Talk:Phorm

Reasons not to delete this page again

Phorm is notable because they aren't asking us (UK users) if we want all our internet data to go through their servers, and opting out is only the removal of their adverts from our web pages, our data still goes through their servers and is cached for later retrieval and analysis.

Sorry about the CRAP page I just made, but this is a very important thing for UK users, and someone decided that rather than let WP tell us what it is and how it affects us, it should be regarded as an advert and deleted. Someone needs to put a page up so that other (better) editors can clean it up and make it a worthy article. I will add STUB to it.

I would have restored the deletion and edited it, but it isn't even in the history =/

Our privacy is being eroded and this is an advert? PReDiToR (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To anybody considering deleting this page (thinking it's an advert or in some way not noteworthy), be aware that Phorm will very soon become BIG news in the UK. I won't clutter the article page with links but here's a few examples of why it's noteworthy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7280791.stm http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/03/07/phorm_has_been_hatching_its_plans_since_at_least_mid2006.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/06/internet.privacy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/looking_at_the_phorm.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.239.229 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent this message to BT:

Regarding the system known as "Phorm".

Please make a permanent note that I do not condone the use of Phorm, and hereby withdraw all permission for it to be used to intercept, analyse or otherwise deal with any part of the datastream to and from my home computers, or any information about the datasteam to and from my home, including, but not limited to, phone numbers called, websites visited and emails sent.

If you cannot provide a firm and binding assurance that you will not use the Phorm system in any manner of and data pertaining to myself, my family or my computer use, then I will be forced to look elsewhere for a more trustworthy internet service provider.

I still await a response, but feel free to use it as a basis for your own messages.

General comments on article

As someone who has been editing WP for some time I am aware of what it can and cannot be used for. I am also monitoring the Phorm situation carefully, as a BTInternet customer, but remain open minded.

Most of the article is well written and states what Phorm is fairly well. The criticism section is relevant. What is not appropriate is an excess of external links to campaigning sites, and these are the sorts of things that WP 'management' will see as making the article look like advertisement for a particular viewpoint. A much cut down external link list, say with just a link to the Phorm/Webwise site and BadPhorm would be far better. It is important that WP articles have a neutral NPOV regardless of how controversial some see them. Editors will ensure this happens or nominate the page for deletion.

The talk pages of articles are for discussing of the article itself and its content, and must not be used for any sort of campaigning. Dsergeant (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I would like to refer Phorm Comms Team to WP:CONFLICT which outlines Wikipedia's policy on various matters concerned with self promotion. In general authors with a direct involvement with the subject of an article are not under normal circumstances allowed to edit those articles. Phorm Comms Team I understand is part of a PR team working for Phorm on marketting their product, some of his edits show clear signs of self promotion. Dsergeant (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

i have already placed a note on the users talk page. I hope user:Phorm Comms Team does continue to contribute keeping within the guildlines. He/She added some useful references to the article. GameKeeper (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Currently: "The company drew attention when it announced it was is in talks with some United Kingdom ISPs to deliver targeted advertising based on a user's profile"

As I understand it, they drew attention because of wiretapping peoples' web connections at the ISP level, not because of the advertising aspect? [1] [2] There's quite a difference between an 'advertiser building a profile' and ISPs leaking private data without customer consent and then lying about it [3] [4] 87.194.198.122 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but this was only noted after it announced that it was to "deliver targeted advertising based on a user's profile". After this people started asking how and the articles you refer to were published. I say leave the into as it is. GameKeeper (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That needs to be included within the article somewhere (how it works being one of the major issues). -83.201.188.143 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Oix"?

I'm not clear on the relationshipbetween "Oix" and "Phorm". Assuming that there actually is one, something should be mentioned in the article. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OIX would seem to be the advertising arm of PHORM http://www.oix.com/about/index.html Lostforwords (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Phorm is the name of the company. It has two related 'products': Webwise, which sits in the ISP's network and snoops on their customers, and OIX, which is the part of the system that web sites deal with to generate ad revenue. --Harumphy (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Media links

To note, this page was linked to by two articles in The Register: FIPR: ICO gives BT 'green light for law breaking' with Phorm and Phorm admits censoring Wikipedia article. Joshdboz (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of "Maybe catagorised as adware"

the "Maybe catagorised as adware" doesn't make much sense. Obviously anti-virus scanners -that scan a user's drive for malware- are not going to detect "malware" at the ISP level. And the service sells ads, so there's no doubt that it's "adware", and the advertising aspect is discussed throughout the rest of the article. So this section, although referenced and accurate, serves little point but to pad the article. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be pedantic, I think you'll find tyhe system relies on cookies injected into the communications at an ISP level and a number of companies are debating whether or not those cookies should be flagged. Of course, since the current proposal is to use cookies as the opt-out mechanism, it would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face - you get rid of the cookie but get profiled as a result. *yay* Basiclife (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

marketing team

This section was a blatant copy-vio.

WP article

Phorm has admitted that it deleted key factual parts of the Wikipedia article about the huge controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse[33].

Register article

Phorm has admitted that it deleted key factual parts of the Wikipedia article about the huge controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse.

It's going unless someone re-writes it. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the new wording. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of technical detail on Phorm

Richard Clayton's technical write up on Phorm can be found here: [warning: PDF] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf, (via the Cambridge University Security Blog, http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/), which fills a lot of the tech gaps in the current article. 80.177.98.252 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

images and diagrams

A diagram of the data flow from the user, through the ISP, and to Phorm, would be useful, but the non free image in use at the moment isn't very good. It's not free. It's from Phorm, and doesn't really explain what happens to data. Are there any other, clear and free diagrams available? Dan Beale-Cocks 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image for now - despite being non-free, it's the best there is at the moment. When a free image does become available - I haven't found one - then remove the non-free image. Neıl ☎ 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not really the freeness or otherwise of the image, but the lack of information it provides. I suck (and suck hard) at creating graphics, but it'd be nice of someone could create something (after reading the clayton FIPR document) to show the flow of information from users, websites, ISPs and phorm. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the image here Phorming diagram be any use Lostforwords (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia

Note: the following was removed from the article; it's not particularly notable (if it were covered by major newspapers, it would be) and per WP:SELFREF, we really try to avoid discussing Wikipedia within articles not specifically about Wikipedia. - -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Following the publication of an article on The Register, Phorm admitted that it was responsible for removing key factual parts of the Wikipedia article on the company, specifically discussions of the controversy fired by its advertising profiling deals with Virgin Media, BT and Carphone Warehouse.[5]

This "wiki-fiddling" was written about by the Guardian "a notable change being that the quote by the Guardian's advertising people is shortened significantly" .[6] Lostforwords (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very many new editors do not know WP's policy on role accounts or COI edits. Phorm's editing of the article isn't really that notable or interesting. The difference between Phorm and those other editors is that Phorm is being watch-listed by many editors who won't let the article move too far off NPOV, and certainly won't let PR types spin it. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this falls into the category Wikipedia:SELFREF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself , the Phorm Wikipedia edits were not that notable UNTIL The Register and The Guardian mentioned them. If its notable enough for multiple press sources to mention then its probably notable here. But I agree it is on the edge of notability. I don't want to be seen as canvasing but would anyone object if I linked this discussion from the WP:Self talk page for an independent view? GameKeeper (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Getting more eyes isn't a bad thing. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has also been mentioned on PC World (magazine) website "Phorm Gussies Up its Wikipedia Entry" [7] and a couple of mentions on Computer Weekly [8] and [9] Lostforwords (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links are getting excessive.

There are now 17 external links, if I count correctly. Many of them being anti-phorm sites another chunk being register articles. I propose we dump all the articles as most are cited as sources anyway and cut down the huge number of anti-phorm sites,leaving only the most noteable. Have any been mentioned in the mainstream press? GameKeeper (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen badphorm [Anti-Phorm Campaign] and dephormation mentioned in one or two articles, most recently here [[10]]

The [Anti Phorm League] seems to be mostly entanet related ISPs, so could go I guess, but I have not seen a complete list of ISP's rejecting Phorm on a single site. Lostforwords (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to the Interview "Phorm launches data pimping fight back - Interview with Phorm CEO Kent Ertugrul and its senior vice president of technology, Marc Burgess" should stay in the interest of balance. It also contains a better citation to data still being mirrored if you opt out (page 3) - it is directly attributed to Marc Burgess VP of technology, rather than "a spokesperson". "MB: What happens is that the data is still mirrored to the profiler but the data digest is never made and the rest of the chain never occurs. It ought to be said that the profiler is operated by the ISP, not us." Lostforwords (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did the purge, then I noticed that the 'data pimping fight back' is also a ref (no. 14 at this time), so am tempted to remove that too. There is a roundup of Phorm stories from The Register, that might be a suitable replacement. GameKeeper (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Non UK activity

This is a global organisation - surely their activities are not limited to the UK as this article seems to imply? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

according to the Phorm website - http://www.phorm.com/isp_partners/- 'Current partners include BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media -companies representing approximately 70% of the UK broadband ISP market.', so i'm assuming they havn't recruited any ISPs outside the UK as yet (thankfully) 81.96.251.179 (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times citation in the article states they have been canvassing US ISP's too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have now added a 'globalisation tag'. Although Phorm has offices in USA, UK and Russia and has some time ago run some trials in the US, at least for the moment their only activity, or rather proposed trials, is in the UK. If somebody comes up with evidence that they are actually installing their kit in other countries then I am sure it will be added.Dsergeant (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wie this, you mean? Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This information from the Register only surfaced this week and refers to activity back in 2005 (as 121Media). It also says they are no longer active in the USA. I am not sure whether items from the Register are a reputable source for WP (it doesn't give its own source), but if you want to add it please go ahead. As far as I know, there is no other evidence of them trialing elsewhere, though they are known to have been speaking to ISPs in other countries (like Korea). Dsergeant (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact from Phorm.

Someone from Phorm has added a message to my talk page regarding inaccuracies in this article. It seems to be a genuine attempt to avoid a conflict of interest and to improve the accuracy of the article. Unfortunately I am very busy with other projects at the moment and cannot give their suggestions the attention they deserve. I could someone else take a look at it? The details are here User_talk:GameKeeper#A_Message_about_the_Phorm_page GameKeeper (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the questionable material now. I hope if Phorm post on this talk page with reasonable requests someone can action their points, as I am likely to be busy over the next month. GameKeeper (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)