It seems Phorm has not yet mastered the art of Wikiality.

We're seeing companies act like kids pretty often. First Creative, now this.

They are, pretty much, screwed.

They're in the public eye in a bad ligh with a bad product that no one wants apart from the ISPs, though even they are now all backing away nervously.

If they'd been open and honest from the start they might have had some shred of credibility, but they don't. Editing their Wiki article like this was a stupid move in my opinion.

Tim

Changing articles to make yourself look good and taking out all the bad press. There not acting like someone with nothing to hide at all! Phail!

I never, ever, EVER thought I would say this, but, I'm a big man and I can do it, without even wincing.

****************

Well Done Wikipedia - preventing Phorm's attempted manipulation of their entry to cloud the facts and silence their critics is credit to the ideals by which Wikipedia is supposed to work.

****************

I feel dirty, now...

How can any PR company (who aren't a bunch of wankers) NOT be aware of the Wikipedia policies? Or is this just even more bullshit from Phorm.

Do they really think we were all born yesterday. As each day goes by their arrogance and disregard for everyone else (peoples rights, the concept of free speech) just gets more and more unreal.

Why does this report not surprise me? Every step of the way Phorm show themselves to be unworthy of trust. DO NOT WANT!

"The spokesman said Phorm's PR team had not been aware of Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest."

Well that just proves what I have always thought when looking at the forum posts they make

Phorm's PR team can not read.

I guess it really just highlights just how technically savvy the Phorm clowns are, that they thought they would be able to get away with this unnoticed.

Will anyone at BT et al now ponder if this glaring lack of technical acumen might perhaps be a sign that the company isn't capable of being trusted with their customers private data after all? Perhaps not.

Paris 'cos she knows so much about private data being distributed.

Proof yet again that Phorm will basically do and say anything in order to keep their (allegedly) illegal system from being exposed for what it is.

BT are starting to smell as bad as their parasitical buddies. First they lie to thier customers, now they seems to defend the blatant attempt to sanitise the facts about this invasion of our privacy - the fact that Phorms PR droids (or whoever) were unaware of wiki policy just shows the arrogance with which they operate, not only do they assume they have some god given right to our data, they assume they can distort data on websites to suit their own ends

Of course BT wouldnt see a conflict of interest would they? They cant see past that cheque from Phrom for selling out their customers privacy (aka data that isnt theirs to sell).

There is an interesting precedent here though.

Clearly, they didnt read the WIKI AUP and T&C before they got the scissors out... right?

So how can this now be opt in by default, on the assumption that people will have read and understood any T&C change published in some remote corner of an ISP web page?

Surely now theres an unbreakable case that this must be placed infront of each and every affceted ISP customer by email and a POSITIVE OPT IN required before inclusion? Phrom have clearly demonstarted that people DONT routinely check T&C so to obtain informed consent to data interception they have to ptretty much wave the thing in everyones faces before they go ahead

"I don't see anything wrong with correcting Wikipedia articles about your own company or services"

To 'correct' something it has to be incorrect to be put into a state of correctness.

Someone should explain to that self-interested complete cock that 'factually correct' is actually .. err..

correct.

Maybe he'll claim stupidity and a feeble grasp of the English language as the justification for the mods.That, at least, would be believable.

Here they come, wriggling out all covered in PR bullshit.

Who wants do buy a discredited company, with a product no-one will admit to buying, and has been shown to lie about the product .... anyone ....

"Phorm's PR team had not been aware of Wikipedia's policy" ... yet they were posting anyway. That sounds like they clearly violated the a policy they choose to ignore in order to do what ever they wanted.

When you sign up to any site you agree to be bound by their terms, its really that simple.

Also they admit a mistake this time and that it won't happen again.... hmm dont belive them it definitately could happen in the future, 'sorry we gave all your data to someone even nastier than us, oops'

All aboard the Failboat!

Phorm and BT - you couldn't handle this whole situation more egregiously if you tried. It is like watching the Keystone Cops.

This "grassroots" thing is here to stay; we're too well-connected. Technology has empowered and organised people to the point where quickly distributing information and raising awareness is ridiculously easy, whilst corporate regulation of that same information is impossible.

Phorm is all but dead. They've completely failed to factor in not only the public backlash against their nasty, cynical product which is totally antithetic to the current zeitgeist of openness and community, but also just how informed and united that public could become. BT, as usual, are likewise staggeringly slow on the uptake.

Their fall will be the first of many slow-moving corporate entities which fail to understand that the make or break decision lies with a 21st century internet citizen - connected, informed, politicised, vocal and fast. We will not be sold to in such underhanded fashion, and we will ensure they fail should they try to deceive us.

If there genuinly were inacuracies then they should be corrected. End of story. You cant all complain about the wikipedia being a joke and then moan when someone corrects it.

On the other hand who can trust this lot to edit their own page? so they should have just got somone else to do it.

Paris - because i'm not funny at all and i like stale over done jokes because i'm not very original

how is this unusual? there was a large group of organizations (including the CIA and ExxonMobil) revealed some months ago (after the originating IPs were traced) to edit facts out of Wikipedia, in a blatant astroturfing move.

this latest offering by Phorm is strictly pro phorma (oops, sorry) PR; so really, the bunnies were just doing their jobs, censoring reality to fit the corporate agenda.

as for BT, the company appears well on its way to NSI glory. during the heady days of the Network Solutions monopoly, one of its executives actually threatened an aggrieved customer with violence. with pervasive government influence, ethics-free management (CTO moves to legally-ambiguous vendor, no problem?), and feeble regulatory oversight (Ofcom is just kidding, really), BT is poised to write the next chapter in NSI's old playbook.

good luck with that, guys, and remember, an AT&T never dies; it reconstitutes itself like the T2000...a'course, as the new at&t, it's totally different, no?

I find myself morbidly amused. This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. In this case, as this 'movie' progresses, we come to know the characters inside a little better each day ... and can't wait for the final impending wreck.

Paris because her films weren't near as fun to watch.

Just when you think you have these greasy little worms pegged they manage to slide down the scumbag scale another 5 pegs, and what is worse is that BT seem quite content to get dragged down with them.

Either BT's big boss cannot see the end of a shot gun when it is an inch from his face or he doesn't know about it yet....and if it's the former then the amount he must be getting paid to kill a companies rep is sickening.

I was just spell checking my article after finishing the section on Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1997 when I noticed the recommended spelling for Phorm's COO (Virasb Vahidi) from my spell checker was "Virus".

mine is the one made out of lead...

That was a harsh post - by the way, are you Hagbard Celine?

How can they argue this!?!?! If the test was to see if customers noticed, and they never informed there technical staff on the helpdesks, how can they know they're getting the correct results? if the staff don't know about the test, customer calls in reporting odd findings, tech staff them to reboot, end of story. This is a bloody fallacy of the highest order.

no need to worry people. once Phorm are able to change the pages viewed on the fly they won't need to make any more changes on the Wikipedia site. this is only a short term problem. don't worry, be happy.

James, Unfortunatley I dont think we (the dissenters) can win this, BT at least will push on, take the hit in lost customers since they seem to stand to gain an £85 million revenue stream, whats a few customers?

Tom, even though they didnt inform the tech help desks the trials were still detected regardless so I dont see how the trial could have been seen as a success.

As for the statement "These were quickly reinstated by Wikipedia’s editors. We will endeavour to make sure that this does not happen in the future." I guess this allows some wriggle room if it does happen again (or at least if they get caught!) since they are only going to endevour to see it doesnt happen again. Or did they mean that they will promise a nice new revenue stream to Wikipedia so that Phorms PR editings are not removed in future?

I would love it if Phorm died a nasty death but unfortunatley I can't see it. I am looking for a new ISP that just wants to connect me to the web, no email, no bollocks like webwise, just a connection. We can all dream...........

Phorm just can't get a break can they?

Go on, try something else to try and improve your already phornicated public image.

Go on.

I dare you.

You know you want to.

Then just see how fast it gets ripped to shreds.

Oh man, this story's made my morning.