quote:

---

Security firms are split about whether they will 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. However, AVG, developer of the most widely used free of charge anti-virus scanner, said it would not detect Phorm's cookie even though the Czech firm's CTO Karel Obluk describes the technology as "borderline".

As previously reported, 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.

Webroot, another prominent anti-spyware firm, reported difficulties at getting samples of Phorm's tracking cookies for evaluation purposes.

We polled a number of security firms on their attitudes to Phorm. We are waiting for responses from Symantec and McAfee, the two largest anti-malware vendors, as well as Check Point, which markets the popular Zone Alarm personal firewall.

---

quote:

---

Hi all,

I've been seeing lots of hits from Russia on Dephormation.org.uk from
IP
address 78.110.48.130. Badphorm.org.uk is getting the same.

---

quote:

---

BT has admitted that it secretly used customer data to test Phorm's advertising targeting technology last summer, and that it covered it up when customers and The Register raised questions over the suspicious redirects.

The national telecoms provider now faces legal action from customers who are angry their web traffic was compromised.

---

quote:

---

The Foundation for Information Policy Research (Fipr) has issued an open letter to the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, claiming that Phorm’s ad serving technology is illegal in the UK.

According to Nicholas Bohm, general counsel at Fipr, both parties must consent to interception in order for it to be lawful, according to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

He says that Phorm’s system is like the Post Office opening letters to see what the recipient is interested in, and then targeting them with relevant junk mail.

---

quote:

---

This article "Some notes from the Phorm sales pitch" is excellent and highly revealing!

---

quote:

---

My ISP was using the Coretel network and the transparent proxy from adzilla - here is a link to a rant about their services:

»www.sendcoffee.com/minorsage/adzilla.html

A way to detect any page changes made by your ISP:

»vancouver.cs.washington.edu/#results

---

quote:

---

He was wondering if he was ranting too much LOL.

---

said by Just Basics :

The opt-out given by Phorm really isn't an opt-out at all - it stops the targeting advertising, but all your requests are still going through their servers, you no longer have a direct internet connection, and they still get to profile you.

quote:

---

After reading about how Internet companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo collect information about people online and use it for targeted advertising, one New York assemblyman said there ought to be a law.

So he drafted a bill, now gathering support in Albany, that would make it a crime — punishable by a fine to be determined — for certain Web companies to use personal information about consumers for advertising without their consent.

And because it would be extraordinarily difficult for the companies that collect such data to adhere to stricter rules for people in New York alone, these companies would probably have to adjust their rules everywhere, effectively turning the New York legislation into national law.

“Should these companies be able to sell or use what’s essentially private data without permission? The easy answer is absolutely not,” said the assemblyman who sponsored the bill, Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat who has represented part of Westchester County since 1982.

Mr. Brodsky is not the only lawmaker with this idea. In Connecticut, the General Law Committee of the state assembly has introduced a bill that focuses on data collection rules for ad networks, the companies that serve ads on sites they do not own.

The New York bill, still a work in progress, is shaping up as much broader. Although it is likely to see some tinkering before it comes to a vote — which Mr. Brodsky hopes will happen this spring — it aims to force Web sites to give consumers obvious ways to opt out of advertising based on their browsing history and Web actions.

If it passed, computer users could request that companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft, which routinely keep track of searches and surfing conducted on their own properties, not follow them around. Users would also have to give explicit permission before these companies could link the anonymous searching and surfing data from around the Web to information like their name, address or phone number.

Because there is no federal legislation on these subjects, Mr. Brodsky’s bill — and, to a lesser extent, the one in Connecticut — could set interesting precedents.

In recent weeks, Microsoft and Yahoo have sent lobbyists to meet with Mr. Brodsky, and AOL, a unit of Time Warner, is planning a meeting. Unlike most Web companies, Microsoft favors legislation about online privacy and advertising practices and has lobbied federal lawmakers to establish regulations, said Michael Hintze, associate general counsel for Microsoft.

Microsoft asked Mr. Brodsky to broaden his bill to include all sorts of companies that serve ads around the Web, not just those that show ads based on users’ behavior. Such a change would create a bill that more clearly includes Microsoft’s chief competitor, Google.

Mr. Brodsky says he has asked the Web companies point-blank if they would support legislation similar to what he has proposed. Microsoft gave him a firm “yes,” but Yahoo, he said, seemed to be opposed to any sort of regulation. Yahoo declined to comment on its meeting with Mr. Brodsky.

---

quote:

---

Big companies like AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo, and smaller ones like Revenue Science, are gathering various crumbs about online behavior to use in their advertising systems. They are limited to gathering data from their own sites and their networks of affiliates.

Eventually, cellphone companies will start to face the same choice. If there is a G.P.S. unit in your phone, it will be able to keep track of what stores you visit, among many other things.

All these partial schemes may well be rendered as useless as a blindfolded spy by some new companies that want to tap into the records of Internet service providers. Their objective: following every single click users make. That way, in theory, they have the best ability to find ads that can indulge each users passion of the moment. Among the companies trying to build out this sort of system are Phorm, NebuAd, FrontPorch.

---

quote:

---

If it passed, computer users could request that companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft, which routinely keep track of searches and surfing conducted on their own properties, not follow them around. Users would also have to give explicit permission before these companies could link the anonymous searching and surfing data from around the Web to information like their name, address or phone number.

Because there is no federal legislation on these subjects, Mr. Brodsky’s bill — and, to a lesser extent, the one in Connecticut — could set interesting precedents.

---