Tag Archives: Pr Failures

UK Now On Final Notice Over Phorm

October 29, 2009 4:41 pm \

Phorm and the UK “government” might just come to realise that the backlash against internet snooping and illegal DPI based advertising is a serious one.

The EU has announced that it is moving to the second phase of its proceedings against the UK government over its failure to enforce laws protecting internet users’ privacy.

The Register starts its report on this story thus:

The UK government today came a step closer to international embarrassment over its failure to act against BT and Phorm for their secret trials of mass internet snooping technology.The European Commission said it had moved to the second stage of infringement proceedings after the trials, revealed by The Register, exposed failings in the UK’s implementation of privacy laws.

BT and Phorm intercepted and profiled the web browsing of tens of thousands of broadband subscribers without their consent in trials in 2006 and 2007.

The furore generated by the scandal forced Phorm to withdraw from the UK market, but police and the Information Commissioner’s Office both declined to take any action against the firms.

One might have thought that this news would be worthy of discussion at Phorm’s upcoming AGM.  But I doubt that will happen.  After all Kent Ertugrul has yet to respond to my challenge to publish a verifiable legal opinion backing the legality of his Webwise “product”.  It’s been about 18 months since I made that challenge.

The comments after El Reg’s report are good stuff and one or two have suggested that those involved in collaboration with BT and Phorm could well get away with their involvement in breaking the law.  That must not be allowed to happen.  As I said in my submission to the APComms Inquiry (report is a PDF document)

Jamie Dowling felt that enforcing the law was important, even for events in the past that might not recur:

The failure of government and watchdogs to enforce existing law in relation to the 2006 and 2007 secret testing by BT and Phorm provided a seed from which a very strong campaign has emerged.

Government must enforce the law wherever it is broken, regardless of whether an individual or a corporation has broken the law.  Government has a duty to respect and enforce European law to which it is a signatory.  It has failed to do that and rightly faces legal action for that failure.

Nazi war criminals are still prosecuted for their crimes from years ago.  Other criminals are prosecuted for their crimes in previous years.  Why shouldn’t those involved in allowing these crimes to happen face judicial process?

Those involved in the collaboration with BT and Phorm, whoever they are, whatever their status and regardless of for whom they were working must face the courts.

Posted in: bad management, business, campaigning, computers, ethics, Freedom Of Information, Internet, lack of Clue, parliamentary, Techie \ Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phorm Trying To Duck The UK Storm?

September 21, 2009 11:07 pm \

The FT reports that Phorm has announced that it has put its plans for the UK on hold, preferring to concentrate its efforts on other markets.

This comes after the rescheduling of the Phorm AGM, the departures of two executives, interim results showing a loss of $15 million over the 6 months to 30th June 2009 and a comprehensive overhaul of its websites to try and hide its attempts at smears and its laughable claims of governmental approval.

The FT article makes no mention of the legal and privacy issues which have been highlighted by the backlash against Phorm and other peddlers of similar DPI based solutions which are strongly argued to be illegal under UK law because they intercept communications without a judicial warrant.  So the FT gets a big fat FAIL thrown at it.  The Times has a brief report on Phorm’s results but also fails to mention these issues.  More poor journalism there.  FAIL.  A better article comes from Charles Arthur at The Guardian.

Phorm have never published a verifiable legal opinion supporting their product’s legality under UK and EU law despite being challenged to do so.  Phorm worked alongside BT to undertake secret tests of their technology on BT Internet’s customer base during 2006 and 2007.  BT have never published a verifiable legal opinion supporting their secret tests.

Phorm’s decision to put its UK plans on hold can only be seen as a victory for the very people Phorm tried to smear, slur and bully, the people they branded “Privacy Pirates” and The Register whom they branded “a mouthpiece”.  But it is only a partial victory.

This decision smacks of a recognition that they are in trouble.  Not just financially but legally as well.  This smacks of desperately hoping that if they keep a low profile things might just blow over.  Phorm may try to keep a low profile, rebuild and come back stronger.

It does not alter the fact that Webwise is illegal under UK and EU law.

There is a reckoning to be had.  Executives from BT and Phorm must be brought to full legal account for the thousands of privacy breaches they orchestrated.  “Government”, ICO, Police and CPS staff who were complicit in allowing Phorm & BT to proceed without due diligence on their part must also be brought to book.

Nothing less will be acceptable.

Posted in: bad management, business, campaigning, ethics, Internet, privacy, Techie \ Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phorm Interim Results: Another Large Loss

September 21, 2009 9:19 am \

The Phorm AGM draws ever closer.  Phorm’s website has been overhauled to remove the names of directors who have quit the company and to finally remove their pathetic moaning slur campaign site.  News of these changes has gone mainstream now, featuring the departures of Stratis Scleparis and David Sawday.

There are still inconsistencies and questions to be asked, especially of BT.  The company which claims the highest ethical standards has still to answer questions about what Mike Galvin told the ICO and has two contradictory pages about Webwise (Phorm’s “product”) on its website.

Enough for the moment of BT and their lack of honesty.  This post is about Phorm.  This morning they announced their interim results for the six months to 30th June 2009.

A loss of $15 million.

In the current economic climate a loss of $15 million might not seem much to some people.  When you don’t have any income streams because your “product” is of very dubious legality you will keep losing money.  You can read the press release for yourselves if you wish.

It reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister in its optimism in the face of people realising the truth about Phorm.  Nowhere in that statement does the word “legal” feature.  As in “Our product is legal and here is the verifiable opinion confirming that”.  Maybe the AGM will be the place where Kent comes out and finally answers this simple yet basic question.

Phorm’s board can believe whatever it wants.

Remember the share price: over £34 in February 2008.  Now at £1.50?

Remember the failure to produce a legal opinion to back your corner?

Remember the claim that government had given legal backing to your “product” when it hadn’t?

Remember the smear campaign?

Remember the legal bullying over a phone number you had already published in the public domain?

Remember Virasb Vahidi (former Chief Operating Officer of Phorm) claiming “We actually can see the entire Internet.”?

Remember Kent Ertugrul’s comments “The problem for newspapers is that a story headlined ‘Two Dead in Baghdad’ isn’t very product-friendly. But if you know who is looking at the page, that’s where the opportunity is.” ?

Remember the various rejections you have had from companies like Orange, The Guardian, Amazon, LiveJournal,  Wikipedia and the Nationwide?

Phorm’s Board would do well to discuss these issues and questions I’ve already mentioned at the Phorm AGM. It would show at least some grasp of real world issues and events.

Finally there’s one more point.  It’s a little one but it is very important.

It doesn’t matter who you’ve got trying to foist your “product” onto other people, the law is the law.

Posted in: bad management, business, campaigning, ethics, Freedom Of Information, Internet, privacy, Techie \ Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phorm Results On Monday, Ex-BT Tech Chief Quits

September 18, 2009 1:30 pm \

Chris Williams reports on El Reg that Stratis Scleparis, the former BT Retail CTO who jumped ship to Phorm in 2007 after BT’s secret tests of Phorm’s technology in 2006, has now quit the contraversial company.  BT claimed that their testing of Phorm’s technology wasn’t illegal here and their statement didn’t answer questions about the role of Scleparis.  Make of that what you will.

Chris continues:

Phorm is expected to reveal further heavy losses when it announces its half year financial results on Monday…

You don’t say! With no actual revenue earning product that’s really not surprising…

In a statement, Scleparis said: “I am proud of the contribution that I and my team have made in the development of Phorm’s unique online content and advertising personalisation technologies.

At least Stratis admits his part in the secret and illegal tests in 2006 and 2007.  That will be useful when those responsible come to trial.

Scleparis played a central role in the covert trials of 2006 and 2007, when tens of thousands of BT subscribers’ web browsing was intercepted and profiled without their consent. He joined Phorm in October 2007, weeks after the second trial finished.

During his tenure, The Register understands the system has been subject to major reengineering, including development of a network-level opt-out in line with UK ISP demands.

If memory serves network level opt-out wasn’t even considered until the backlash started to gain momentum, so it’s not so much ISP demands as ISP customers’ demands.  Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that interception without a warrant is illegal.  Yes Kent, I’m still harping on about that.

Phorm’s ridiculous smear campaign site has also been rewritten.  You can see the rewrite here.  Click on the more link to see it in full.  The words in white are those originally there.   What’s that I see there? “Privacy pirates”?

Well, September 19th is Talk Like A Pirate day so let me give Kent Ertugrul and the pro-Phormers out there a little message in pirate speak:

“Arr! Emu lad!  I be a Privacy Pirate I be!  Arr! Kent lad!  Hope those results on Monday have got lots of booty for your shareholders!  Arr! Emu lad!”

Just in case anyone thinks I’ve lost it completely, the cry of “Arr! Emu lad!” is a reference to a Spike Milligan “Q” series sketch.

Posted in: bad management, business, campaigning, ethics, Internet, privacy, Techie \ Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phorm AGM And Results Announcement

September 14, 2009 7:40 pm \

From the London Stock Exchange comes news of the new date for the Phorm AGM and a results announcement:

The Company (AIM: PHRM and PHRX) will be announcing its results for the six months ended 30 June 2009 via RNS, at 7.00am (BST) on Monday 21 September 2009.

For those misguided souls who believe that people like me and the other anti DPI campaigners are Luddite tinfoil hat wearing “privacy pirates”…

There will be a conference call for analysts and investors at 8.30am (BST) on the day.

Yes folks, get your spin phresh phrom Phorm!  Hear how each one of the evil privacy pirate group has written hundreds and hundreds of letters to MPs, MEPs and anyone else who will listen.

The truth is I do most of my communicating by e-mail, using post only when necessary.  And I’m sure you will agree that my writing style is pretty recognisable.  So it is that I write only as myself.  The only hats I wear are a cricket cap in warm weather and occasionally a fedora.  The tin foil stays in the kitchen.

Hear how the evil privacy pirate group has been spreading rumour and misinformation about the legal status of Webwise.

The truth is that I’ve publicly challenged Phorm to publish such an opinion (see Jamie’s Challenge To Phorm link above) and such an opinion has never been made available.  The truth is that interception without a judicial warrant is illegal.  The truth is that advertising schemes that are opt-in by default are illegal.

Hear how the rumours and misinformation became a smear campaign against a company merely offering an advertising service.

The truth is that there are no rumours and misinformation here.  Just facts, linked to their sources.  That is not a smear campaign.  Digging around in someone’s past and revealing that they once complained about nappies to a manufacturer is the kind of tactic only the desperate would use in a smear campaign.

The statement also confirms the new date of the AGM:

Shareholders are also advised that the Company will hold its AGM on Monday 2 November 2009. Related documentation will be sent to shareholders in due course.

Now that the Phorm AGM date has been confirmed, here’s that list of things I think are worthy of open and honest discussion at the AGM. If I was a shareholder I would be very very unhappy that my stock value had dropped so much.

Is it too much to ask for the publication of the verified legal opinion we have been waiting for since April last year?  The AGM is an ideal time to do that.

Which do you think is more likely? Phorm publishing that legal opinion or my touring South Africa with England as an opening batsman and swing bowler this winter?

Yeah, I’ve got my cricket coffin packed just in case…

Posted in: bad management, business, ethics, Internet, privacy, Techie \ Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,