Comments on: Phorm: public meeting announced for next Tuesday http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Fri, 16 May 2008 08:03:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Open Rights Group : Blog Archive » FIPR calls on Home Office to withdraw misleading advice on Phorm http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163599 The Open Rights Group : Blog Archive » FIPR calls on Home Office to withdraw misleading advice on Phorm Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:50 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163599 [...] the system is lawful, creating “an obstacle to the just enforcement of the law”. At the public meeting attended by Phorm and their critics last week, Simon Davies of 80/20 Thinking Ltd identified the legality of Phorm under RIPA as a legitimate [...] [...] the system is lawful, creating “an obstacle to the just enforcement of the law”. At the public meeting attended by Phorm and their critics last week, Simon Davies of 80/20 Thinking Ltd identified the legality of Phorm under RIPA as a legitimate [...]

]]> By: A Very Worried Messenger http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163592 A Very Worried Messenger Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:03:22 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163592 It looks like the ubiquitous Phorm redirects can be prevented from calling the webwise system by blocking the proper sites using IPSEC rules, I am not sure if some Firewalls run at a low enough system level to achieve this. Using the Hosts File to block these sites is problematic as the True IP address can be used to redirect the Web Application instead of the URL address. This does not however prevent the Packet Sniffing that the Phorm System is doing! ( I consider this totally illegal without the consent of both parties, or for proper legal or operational reasons) It looks like the ubiquitous Phorm redirects can be prevented from calling the webwise system by blocking the proper sites using IPSEC rules, I am not sure if some Firewalls run at a low enough system level to achieve this.

Using the Hosts File to block these sites is problematic as the True IP address can be used to redirect the Web Application instead of the URL address.

This does not however prevent the Packet Sniffing that the Phorm System is doing! ( I consider this totally illegal without the consent of both parties, or for proper legal or operational reasons)

]]> By: A Very Worried Messenger http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163576 A Very Worried Messenger Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:40:12 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163576 The Spotlight needs to be turned on to this Company as well, which appears to be quietly sneaking under the radar whilst the fuss is going on about Phorm! This also appears to imply direct Packet Examination at the ISP level! Which is under current UK law illegal monitoring, without the direct permission of both parties in the communication! Please Note they also state the US Version Opt-out NOT Opt-in (not that this make any difference both are illegal under current UK legislation without the consent of both parties in the communication!) http://www.nebuad.com/privacy/uk_servicesPrivacy.php The Spotlight needs to be turned on to this Company as well, which appears to be quietly sneaking under the radar whilst the fuss is going on about Phorm!

This also appears to imply direct Packet Examination at the ISP level!
Which is under current UK law illegal monitoring, without the direct permission of both parties in the communication!

Please Note they also state the US Version Opt-out NOT Opt-in (not that this make any difference both are illegal under current UK legislation without the consent of both parties in the communication!)

http://www.nebuad.com/privacy/uk_servicesPrivacy.php

]]> By: Hugh Paterson http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163569 Hugh Paterson Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:51:50 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163569 Were the questions from here answered during the meeting or was there a commitment to answer them? I hope to see them answered soon. Thanks Were the questions from here answered during the meeting or was there a commitment to answer them? I hope to see them answered soon. Thanks

]]> By: A Very Worried Messenger http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163567 A Very Worried Messenger Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:55:15 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163567 In the light of Recent developments BT need to be asked a VERY DIRECT QUESTION! What is your description of a BT Broadband Customer & what Information have you released to Phorm about BT Customer Accounts, does it include all users connected to your Broadband Network, whether or not they are a direct BT Broadband Customer! This potentially affects Sky, Orange....etc, Customers who are connected to the BT Broadband Network. Remember that BT is also the Telephone Company & therefore has control of the Master Router/MAC, which can also potentially be viewed by BT as part of their ISP Network! In the light of Recent developments BT need to be asked a VERY DIRECT QUESTION!

What is your description of a BT Broadband Customer & what Information have you released to Phorm about BT Customer Accounts, does it include all users connected to your Broadband Network, whether or not they are a direct BT Broadband Customer!

This potentially affects Sky, Orange….etc, Customers who are connected to the BT Broadband Network.

Remember that BT is also the Telephone Company & therefore has control of the Master Router/MAC, which can also potentially be viewed by BT as part of their ISP Network!

]]> By: Alert http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163559 Alert Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:10:41 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163559 The following information may explain the problem I highlighted above: If the IP address is dynamic, in the case of BT or Virgin Media? when the user switches ON/OFF regularly the the user may easily get a blacklisted IP address or vise versa & the surfing of http addresses may become problematic & or erratic! "AND THIS SUBMISSION ON FIRST ATTEMPT WAS BLOCKED BY MY ROUTER FIREWALL BECAUSE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO RE-ROUTE IT THROUGH A """PHORM""" ADDRESS!!!!!" 27. If the user has disabled cookies for CNN (viz: they don’t record their values and don’t supply them with further requests), then there is potential for an infinite loop – repeating all the 307 responses forever. The Layer 7 switch recognises this situation and records that future traffic (at least for a while) from the particular IP address to the particular (CNN) domain is not to be redirected. 28. If the user has set a cookie within the webwise.net domain indicating that they do not wish to be tracked, then this preference is passed to the Layer 7 switch during the process in paragraph 16 above. The details on how this is done were not explained by Phorm... but it is presumably related to the mechanism described in the previous paragraph. 29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected. 30. Note that the blacklisting of IP addresses by the Layer 7 switch (as described in the three previous paragraphs), whether general, or for particular domains, will apply to all of the users who are sharing a particular IP address, not just users with a particular UID. However, because the “blacklisting” will time out eventually, the exact behaviour will depend upon the mixture of requests made by different users who have different browser settings. The following information may explain the problem I highlighted above:
If the IP address is dynamic, in the case of BT or Virgin Media? when the user switches ON/OFF regularly the the user may easily get a blacklisted IP address or vise versa & the surfing of http addresses may become problematic & or erratic!

“AND THIS SUBMISSION ON FIRST ATTEMPT WAS BLOCKED BY MY ROUTER FIREWALL BECAUSE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO RE-ROUTE IT THROUGH A “”"PHORM”"” ADDRESS!!!!!”

27. If the user has disabled cookies for CNN (viz: they don’t record their values and don’t supply them with further requests), then there is potential for an infinite loop – repeating all the 307 responses forever. The Layer 7 switch recognises this situation and records that future traffic (at least for a while) from the particular IP address to the particular (CNN) domain is not to be redirected.

28. If the user has set a cookie within the webwise.net domain indicating that they do not wish to be tracked, then this preference is passed to the Layer 7 switch during the process in paragraph 16 above. The details on how this is done were not explained by Phorm… but it is presumably related to the mechanism described in the previous paragraph.

29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected.

30. Note that the blacklisting of IP addresses by the Layer 7 switch (as described in the three previous paragraphs), whether general, or for particular domains, will apply to all of the users who are sharing a particular IP address, not just users with a particular UID.
However, because the “blacklisting” will time out eventually, the exact behaviour will depend upon the mixture of requests made by different users who have different browser settings.

]]> By: Alert http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163558 Alert Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:07:18 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163558 The following information may explain the problem I highlighted above: If the IP address is dynamic, in the case of BT or Virgin Media? when the user switches ON/OFF regularly the the user may easily get a blacklisted IP address or vise versa & the surfing of http addresses may become problematic & or erratic! 27. If the user has disabled cookies for CNN (viz: they don’t record their values and don’t supply them with further requests), then there is potential for an infinite loop – repeating all the 307 responses forever. The Layer 7 switch recognises this situation and records that future traffic (at least for a while) from the particular IP address to the particular (CNN) domain is not to be redirected. 28. If the user has set a cookie within the webwise.net domain indicating that they do not wish to be tracked, then this preference is passed to the Layer 7 switch during the process in paragraph 16 above. The details on how this is done were not explained by Phorm... but it is presumably related to the mechanism described in the previous paragraph. 29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected. 30. Note that the blacklisting of IP addresses by the Layer 7 switch (as described in the three previous paragraphs), whether general, or for particular domains, will apply to all of the users who are sharing a particular IP address, not just users with a particular UID. However, because the “blacklisting” will time out eventually, the exact behaviour will depend upon the mixture of requests made by different users who have different browser settings. The following information may explain the problem I highlighted above:
If the IP address is dynamic, in the case of BT or Virgin Media? when the user switches ON/OFF regularly the the user may easily get a blacklisted IP address or vise versa & the surfing of http addresses may become problematic & or erratic!

27. If the user has disabled cookies for CNN (viz: they don’t record their values and don’t supply them with further requests), then there is potential for an infinite loop – repeating all the 307 responses forever. The Layer 7 switch recognises this situation and records that future traffic (at least for a while) from the particular IP address to the particular (CNN) domain is not to be redirected.

28. If the user has set a cookie within the webwise.net domain indicating that they do not wish to be tracked, then this preference is passed to the Layer 7 switch during the process in paragraph 16 above. The details on how this is done were not explained by Phorm… but it is presumably related to the mechanism described in the previous paragraph.

29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected.

30. Note that the blacklisting of IP addresses by the Layer 7 switch (as described in the three previous paragraphs), whether general, or for particular domains, will apply to all of the users who are sharing a particular IP address, not just users with a particular UID.
However, because the “blacklisting” will time out eventually, the exact behaviour will depend upon the mixture of requests made by different users who have different browser settings.

]]> By: Alert http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163557 Alert Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:13:36 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163557 Just had to deal with a problem concerning a Virgin Media customer. The customer could no longer connect to several http sites as of this morning, having noticed similar symptoms on BT, indicating Phorm activity!, I was able to advise the customer on how to re-establish connections to these sites. This however was not an ideal mitigation, it involved altering certain Firewall settings! Just had to deal with a problem concerning a Virgin Media customer.

The customer could no longer connect to several http sites as of this morning, having noticed similar symptoms on BT, indicating Phorm activity!, I was able to advise the customer on how to re-establish connections to these sites.

This however was not an ideal mitigation, it involved altering certain Firewall settings!

]]> By: Phil Ransome http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163554 Phil Ransome Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:13:31 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163554 Where does the routing of packets take place? If we do not opt in (or we opt out) does that mean the ISP will send our packets down the clean route to their destination? Alternatively will the ISP still route everything to Phorm and the opt out will just mean the ads don't get delivered back to our browsers. If the latter then what use is any opt out? Where does the routing of packets take place? If we do not opt in (or we opt out) does that mean the ISP will send our packets down the clean route to their destination? Alternatively will the ISP still route everything to Phorm and the opt out will just mean the ads don’t get delivered back to our browsers. If the latter then what use is any opt out?

]]> By: Hugh Paterson http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163553 Hugh Paterson Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:56:11 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/04/09/phorm-public-meeting-announced-for-next-tuesday/#comment-163553 http://www.dephormation.org.uk/ is a site presenting tools to prevent, evade, or detect your profiling. In view of the fact that use of such tools constitutes a clear refusal to consent, will you commit to not attempting to work around these tools. It appears that a website can easily read your cuckoo in their domain by making the web page call for an image by a non-standard port. In view of this, any site or group of sites can easily and conveniently track all webwise-encumbered surfers. Please explain how this enhances their privacy. A website has a right to any cookies (including cuckoos) in their domain. A surfer can block access to webwise.net. Will this break her browsing? Do you plan to prevent this legitimate reaction to your intrusion? Do you plan to attach a “profile” mark to the user agent string (or elsewhere) of browsers you are profiling, as a courtesy to the websites, and to permit them to exercise their informed consent? http://www.dephormation.org.uk/ is a site presenting tools to prevent, evade, or detect your profiling. In view of the fact that use of such tools constitutes a clear refusal to consent, will you commit to not attempting to work around these tools.

It appears that a website can easily read your cuckoo in their domain by making the web page call for an image by a non-standard port. In view of this, any site or group of sites can easily and conveniently track all webwise-encumbered surfers. Please explain how this enhances their privacy. A website has a right to any cookies (including cuckoos) in their domain.

A surfer can block access to webwise.net. Will this break her browsing? Do you plan to prevent this legitimate reaction to your intrusion?

Do you plan to attach a “profile” mark to the user agent string (or elsewhere) of browsers you are profiling, as a courtesy to the websites, and to permit them to exercise their informed consent?

]]>