If the Reg has not heard from anyone taking part in the trial, could it be that Phorm and BT are maybe telling porkies and the trial is not actually happening? However, BT tells the regulators thus - "We ran a trial, honestly we did Guv, and nobody was affected, noticed, or complained. Therefore, all good."

Shome mishtake, shurely?

Yeah, there's a big one called the law. Which, if you paid attention to any of the meetings you attended, you're breaking.

http://tobymeres.net if you've forgotten.

...of any companies and/or websites that have signed up to deliver their content/ads through OIX? I would like to get my blacklist ready for blocking them.

The one for the deploying non-cookie-based opt-out system that Beatie announced a couple of days ago. There will be a trial of that, won't there, Beatie?

Trial by ordeal for Beatie

Given Phorm's reputation for attempting to alter what is already known to be true I wouldn't be surprised if they tried that tactic.

I wonder if Phorm's shareholders know that the company they have invested in are actually relying on breaking the law to conduct their business. Has anyone told them yet?

I have tried to tell shareholders of Phorm but they are led by the nose with greed, even though Phorm have heavy losses, not to mention never made a profit in the last 3 possibly 4 years. Also shareholders do not get any divi apparently it is the money carrot Kent twists around they are tortally blind and numb. They have no minds or ability to think outside the pounds and dollars signs.

AS Phorm made larger losses in the first 6 months somehting that was posted then removed by moderators might jsurt be true perhaps somone needs to ask the euro MEPs if they were wined and dined or bribed to become phormites in europe?

Remember the saying many a true word said in jest. read below and make your own minds up.

by Gibberish.

""Phorm's engagement in Brussels with European Union audiences, Commission officials and key

European Parliamentarians has also been

high-level and comprehensive. This process has helped develop a better understanding of

Phorm's technology and the role it can play in the

future by helping to raise online privacy standards. "

I know that the EU was the last hope for some of the anti's, so this really shows how slow they are off the mark. Phorm have already engaged the EU and will have it on side.

All that sales and marketing dosh will have been wining and dining and bribing the Eurocrats - money well spent ;-)"

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3APHRM.L&it=le&action=detail&id=4233527

As you wikl see from the link it is no longer avaiable but i had already quoted it in BT groups shareholders thread asking if BT had the same treatment.

How can I put this...?

WOO YAY!

Some are here:

http://badphorm.co.uk/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?21

...BT only said that to help PHORM buff their shareprice in the light of increasing losses, most likely.

Okay my BT connection* is slow, but it is pretty reliable. But since last night it has been falling over slightly more than a Reg journo coming back from a trade show. Websites timing out, URLs not being resolved, online gaming connections failing repeatedly.

Coincidence? Or has anyone else seen crapola performance since the Phorm trial allegedly started?

* Serving time until my contract ends or until I can summon the energy to do battle for hours on end with BT Total Broadband's appalling customer service and tell them I no longer feel bound by their unilaterally revised contract.

Simple question.

BT normally charge you the remainder of your contract fees and the price of the router if you choose to leave their delightful company before your contract expires. Has anyone here been able to escape without charge before their contract ended by claiming that Phorm, Webwise and the changes to the T&Cs have invalidated the original contract?

I know lots of people say do it, they won't chase you, but has anyone got away with it?

Yeah, email them to get your site excluded. They'll then email the domain owner for validation, having gained the owner's contact details via a WHOIS lookup...

...only one very slight, teenyweeny, tiny little problem there:

"The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their

address omitted from the WHOIS service."

So you get two options - give your contact details to anyone who does a WHOIS on your domain, or get your website PHORMed. I think not.

"we have engaged with the majority of the key media agencies". is that an other way of saying Bt did think it where a good idea, at the time ?

Yup, mine too. Less so today, but still, something's definitely afoot.

I reckon its all go and up and running. I plan to cancel this week. I don't plan to pay the remaining balance of the contract either.

Thanks for the link - it's not exactly an auspicious list of blue chips is it. I do not believe I'll be missing anything at all.

...maybe this'll prompt Google and Yahoo! to change their useragent string? Afterall, it's being exploited for the purposes of copyright and ripa breaches...

...to be a poop-in-the-party, but won't the ad's only be displayed on OIX "enabled" websites?

As much as I hate the idea of phucking phorm (disinfect keyboard again) surely the ads will only be shown on sites that subscribe (phucking phidiots) to the OIX ad model?

Having said that - phuck'em; phuck'em royally'n'righteously.

I've asked a couple of people who've never heard of El Reg (well I never!) and they're in the clear. I am too. Maybe BT are excluding readers of these types, maybe the sample is so small we've missed it, and maybe they haven't actually started yet.

I remember when this first came up someone posted a link to an academic page that ran a few tests so that you could determine whether your traffic was being modified or not. Does anyone remember what that link was?

how much are people betting that the "trial" users will be new signups? i.e. people they hope won't have a clue what this is and will just view the signup page as something _else_ they have to agree to?

also tried to signout my website, apparently they need to "check" with the sites registered owner by email. well thats me, still waiting for the email. but they *have* been inphormed that they don't have consent.

so no implied consent there then. need to find something to validate this now, and install it. and then find the number of that new high tech crime unit, and see if I can get a crime ref number out of them. bets?

This site does some testing of your connection to see if it's clean.

http://vancouver.cs.washington.edu/#results

This site is working on detecting proxy servers in the connection

http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/advanced-proxy-test

Bit of a financial white knuckle ride for Kent and his fellow pond life then. Six more months at that rate of spending and we can all break out the beers.

with inphorming advertisers they will not get your business if they use Phorm, is that most of the people that will take that step are those who would not buy from web adverts anyway. I suspect they know this, and are targetting the millions of uninphormed numpties inhabiting the intarwebs.

I feel the call to arms posted int he comments on a previous story about Phorm (recently, last or this week" is potentially the only way to go now. Perhaps we could engage in civil unrest, as I understand (although IANAL) that if you have genuine cause for concern, and the legitimate channels for addressing the issue are failing/have failed, REASONABLE actions will not incur penalties in the courts - I read a case recently where the defence was along these lines, and the court allowed it. Unhelpful, I am aware, and so apologies, but I cannot remember where or what specifically it was regarding - I read a LOT of stuff online, much of which is bullshit, but this was a legitimate article somewhere.

Anyone have any thoughts on what actions we could take? I believe the defence above even allows for criminal damage, but not violence towards anyone, and it has to be REASONABLE folks!

"PLEASE NOTE - As I understand it, if your ISP doesn't have your signature on an official agreement document then you are NOT UNDER A LEGAL CONTRACT and you may therefore leave any time you like without penalty or punishment. Everything else is just harassment. [Would any legal beavers out there care to confirm?]"

Er no. It's not that simple at all.

"It's not that simple at all" - don't you just love fulled formed answers?

aye mate.... but then, I suppose I didn't ask for a full answer, just confirmation.

However, if there is more to this, it might be an idea to let Trading Standards know because that is the bottom line as far as they are concerned.