Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Privacy

Amazon To Block Phorm Scans 140

clickclickdrone writes "The BBC are reporting that Amazon has said it will not allow online advertising system Phorm to scan its web pages to produce targeted ads. For most people this is a welcome step, especially after the European Commission said it was starting legal action against the UK earlier this week over its data protection laws in relation to Phorm's technology. Anyone who values their privacy should applaud this move by Amazon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon To Block Phorm Scans

Comments Filter:
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:52AM (#27585475) Journal
    I suspect we'll see a fair bit more of this. Not because the world is full of fuzzy defenders of privacy(it isn't); but because the world is full of nonfuzzy violators of privacy and Phorm is trying to muscle in on their action.

    One of Amazon's major selling points, beyond their good logistics, is their ability to use site analytics to make interest based recommendations to customers. Obviously, they have zero interest in letting Phorm piggyback on that, on their own site no less.

    I suspect that many other major web presences will be in a similar place. Phorm is potentially lucrative for the ISPs, but it is a nontrivial threat to larger site and ad-network operators. The small guys are more or less resigned to outsourcing analytics and ad placement, so it won't be as much of a change for them; but the big independents will not be pleased.
  • by Pop69 ( 700500 ) <billy&benarty,co,uk> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:57AM (#27585517) Homepage
    Perhaps RTFA would be an idea ? Novel one I know this being /.

    In a statement, Phorm said: "There is a process in place to allow publishers to contact Phorm and opt out of the system, but we do not comment on individual cases."

    This would seem to imply that unless you opt out you are in.

  • by ebcdic ( 39948 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:57AM (#27585535)

    Phorm claims to look at robots.txt, but it's unclear what exactly they mean. See http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html#how-do-i-prevent-webwise-from-scanning-my-site

  • by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:00AM (#27585565)

    I think you have to email them.
    http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html#how-do-i-prevent-webwise-from-scanning-my-site [bt.com]

    I've emailed them for my domains (they're very small and insignificant).

  • by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:00AM (#27585569) Homepage

    Phorm is only opt-in to the extent that you agree a contract with them to display Phorm ads on your site.

    It is opt-out as regards Phorm traking what your visitors get up to on your site.

  • by hansamurai ( 907719 ) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:01AM (#27585589) Homepage Journal

    Except with Google ads, the people who actually own the website choose whether or not to serve them. Phorm ads are injected at the ISP level, completely ignoring whether the server wants the ads or not. Yes, they're still interest based, but they're evil for other reasons in my opinion.

  • by ebcdic ( 39948 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:03AM (#27585607)

    Google doesn't do anything unless you use Google. Phorm gets the information from your ISP.

  • by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:04AM (#27585623)

    To write to your UK and EU parliamentary representatives, go to http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]

  • by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:09AM (#27585693)
    You opt into Google's ad service by visiting a site using it, and can opt out by simply stopping them from creating the tracking cookies. You automatically opt into Phorm when you use the internet and can only opt out by setting a special "don't track me bro" cookie on each profile of each browser used by each device in your home. I think that's quite a distinction. Phorm assumes that any of your web activity is theirs to track unless you specifically tell them otherwise.
  • by click2005 ( 921437 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:09AM (#27585695)

    Also, as part of the BT trials, they replaced adverts (from a number of charities) on webpages with their own adverts.

    Those sites/advertisers weren't given the chance to opt-out.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:13AM (#27585727)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by kramer ( 19951 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:14AM (#27585735) Homepage

    Reading carefully, they'll obey any robot.txt rule for "*", googlebot, or (yahoo) slurp. They apparently didn't feel it necessary to have their own robots.txt identifier so you can block just them.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:20AM (#27585827) Journal
    Please correct me if I'm wrong; but my understanding was that Phorm's plan was to pay the ISPs for the privilege of spying on their customers and then buy ad space on various websites in order to run ads targeted on the basis of the spying.

    For a small site, then, having Phorm spy on your visitors via ISP, then having Phorm pay you to run ads, would not be considerably different than using a 3rd party analytics package, google analytics or similar, and then being paid to run ads from a third party ad network. Now, since, under Phorm, the ISP needs to be paid, the site operator would presumably see less money; but it would be a difference of degree rather than kind.

    If my understanding of Phorm is wrong(if, for instance, Phorm were tempted to go with the super-sleazy tactic that one sees occasionally, of colluding with the ISP to strip ads from 3rd party websites and insert their own), then the above is of course irrelevant.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:45AM (#27586131)

    Phorm wants to inject ads into web pages at the ISP level.

    No they don't. They want to monitor all your web browsing (by tapping your ISP) to build up a profile of you. Then they want to sell targeted advertising space to advertisers in much the same was Google does: i.e. a website uses Phorm ads instead of Google ads and Phorm chooses what adverts to place based on the visitor's profile.

    Monitoring web browsing is, as far as anyone can tell, illegal, but the govt refuses to enforce the law. That's what the EU is grumbling about. But the other part of the business model is just a standard advertising broker. They're not injecting ads.

  • by blackest_k ( 761565 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:47AM (#27586159) Homepage Journal

    Opting Out is a bit of a joke to these people it seems.

    While the privacy safeguards built into BT Webwise mean that sensitive or private content on websites is not compromised, the system also offers a number of mechanisms by which website owners can prevent pages being profiled if they wish. Website owners may implement any of the following methods:

                  1. HTTPS: No HTTPS traffic passes through the system or is profiled
                  2. Standard HTTP password-protection : Pages protected using standard HTTP password protection, as defined by RFC 1945, will not be profiled
                  3. robots.txt: The Webwise system will observe the rules that a website sets for major search engines using the robots.txt method. If the website's robots.txt file is set such that "*" (any robot) is not permitted to crawl it, then Webwise will not profile its pages.

            Alternatively, you may request specifically that your website is not scanned by Webwise. To request that your website not be scanned by Webwise, please email:
            website-exclusion{at}webwise.com.
                [X]
    How are robots.txt files handled by Webwise?

            The Webwise system observes the rules that a website sets for the Googlebot, Slurp (Yahoo! agent) and "*" (any robot) user agents. Where a website's robots.txt file disallows any of these user agents, Webwise will not profile the relevant URL. As an example, the following robots.txt text will prevent profiling of all pages on a site:
            user-agent: * disallow: /

            The following example will restrict profiling of a directory named "images":
            user-agent: Slurp disallow: /images

            The system will request the robots.txt file from the root of the host e.g. www.domain.com/robots.txt. When requesting the robots.txt file, the system will follow up to 5 redirects. If no robots.txt file or an HTTP error is returned, if the returned file is not in single-byte ASCII (ISO-8859-x) format, or if the file size is greater than 50Kbytes, then the URL will be marked as allowed for profiling.

            Website owners should note the following aspects of the Webwise system's interpretation of robots.txt files:

                    * Malformed robots.txt files will result in the URL being disallowed for profiling.
                    * Any of the well-established line-termination tokens are interpreted as a newline, i.e. DOS, UNIX, old-style MacOS linefeeds. Multiple linefeeds are ignored.
                    * Web-encoded URLs are decoded and handled as normal.
                    * Variable capitalisation within the robots.txt file is converted to lower case and processed.
                    * The system does not support Google extensions to the robots.txt standard.

    So the options are https, or password protect your site, or use robots.txt to block google and yahoo from indexing your site or email them and ask to be opted out.
    option a and b inconvenience visitors, option c will reduce visitors since it means your site isnt getting indexed by the major search engines.
    option 4 seems the only practical way to get these jokers to desist.
    option d) no phorm in the robots text doesnt exist.

  • by Heed00 ( 1473203 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:11AM (#27586417)
    And don't forget the method by which they do their thing -- deep packet inspection. It's not the behavioural targeted ads that are the real problem with Phorm -- the real problem is that their DPI kit "gifted" to the ISP intercepts communication between two parties (the web surfer and the web page) without informed consent of both parties. In short, they spy on your web browsing in order to profile you.
  • by Timmmm ( 636430 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:42PM (#27587617)

    Actually it should be quite easy to work out. I expect that phorm does a man-in-the-middle attack and pretends to have the user agent of the web browser that has been tricked. All you need to do is ask some people who are using phorm to add "PhormIP" to their user agents.

    It's easy to see if you're using phorm because it does an HTTP redirect to webwise.net.

  • by daem0n1x ( 748565 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:09PM (#27587967)
    Wrong. To do that they would have to have certificates for every possible domain and spoof the domains.
  • by mikael ( 484 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:29PM (#27588197)

    Phorm purchased slots to place adverts - when there was a match between what the user was reading and adverts available, the advert would be displayed. When there was not match, the charities advert would be displayed. They weren't stealing anyone's advertising space but they were still intercepting the communications of unsuspecting BT customers who had neither been informed or consented to taking part in the experiment.

  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:30PM (#27588217)
    If they have a top level certificate, they can generate all the domain certs they want on the fly - it would be no different at all to the cert you get from Verisign to run on your web server.

    This is why ISPs should never be allowed to own a top level cert.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...