Disqus - Latest Comments for david m

Re: Selling out Online Advertising

david m — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:11:37 -0000

what part of “deep packet inspection” of all your automatic copyrighted datastream without Explicit Consent.

or, unlawful interception without court Order, or Explicit Consent of BOTH partys.

or, commercial piracy of Copyrighted web content.

or,the unacceptable security and privacy risk to your employees work from home with web-based applications.

or many other potentially breaking of many more laws inside the Uk and the EU , but your readers are in the US and so dont have these laws to protect them and their right to privacy do they, so that doesnt matter does it?

finally, all that inter-ISP unique cookie data and custom DPI ISP network installed kit, you are far more likely to become a prime target, and hence a victim of online fraud if your ISP is one of those signed up with Phorm or NebuAd.

as i said, what part of that dont you get as a reader or news writer...

of course its easy to understand why the people hopeing to profit from all this deep pack interception are spendinf so much effort trying to sweep this most disingenuous practice under the carpet.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-v...

Re: Selling out Online Advertising

david m — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:56:02 -0000

to be fair OliverF,

NebuAd were also known as the famous 'Gator' or Gator Corporation, and also known as 'Claria Corporation'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation
http://cryptome.org/spy-ads.htm to link but oneexample.

funny how all the old Spyware companys have re-branded yet again...., and moved from the end users end of the connection and software,directly to the other side of the wire on your ISP internal network were you cant then remove the application and its now hardware based, so far more powerful than the old days.....

Re: Selling out Online Advertising

david m — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:50:57 -0000

some nice coverage here today for you US users this time charter?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080513-c...

http://consumerist.com/5008801/charter-to-begin...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13...

Re: Selling out Online Advertising

david m — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:31:31 -0000

it seems that it takes an age to moderate and so let others read the points made but no matter as long as you do get around to clicking the allow button ;)

anyway, it seems that the US and canada could do with something like this one day:

"Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 states:

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance
with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health of morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

The Human Rights Act 1998 means that as far as possible the courts in this (UK and all the EU) country should interpret the law in a way that is compatible with Convention rights.

Ryan said "David, I do think ISPs ought to be more up front with users about how their information is recorded, but typically terms of service agreements do have a data collection clause, albeit in legalese."

its interesting that you agree that the legal points are properly covered for the end users in these contracts,and appear to advocate clear and concise plain English so as to help everyone, and thast a good thing.

you also appear in your linked MP3 report to stand by the need to protect against unlawful piracy _without_ _payment_ and a valid and reasonable contract in return for use of the purchased content.

and that is the overall majority view in the world today,yes.

"To be sure, intellectual property deserves strong legal protections, and content owners must be empowered with legal tools to combat piracy. But this does not mean laws should erect ironclad walls around digital media, dictating what consumers may do with files they have already purchased."

so we stand here today, with the view that if you want to use someones content, you pay the price they ask, and can use it within reasonable terms set on in the Consumer contract "in good faith" legal terms,
(a covenant or "bona fide" legal agreement if you will).
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected...
http://latin-phrases.co.uk/terms/legal/

in simple terms,
you want something, you sign an agreement to the benefit of BOTH partys, and not to the detriment of eather party within the agreement.

as i pointed out in 1: weres the agreement from the two partys to say this 3rd party (NebuAd,Phorm,etc) can use these partys copyrighted datastreams.

it doesnt exist..., as NebuAd or Phorm havent asked for permission to use for commercial gain, the users auto copyrighted datastream, or the website owners auto copyrighted web content.

to be clear on this, both NebuAd and Phorm _collect_ _full_ _copys_ of ANY user visited webpage.

_process_ this full data stream to produce the _derivative_ _work_ (Definition:Stemming from an original source) for their own commercail purpose.

then of their own inclination or that of the ISP involved, (well outside the 'mere conduit' definition for legal protection) finally anonymise this data
to make it legal.

it seems "that major Internet service providers have signed deals to allow Phorm, as a third party, unfettered access to the entirety of web-users’ browsing history, including content and URLs." without getting this vital _Explicit_ Consent or signed a commercial contract for the use of these partys copyrighted data.

they have in fact placed themselves in the position of commercial piracy for profit, with all the criminal and common law implications that entails were ever you happen to be in the world, OC some country, dont consider commercial piracy serious, wereas others do, VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED infact ;) .

one last thing for the moment,while the US (what about canada?) dont seem to have the equivalent of the UK and EU laws regarding Data Protection Act RIPA etc , will that always be the case?

as DePhormation Pete says (hes refering to the billing system being written right now to charge for unlawful copyrighted use of webmaters data by the ISPs etc)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33628733-v...

"... Phorm still hasn't launched. Still, 3 months after it was first announced.

BT still aren't off the hook with respect to RIPA, PECR, DPA, and the consequences of their secret trials by a long chalk.

And even if... even IF behavioural targetting eventually escapes from the cess pit, copyright ownership will lay waste to Phorm and BT like a 1000 Megaton GPS guided thermonuclear strike on their HQ....."

Re: Selling out Online Advertising

david m — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:33:02 -0000

have you read the Phorm Patent , i cant sem to find any NebuAd patents listed ?....

care of Bubblehelp
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog...
"I am sick of Phorm and the misleading spin they are placing on this. The patent application clearly shows that the Phorm system. Too many lies have been told by phorm and the PR team. All of which can be proved to be deception to the community.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Targeted-advertisin...

for example

"where the script is configured to set a cookie in the browser, and where the cookie contains at least a portion of the browsing information. "

A COOKIE CAN BE TRACKED. IT IS STORING PERSONAL BROWSING INFORMATION. You lie Phorm

"Context reader 40 is not limited to acquiring keyword or other contextual information pertaining to a given web page. Indeed, the browsing information may be collected so as to also include historical data pertaining to the browsing performed "

Again Phorm have been lying. The truthe of the matter is in the patent.

"Based on analysis occurring at the proxy server, the proxy server may modify client-requested data it receives so that a targeted advertisement appears on a web page requested by a client"

So you are changing the data stream Changing the requested data. Lie number 3 Phorm.

SPIN AND MORE SPIN WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF THE PATENT APPLICATION.

And you say you dont collect personal data do you. Er this is what your patent says

"As explained above, the context reader may be configured to more than just keyword and other contextual data pertaining to a given web page. The context reader may also include behavioral data (e.g, browsing behavior), other historical data collected over time, demographic data associated with the user, IP address, URL data, etc."

Note the section

"The context reader may also include behavioral data (e.g, browsing behavior), other historical data collected over time, demographic data associated with the user, IP address, URL data, etc."

Er whats that you say -"you dont collect IP addresses. Your patent says... YOU DO.

You Lie Again Phorm

Posted by: Bubblehelp | March 11, 2008 9:29 AM
"