoted as saying,

Our view

• Progress in Korea will continue to be the key determinant of near-term share price performance. News of a full launch in the territory, and some real data on the operational performance of the Phorm-powered online ad exchange will in time justify a higher valuation. We continue to expect a launch in Korea during Q4/09.

Key features

Management provided us with an update on current progress ahead of the company’s interims on 16 September:

• Korean trial running with 100-135,000 users since May.

[115]

Apparently the trial on 1,000 households as reported by OhMyNews was in fact on 100,000 - 135,000 users. The quotation from Cannacord is given two days before OhMyNews announces the trial has been shut down.

On 1 February 2010 a debate is held at the Korean Parliament to discuss the 'Cook Smart Web',쿡스마트웹, service and the use of Deep Packet Inspection as well as on-line advertising and marketing in general.[116] Amongst those taking part are members of The Korean Progressive Network (Jinbonet). Presentation material for the debate is available from their website.[117]

The debate is attended, in the audience, by Brooks Dobbs, at the time CPO of Phorm, and Kim Searl, employed at the time by Phorm to perform Public Relations for the company. During March 2010, the month after the debate, T.J. Kang, Korea Telecom, and Kim Searl, Hill & Knowlton, left their respective employees to work for Samsung Electronics.[118][119] On 11 March 2010 DCNews reports that Korea Telecom has abandoned their plans to introduce 'Cook Smart Web', 쿡스마트웹.[120]

KT, 돌연 사업 추진 중단 이유는 KT 관계자는 “당시의 테스트는 일부 지역에서 기술 검증을 위한 시험적인 테스트를 한 것”이며, “사용자들의 데이터를 분석한 것은 사실이지만 사용자들의 동의를 거쳤다”고 해명했다. 또한 “현재 논란이 되고 있는 개인 맞춤형 광고 서비스 상용화 계획은 현재로써는 전혀 검토되고 있지 않다”고 말해 사업 진행 계획이 없음을 밝혔다. 그러나 “몇 년 후의 일을 미리 알 수 없지만, 현재는 논의되지 않는다”고 덧붙이며 여지를 남겼다.

Subsequently in the announcement 'Commercial Deployment in Brazil', published 26 March 2010, Phorm claim that "Beyond Brazil, we have successfully completed two trials in Korea, about which we will update the market in due course, and we are now active in almost every other major internet market worldwide." [121] They have in fact carried out two market trials in South Korea. This statement is reiterated in their 2009 Final Report & Accounts published 30 June 2010.[122] No mention is made of being shut down, the debate or Korea Telecom abandoning them.

In July 2010 a further debate/conference is held in respect of the 'industry'. Stale links but.[123] Phorm is represented by Daniel Park who was at the time CEO of Phorm Korea[124][125] Once again JinboNet provides reference materials.[126][127] They also provide a copy of the legal treatise by Dr Oh Kil Young which demonstrates that Phorms operations would be illegal under South Korean law.[128][129]

Brazil

Phorm announces 'Commercial Deployment in Brasil, 26 March 2010, via RNS.[130] At the time under Brazilian law[131] all partnerships are required to be notified to the anti-trust authorities for consideration as to impact on the economy. There is a 'fast track' system in place whereby an initial opinion is given by two departments, SDE and SEAE as to whether such partnerships should be approved without further scrutiny.[132][133][134] There are two main criteria used to determine whether such applications should be passed up to the main authority, CADE, for further consideration. Whether a partnership will result in control of 20% or more of the associated market and whether the parties involved grossed more than R$400 million in the year preceding the date of application. In respect of the proposed partnership with Telemar Norte L'este, TNL-PCS S/A Oi (telecommunications) the claim is that the IG portal only has 5% penetration in the market and Phorm did not gross R$400 million in Brasil in the preceding year.[135]

Oversight of the case is given to Fernando de Magalhães Furlan[136] at the time one of the seven members of the council at CADE and subsequently President of CADE. Relator Furlan recognises that the gross income for TNL-PCS exceeded R$400 million in the year preceding the application to form a partnership and therefore the application should be subjected to deeper scrutiny at CADE.[137][138] The content of these and other documents has been subjected to later additions and modifications.

In the application to form a partnership the companies claim that Universo Online S.A., Terra Networks Brasil S.A, Globo.com, Google Brasil Internet Ltda and Yahoo! do Brasil Internet Ltda are representative of competitors within the target market. In their RNS announcing commercial deployment Phorm claims,

Phorm has been working with Brazil’s leading Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), publishers and advertisers for some time, and today is pleased to announce the first phase of a country-wide roll-out in conjunction with Estadão, iG, Oi, Terra and UOL. The Company expects to announce further ISP and content partners in due course.

iG and Oi are associated with TNL-PCS. Otherwise Phorm states they have in fact partnered with two of their apparent competitors, UOL and Terra. This is confirmed however Estadão[139] state that the partnership never existed and their name was used without permission.

At the beginning of June 2010 Senador Eduardo Suplicy[140] raises the subject of Phorm at the Brazilian Parliament.[141][142] In his speech he makes reference to paragraphs X and XII of article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution [143]

X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação; XII - e inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal; (Vide Lei nº 9.296, de 1996)

XII references Lei 9296/96[144] such that whereas XII appears to cover solely voice and telegraph communications Lei 9296/96 extends this protection to include data communications.

Parágrafo único. O disposto nesta Lei aplica-se à interceptação do fluxo de comunicações em sistemas de informática e telemática.

Towards the end of June 2010 Senador Eduardo Suplicy chairs a debate about Phorm.[145][146] Amongst those attending are Caio Tulio Costa, representing and later to become Chairman of Phorm Brazil, Carol Elizabeth Conway, representing UOL, and Laura Schertel Mendes representing The Department of Consumer Defence, DPDC. At the time DPDC were threatening TNL-PCS with Administrative Proceedings.[147][148]

SECRETARIA DE DIREITO ECONÔMICO

DEPARTAMENTO DE PROTEÇÃO E DEFESA ECONÔMICA DESPACHO DO DIRETOR Em 22 de junho de 2010 - N o 32 - Averiguação Preliminar N. 08012.003471/2010-22. Repre- sentante: DPDC "ex officio". Representada: TNL PCS S.A. (OI) Nota Técnica n.o 172 /2010- CGAJ/DPDC/SDE Processo Administrativo. Suposta infração aos direitos básicos do consumidor no que diz res- peito ao reconhecimento de sua vulnerabilidade, a falta de boa-fé, ao equilíbrio entre consumidores e fornecedores, ao direito à privaci- dade, aos métodos comerciais coercitivos ou desleais, bem como a proteção às informações mantidas por fornecedores em banco de dados de consumidores. Adoto a Nota Técnica n.o 172 /2010- CGAJ/DPDC/SDE como motivação. Ante os indícios de infração ao disposto nos artigos 4o, I, III, 6o, II, III, IV; 31; 37; 39, IV e VII; 43, todos do Código de Defesa do Consumidor; bem como ao direito à privacidade e à in- timidade, previstos na Constituição Federal, determino a instauração de processo administrativo no âmbito deste Departamento, notifi- cando-se a TNL PCS S.A. (OI) para apresentar defesa, na forma do disposto no artigo 44 do Decreto no 2.181 de 20 de março de 1997. Determino, por fim, a expedição de ofício, nos termos do artigo 106 da Lei 8.078/90, aos Ministérios Públicos, aos PROCONs Estaduais e Municipais de Capitais e ao Fórum Nacional das Entidades Civis de Defesa do Consumidor, com cópia do presente despacho, para co- nhecimento e providências que entenderem pertinentes. JULIANA PEREIRA DA SILVA

Substituta

In part the threat of action was made because TNL-PCS, Oi, were not being forthcoming with requested information about how Phorms systems operated. This information is reported via IDEC, http://www.idec.org.br/, in December 2010[149]

A falta de transparência é tão grave que o DPDC instaurou processo administrativo contra a Phorm e a Oi, em junho, baseado nos indícios de irregularidades no que tange o equilíbrio entre fornecedores e consumidores e o direito à privacidade, entre outros elementos. Em abril, o órgão havia notificado a Oi para que prestasse informações sobre o contrato com a Phorm, esclarecendo sobre a segurança do sistema utiliza do, a maneira como o consumidor optaria por autorizar ou não seu monitoramento e a política de comercialização dos dados coletados, por exemplo. Não houve resposta. À REVISTA DO IDEC, que também solicitou esclarecimentos à Oi, a resposta dada pela assessoriade imprensa foi: “não iremos participar da matéria”. Novamente, uma postura bem pouco transparente diante de um assunto bastante obscuro. A Phorm também não quis dar entrevista. Já a Telefônica, embora não tenha dado detalhes sobre a comunicação feita com o consumidor para que ele opte ou não pelo serviço, explicou que o Navegador não reconhece o cliente ou seu endereço IP (que identifica a máquina da qual o usuário acessa), nem armazena dados. A UOL informou que encerrou o contrato com a Phorm em julho. Até então, testou o software apenas dentro da empresa.

Where we also find that UOL had ended their contract with Phorm in July 2010, just after the debate, and otherwise had only carried out tests. Naturally Phorm does not mention UOL has dumped them. According to FSA/FCA regulations you are required to RNS 'failures' ... but we'll just ignore that one and get away with it.[150]

Speculation.. Having been dumped by UOL Phorm decides to 'Race To Brasil'[151]

The case at CADE grinds on...

http://www.cade.gov.br/Documentos/pauta.aspx?pc=144 28/4/2010 http://www.cade.gov.br/Documentos/pauta.aspx?pc=145 5/5/2010 http://www.cade.gov.br/Documentos/pauta.aspx?pc=154 22/9/2010 http://www.cade.gov.br/Documentos/pauta.aspx?pc=155 6/10/2010

Whereas the parties, Phorm and TNL-PCS, were at pains to point out that the iG web portal run by Oi/TNL-PCS only had access to their estimate of 5% of the online advertising market Relator Furlan notes that it is in fact the ISP partner that is the target and the partnership with TNL-PCS will give Phorm access to, at the time, almost 30% of consumer broadband connections in Brasil. iG at 5% is in effect a Red herring. In setting up their landing page for the service, called 'Navegador' in Brasil, via Oi Phorm referred to Telefonica in the FAQ section rather than Oi. When questioned about this by CADE they suggested it was a 'mistake'.

Of course via RNS Phorm had already claimed to have partnered with Terra who, in a similar manner to iG and Oi/TNL-PCS, act as the web portal for Telefonica. If Phorm were to partner with Telefonica then this would give them access to upwards of 50-55% of consumer broadband connections in Brasil. Naturally this places their 'market share' above the 20% figure which would trigger scrutiny by CADE and it is obvious that some effort has been expended to hide this. Similar to the information supplied in respect of Phorms previous Gross Income/Losses whilst ignoring that attributable to TNL-PCS.

In his final decision[152] delivered 6 October 2010, Furlan mentions such concerns and also refers to what he terms 'The Free-Rider" problem whereby Phorm gains access to other peoples content without contribution or recompense. His decision is to 'approve without restrictions' but he warns about the possibility of a partnership with Telefonica..

Note to Phorm Representatives.

Received: from 189.115.161.43.static.gvt.net.br Received: from 85.105.220.102.dynamic.ttnet.com.tr

I run Debian. Please update your Trojans.

Phorm Updates in respect of 'Commercial Deployment' in Brazil in September 2010'[153] As 'predicted' Telefonica is the new partner. Once again they have to inform the relevant authorities.[154][155] I will 'speculate' that Relator Furlan was already aware of that application.

I should mention that whilst much of this information is available from the CADE website,

http://www.cade.gov.br

In addition to some of the documentation being subjected to later update and modification the site itself in part generates 'dynamic links' that make direct references to the documents involved impossible. Some 'academic' papers contain dysfunctional links as a result of this. You will have to use the search tool available from the above 'home page' to access the case files on an single use basis.. Ooops, slightly broke things.

File:Search function from the CADE website home page.png
CADE search function

Notes

  1. ^ Full transcripts of these interviews can be found at http://www.webwise.com/how-it-works/chat.html.

References

  1. ^ a b c Louise Story (2008-03-20). "A Company Promises the Deepest Data Mining Yet". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  2. ^ a b c d "Phorm Inc Annual Financial Report". FE Investegate. June 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  3. ^ "Phorm appoints Steven Heyer chairman". Thomson Financial News, via Forbes.com. 2008-08-18. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
  4. ^ "Phorm Board of Directors". Phorm.
  5. ^ "Phorm, Inc Report and Financial Statements 31 December 2007" (PDF). Phorm. pp. 14, 25.
  6. ^ Sweney, Mark (2009-06-18). "Phorm pre-tax loss hits $48m". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  7. ^ "Small cap round up: RiIG, JSJS Design, Phorm Inc". Sharecast. 2012-06-19. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  8. ^ "MyClicknet from Romtelecom - new free service for customers Clicknet Romtelecom". Retrieved 2012-06-28.
  9. ^ "Shunned Profiling Technology on the Verge of Comeback". Retrieved 2012-06-28.
  10. ^ "Phorm press release" (PDF). Phorm.com. 2012-07-09. Retrieved 2012-09-22.
  11. ^ "Phorm to Raise £20m for Stake in China Subsidiary". Sharecast. 2012-06-01. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  12. ^ a b "Phorm Privacy Policy". Retrieved 2012-06-29.
  13. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-02-25). "ISP data deal with former 'spyware' boss triggers privacy fears". The Register. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
  14. ^ a b "Phorm Factor". F-Secure. 2008-04-15. Retrieved 2008-04-16.
  15. ^ "F-Secure Spyware Information Pages: PeopleOnPage". F-Secure. Retrieved 2008-04-16.
  16. ^ "F-Secure Spyware Information Pages: Apropos". F-Secure. Archived from the original on 2008-02-07. Retrieved 2008-04-18.
  17. ^ a b "Spyware, Rootkit Maker Stops Distribution". Eweek. Retrieved 2008-04-17.
  18. ^ Schwartz, Ari (2005-11-03). "Complaint and Request for Investigation" (PDF). Center for Democracy and Technology. Retrieved 2008-04-16.
  19. ^ Compare first pages of Phorm's annual report for 2006 (PDF) and a report from 2007 (PDF). Both retrieved on 2009-04-23.
  20. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-03-07). "Phorm launches data pimping fight back". The Register. Retrieved 2008-03-08. [Ertugrul:] But what happened was it became very clear to us that there was no distinction in people's minds between adware - which is legitimate - and spyware. So we did something unprecedented which was we turned around to our shareholders and we shut down all our revenues. We weren't sued, we weren't pressed by anyone, we just said 'this is not consistent with the company's core objectives'.
  21. ^ Chris Williams (2008-04-08). "Phorm admits 'over zealous' editing of Wikipedia article". The Register.
  22. ^ Sweney, Mark (2009-06-18). "Phorm pre-tax loss hits $48m". The Guardian. London.
  23. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/30/phorm_results/
  24. ^ a b Cade Metz (2008-08-13). "Phorm secretly tracked Americans too". The Register. Retrieved 2008-08-13.
  25. ^ "American ISPs already sharing data with outside ad firms". The Register. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2008-04-18.
  26. ^ Whoriskey, Peter (2008-04-04). "Internet Providers Quietly Test Expanded Tracking of Web Use to Target Advertising". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
  27. ^ Whoriskey, Peter (2008-05-25). "FCC scrutinizes behaviorial targeting of Internet ads". Pittsburgh Tribune. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
  28. ^ "Phorm Service Privacy Policy". 2008-02-13. Archived from the original on 2008-07-04. Retrieved 2013-08-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ a b "BT's secret Phorm trials: UK.gov responds". The Register. 2008-09-16.
  30. ^ a b c "Webwise Chat Transcript". 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-29. ... All that is left is a note of which advertising category was matched, the random number we have allocated to your browser, and a timestamp.
  31. ^ a b Williams, Chris (2008-03-05). "BT targets 10,000 data pimping guinea pigs". The Register. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  32. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-03-07). "Phorm launches data pimping fight back". The Register. p. 3.
  33. ^ "Phorm Frequently Asked Questions". Retrieved 2008-03-29.
  34. ^ a b "Phorm - Webwise and Open Internet Exchange". Information Commissioner's Office. 2008-04-08. Archived from the original on 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-10.
  35. ^ Clayton, Richard (2008-04-04). "The Phorm "Webwise" System" (PDF). Cambridge University. Retrieved 2008-04-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  36. ^ a b Clayton, Richard (2008-04-04). "The Phorm "Webwise" System". Light Blue Touchpaper. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  37. ^ Clayton, Richard (2008-04-22). "Stealing Phorm Cookies". Light Blue Touchpaper. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  38. ^ Chris Williams (2008-09-26). "Phorm mulls incentives for ad targeting wiretaps". The Register. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
  39. ^ [1]
  40. ^ [2]
  41. ^ "Open Rights Group questions Phorm". BBC News. 2008-03-12. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  42. ^ "Open Letter to the Information Commissioner". 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
  43. ^ "House of Lords Cumulative list of unanswered Questions for Written Answer". House of Lords publications. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
  44. ^ "Phorm warned about web data rules". bbc.co.uk. 2008-04-09. Retrieved 2008-04-10.
  45. ^ Arthur, Charles (2008-03-12). "Home Office on Phorm: it's legal if users consent". Guardian Unlimited. London. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  46. ^ Waters, Darren (2009-04-28). "Home Office 'colluded with Phorm'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  47. ^ Lester Haines (2008-05-02). "Phorm in phormulaic logo phorm storm". The Register.
  48. ^ "ChangeDetection.com Phorm Inc Home Page". Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  49. ^ "CTM-ONLINE - Detailed trade mark information search". Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  50. ^ "Time to get BT Webwise pages taken down". Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  51. ^ "EU Commission Wants UK Government To Probe Targeted Advertising". easybourse. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  52. ^ "UK.gov misses deadline on EU Phorm probe"
  53. ^ Chris Williams (2008-10-10). "Brussels bounces BT-Phorm quiz back to UK.gov". The Register.
  54. ^ Chris Williams (2009-02-11). "EU threatens 'formal action' against UK.gov on Phorm". The Register.
  55. ^ Full text, titled "Telecoms: Commission launches case against UK over privacy and personal data protection", at the European Union portal Rapid Press Releases
  56. ^ Brussels to sue UK over Phorm failures
  57. ^ http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/10390/response/24103/attach/html/3/Reply%20to%20I%20cooper%20foi%2009-0529.pdf.html
  58. ^ "EU drops ePrivacy case against UK government". Retrieved 2012-06-29.
  59. ^ a b Armitage, Jim (2008-03-06). "Web users angry at ISPs' spyware tie-up". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2008-03-13.
  60. ^ Edgecliffe-Johnson, Andrew (2008-03-12). "Phorm seeks $65m for overseas expansion". The Financial Times. Retrieved 2008-03-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  61. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-03-12). "Top security firm: Phorm is adware". The Register. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  62. ^ O'Connor, Clare (2008-03-30). "Web tool firm in PR fightback". PRWeek. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
  63. ^ Cellan-Jones, Rory (2008-03-17). "Web creator rejects net tracking". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
  64. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim (2009-03-09). "No Snooping". Design Issues for the World Wide Web. Retrieved 2009-04-09.
  65. ^ Waters, Darren (2008-03-06). "Looking at the Phorm". Retrieved 2008-03-17.
  66. ^ Waters, Darren (2008-03-06). "Ad system 'will protect privacy'". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  67. ^ Arthur, Charles (2008-03-06). "Your questions please for Kent Ertegrul, CEO of Phorm". Guardian Newspaper. London. Retrieved 2008-03-29.
  68. ^ Neate, Rupert (2009-04-28). "Phorm chief labels critics 'serial agitators'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  69. ^ http://www.stopphoulplay.com/2009/04/no-10-downing-street-petition/
  70. ^ http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/downing_street_petition_website
  71. ^ Darren Waters (2009-04-28). "Phorm hoping to stop 'phoul play'". BBC dot.life - a blog about technology from BBC News. Retrieved 2009-06-09.
  72. ^ "BT confesses lies over secret Phorm experiments". The Register. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
  73. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-04-14). "BT's 'illegal' 2007 Phorm trial profiled tens of thousands". The Register. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
  74. ^ Mark Jackson (2008-03-16). "BT Confesses To 2007 Phorm Trial & Develops Non-Cookie Method". Ispreview. Retrieved 2009-02-26.
  75. ^ Williams, Chris (2008-04-01). "BT and Phorm secretly tracked 18,000 customers in 2006". The Register. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  76. ^ Waters, Darren (2008-04-01). "BT advert trials were 'illegal'". BBC. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  77. ^ Chris Williams (2008-09-05). "Police quiz BT on secret Phorm trials". The Register.
  78. ^ a b Chris Williams (2008-09-22). "Police drop BT-Phorm probe". The Register.
  79. ^ "BT Webwise Technical Trial Discussion Thread". .beta.bt.com. 2008-09-29. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
  80. ^ "BT's third Phorm trial starts tomorrow". The Register. 2008-09-29. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
  81. ^ "4 Good reasons not to take part in the BT Webwise trial". Open Rights Group. 2008-09-30. Retrieved 2008-09-30.
  82. ^ Chris Williams (2008-11-19). "BT silences customers over Phorm". The Register. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  83. ^ Chris Williams (2009-02-10). "Phorm: BT system 'most definitely' online by end of 2009". The Register. Retrieved 2009-02-11.
  84. ^ Hannah Benjamin (2009-07-06). "BT Delays Use of Phorm Service". WSJ.COM. Retrieved 2009-07-06.
  85. ^ Robert Andrews (2009-07-09). "Tweet Of The Week: Ex-BT PR Adam Liversage On Phorm". Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  86. ^ Reed, Mike (2009-10-29). "Freedom of Information Request 'Phorm: Confirmation of Police Inquiry'". whatdotheyknow.com. Retrieved 2012-04-05.
  87. ^ Chris Williams (2010-02-25). "BT could face criminal case over Phorm trials". theregister.com. Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  88. ^ Chris Williams (2010-10-27). "Prosecutors prep decision on BT-Phorm case". theregister.com. Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  89. ^ "CPS decides no prosecution of BT and Phorm for alleged interception of browsing data". blog.cps.gov.uk. 2011-04-11. Retrieved 2011-05-12.
  90. ^ "Police Looking Into Allegations Phorm Wined and Dined Officer". techweekeurope.co.uk. 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2012-04-05.
  91. ^ Kiss, Jemima (2008-02-14). "ISPs sign up to targeted ads deal". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2008-04-09.
  92. ^ "Virgin Media distances itself from Phorm 'adoption' claims". The Register. 2008-05-01. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
  93. ^ "Phorm press release". Phorm.com. 2008-02-14. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  94. ^ a b "The Guardian ditches Phorm". The Register. 2008-03-26. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
  95. ^ Fine, Jon (2008-07-17). "Watching Your Every Online Move". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  96. ^ "Critic compares Phorm to 'industrial espionage'". ITPro. 2009-05-20.
  97. ^ Evans, David (2008-05-08). "InPhormed consent not given". British Computer Society. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
  98. ^ John, Pete. "Server Side Countermeasures for Web Masters". Dephormation. Retrieved 2008-07-21.
  99. ^ John, Pete. "Server Side Countermeasures for Web Masters". Dephormation. Retrieved 2008-07-21.
  100. ^ Waters, Darren (2009-04-15). "Amazon blocks Phorm adverts scan". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-04-15.
  101. ^ "Wikimedia Foundation opting out of Phorm". Wikimedia Technical Team. 2009-04-16. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
  102. ^ Fletcher, Nick (2009-07-21). "Nationwide building society opts out of Phorm services". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  103. ^ Jackson, Mark (2008-03-11). "TalkTalk (Carphone) ISP Makes Phorm Opt-In Only". ISPReview. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  104. ^ http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39671925,00.htm
  105. ^ Judge, Elizabeth (2009-07-07). "Phorm stranded as BT and Carphone pull plug on online 'spying' technology". The Times. London. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  106. ^ "Virgin Media steps away from Phorm as top sites opt out". New Media Age. 2009-04-22. Retrieved 2009-04-22.[dead link]
  107. ^ "Phorm UK Inc:". New Media Age. 2008-04-24. Retrieved 2008-04-25.
  108. ^ "My Virgin Media - Phorm & Webwise". Retrieved 2010-11-16.
  109. ^ "Korean Market Trial 30th March 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  110. ^ "Korean Market Trial 21st May 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  111. ^ "Operational Update 8th July 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  112. ^ "Notice of 2009 Interim Reports & Accounts 14th Sep 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  113. ^ "KT '쿡 스마트웹'은 당신이 한 일을 알고 있다?". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  114. ^ "KT, 사생활 침해 논란 '쿡 스마트웹' 상용화 추진". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  115. ^ "FTAlphaville 2009-09-07". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  116. ^ "KT 'Cook Smart Web Service. The commercialization of Deep Packet Inspection". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  117. ^ "South Korean Debate 1st February 2010. Presentation Material". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  118. ^ "TJ Kang Leaves KT for Samsung March 2010". Retrieved 2013-09-12.
  119. ^ "Kim Searl Joins Samsung March 2010". Retrieved 2013-09-12.
  120. ^ "Korea Telecom Abandons Phorm". Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  121. ^ "Commercial Deployment in Brasil" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  122. ^ "2009 Final Report & Accounts" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-12.
  123. ^ "Online Advertising Second Debate 2010-01-07". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  124. ^ "Daniel Park at the Second Debate". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  125. ^ "Daniel Park CEO of Phorm Korea". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  126. ^ "JinboNet Debate July 2010". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  127. ^ "JinboNet Debate Reference Material July 2010". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  128. ^ "Legal Treatise by Dr Oh Kil Young". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  129. ^ "What are they on about?" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  130. ^ "Commercial Deployment in Brasil" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-09-12.
  131. ^ "Brasil Competition Law" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  132. ^ https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=phorm+site%3Afazenda.gov.br
  133. ^ "Opinion of SDE/SEAE" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  134. ^ "Supplementary" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  135. ^ "Application to form a Partnership, Phorm/TNL-PCS" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  136. ^ "Relator Furlan, CADE". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  137. ^ "Partial Case File, Phorm/TNL-PCS". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  138. ^ "Initial Opinion of Relator Furlan, Phorm/TNL-PCS". Retrieved 2013-12-16.
  139. ^ "Epoca Reports Estadão denies". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  140. ^ "Eduardo Suplicy". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  141. ^ "Eduardo Suplicy Speaks at Parliament". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  142. ^ "Text of Speech by Eduardo Suplicy". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  143. ^ "The Brasilian Constitution". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  144. ^ "Lei 9296/96". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  145. ^ "Phorm Debate Brasil". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  146. ^ "Text of Debate. Begins page 52" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  147. ^ "DPDC Threatens TNL-PCS". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  148. ^ "DPDC Threatens TNL-PCS Diary Entry. Registration required". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  149. ^ "Report from IDEC" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  150. ^ "Phorm, Once Again, Fails to Mention Stuff". Retrieved 2013-12-20.
  151. ^ "MOORE, ROTHSCHILD, & ERTUGRUL, Take a Holiday in Brasil". Retrieved 2013-12-20.
  152. ^ "Furlan Voto Vista Phorm/TNL-PCS". Retrieved 2013-12-17.
  153. ^ "Partnership With Telefonica" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-18.
  154. ^ "Phorm Registers Partnership With Telefonica" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-20.
  155. ^ "Phorm Registers Partnership With Telefonica. Confidentiality Request" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phorm&oldid=590909244"