Google Scientists Successfully Split The Bill >>
<< Court Says Wikimedia Isn't Liable For...
 tdicon 

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick

Wed, Aug 13th 2008 6:33pm




Filed Under:
clickstream tracking, isps

Companies:
nebuad, phorm


Phorm Secretly Used By American ISPs As Well

from the totally-transparent? dept

Looks like Phorm may be facing another headache as The Register has found out that it was quietly used by some American ISPs, as well. Earlier stories had suggested that Phorm, which tracks your web surfing at the ISP level and customizes ads based on your clickstream data, was only testing the service in Europe, while competitor NebuAd was focused on the US. Phorm is facing some legal inquiries in Europe, while NebuAd is laying people off as Congress is investigating the legality of the service.

But the most bizarre aspect of this is Phorm's claim that its tests with US ISPs was "transparent." If that's the case, it's odd that no one had pointed it out before. That would suggest that it wasn't nearly as transparent as Phorm claims. In fact, it suggests the opposite.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Griffon, Aug 13th, 2008 @ 7:33pm

    So which ISP?

    Anyone know which ISP(s)?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Overcast, Aug 13th, 2008 @ 8:18pm

    "Nonetheless, the Phorm spokesman says the company's stateside trials were in not secret. "The services were transparent to users and information such as how to opt out, who provided the service and the privacy policy was easily accessible," he told us. "For example, each ad had a link that allowed users to find more information on opting out and the service. This was a level of disclosure ahead of its time."

    If it was 'transparent' how would users even know to opt out? Kind of a 'questionable' statement there.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2008 @ 11:17pm

    Transparent means it's difficult to see.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Chunky Vomit, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 1:13am

    Cox Communications Perhaps?

    Wouldn't surprise me. All of a sudden, my dynamic IP has gone to a static IP. I have wondered why, and I'm inclined to think that this idea should be on the list of reasons.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ferin (profile), Aug 14th, 2008 @ 4:46am

    We didn't obfuscate it

    By "Transparent" I think he means "We didn't lie about it yet."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    John, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 5:16am

    Comastic?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    wah wah wahhh, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 6:26am

    hosts file

    Hosts file FTW. No more ads from which ever sites you want to block. They won't show up or they will display "Page not found". ISP loses.

    C:WINDOWSSYSTEM32DRIVERSETChosts

    127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com
    127.0.0.1 adserver.securityfocus.com

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Overcast, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 6:43am

    Yeah, I suppose from the 'strictest' sense, the transparent and opt-out *can* work together, but in the sense of honesty and a customer friendly standpoint, it doesn't fly.

    It's like fine print on the back of a contract.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Nasch, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 8:09am

    Re: hosts file

    Firefox + AdBlock is way easier.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    mobiGeek, Aug 14th, 2008 @ 8:10am

    Different take on

    Maybe it isn't that the testing process was transparent (i.e. they were disclosing their actions), but that the tests themselves were transparent to end-users (i.e. undetectable)...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Google Scientists Successfully Split The Bill >>
<< Court Says Wikimedia Isn't Liable For...
 tdicon 
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
A word from our Sponsors...
Sponsored Resource
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat

A word from our Sponsors...
Recent Stories

Sunday

12:00pm: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (6)

Saturday

12:00pm: Sophisticatedjanedoe / FightCopyrightTrolls Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week (60)
9:00am: Awesome Stuff: Cool Product Designs (10)

Friday

7:39pm: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs! (63)
6:33pm: Make Art, Not Law (9)
5:27pm: AP's Attempt At DRM'ing The News Shuts Down (13)
5:00pm: DailyDirt: DIY Junk Food (3)
3:40pm: Suburban Express Goes Double Or Nothing On Their Aggressive Behavior (9)
2:34pm: Want To Destroy Any Hope Of Serious Cybersecurity? Give The DOJ Its Desired Backdoor Wiretaps On All Communications (20)
1:34pm: Nintendo Exchanges Goodwill For Control; Issues Mass Monetization Claims On Let's Play Videos (32)
More arrow
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This