The Ads That Dare Not Speak Their Name

Remember Phorm, the evil data pimps who wanted to collect browsing data on Internet users so that they could deliver targeted advertising? Well, yes, of course you do. It was only a few months ago that the company effectively folded in the UK, having been battered by a succession of staggeringly stupid PR blunders, leaving their investors seriously out of pocket.

So the world and its dog can breathe a sigh of relief that it's safe from this invidious form of advertising, which threatened to usher in a cataclysm unequalled in the annals of human history, surpassing the plagues of Egypt, the eruption of Krakatoa, the rise of Jedward etc. etc.

Er, actually, no. A little-known Internet firm called Google is doing exactly the same thing, with nary a murmur of discontent from the brave warriors who brought Phorm to its knees. And we're not talking about Google's gentlemanly habit of routinely reading Gmail users' emails so that they can serve them with targeted ads. No, it goes further than that.

Some of our more technically literate readers may know that the world's largest text ad broker has, for ages, served up different search results for users logged into its services, such as Google Calendar or Gmail. These search results are tailored to users' previous browsing behaviour, so if you spend a lot of time on bbc.co.uk/sport, Google search results will place this web page higher up the list when it's asked to search for "sport". This, of course, is an entirely selfless service from Google that helps users gain the most relevant results - and it's only coincidental that it helps them to make more money from behaviourally targeted ads.

No problem with that - Google fanbois presumably read the terms and conditions when they sign up to these services (doesn't everyone?). But now Google is "personalising" search results for any user, anywhere, regardless of whether they're signed in to Google or not, through cookies placed on unwitting users' computers.

We've covered behavioural targeting before and, while we don't think it's inherently evil, we do believe that it requires a delicate approach, along with rigorous adherence to best practice procedures to ensure that users are well-informed and are offered a clear choice about whether they want their browsing profiled. Google haven't gone out of their way to publicise their service; nor to explain how to turn it off (it is, naturally, turned on my default).

If companies continue to implement behavioural targeting in a sly, underhand way - as though it were something to be ashamed about - then one can hardly blame the public for being suspicious of it. Instead of cloaking it in the depths of a terms and conditions form, companies like Phorm and Google should communicate openly on the benefits of targeted ads and offers.

One final question remains: why has privacy campaigner Alex Hanff - the single-handed scourge of Phorm and NebuAd, whose brave and lonely battle against these Internet behemoths ended with a victory that brought dragons and St George to mind - been so silent on this issue? Alex, where are you?

Postscript: Google's CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday trotted out that favourite line of civil-liberties-deniers the world round: "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (©Richard Littlejohn / David Blunkett). How this statement sits with Google Chrome's infamous Incognito function - which hides your porn viewing from other users - remains unclear.

Gut feeling

In spite of our previous post about the NHS, this blog is concerned primarily with data in general, and the impact of technology on personal information in particular.So, at the risk of appearing to stray off topic, we’ll start today with Gordon Brown’s plan to liberalise the UK’s rules on organ donation. The prime minister wants everyone in the UK to be automatically included in the organ donor register under a system of “presumed consent”. Anyone who objects to having their kidneys re-used after their death would have to opt out of the system.The thorny issue of organ donation provokes visceral (sorry) reactions in most, if not all, of the population: some see it as inherently selfish not to let others use your lights after you’re dead; others see it as yet another example of the creeping nanny state robbing citizens of jurisdiction over their own bodies.There are, of course, powerful arguments both for and against presumed consent, and it’s beyond the remit of this blog either to defend or denounce Gordon’s plan.But the principle of consent, and specifically the opt-in / opt-out debate, sits at the very heart of the continuing debate about the protection of our personal data, especially on the web.Should services that use our personal data be opt-in or opt-out? Most people would instantly and decisively declare that any Internet service which collects, processes, uses or stores our personal data should naturally be opt-in.We strongly disagree.Regular readers will know that this blog tries to champion people’s right to privacy, whether online of offline, so there might be some who are surprised that we feel so strongly against the opt-in model. After all, shouldn’t we have to give our express permission, based on thorough information, before allowing others access to our private lives?Ah, but indeed; and therein lies the problem.Every time we tick the checkbox accepting terms and conditions – be it for a website, a new online service, or to set up an email account – we are giving our consent to everything in the small print.When was the last time you read through a website’s Ts&Cs? In fact, have you ever done so? Do you know what you consented to when you signed up to watch YouTube or set up a Google Mail account? No, but you checked the box without thinking, just because you were impatient to get on with it.And that’s where the danger of opt-in lies. Irresponsible sites – unlike YouTube and Google Mail – can use the opt-in mechanism to obtain people’s explicit consent for any number of nefarious activities by slipping new services into their terms and conditions, knowing that the vast majority of people will blithely tick the box without reading them.Much better, then, to obtained people’s informed consent before they sign up – let them know exactly what they’re consenting to by having an unavoidable notice, explaining any changes to service, on the log-in page.No reasonable person can argue that it should be easy as possible for people to see what they’re signing up to; yet most campaigners on this issue seem still to be in thrall to the sanctity of opt-in, which makes it so easy for people to bury nasty surprises in the Ts&Cs.This visibility, this informing of stakeholders, is what’s lacking from the prime minister’s plans for presumed consent. While presumed consent is fair to the educated, literate and informed, it ignores the much greater majority of people who are not au courant and thus are in no position to give informed consent to organ donation.

Unique Networking Event-January 2010

The next NFI Networking event will be held at 18.00, Thursday 28th January 2010 atThe Woodstore Bar and Grill1 Carpenters MewsNorth RoadLondonN7 9EFMap and info at http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/pubsandbars/woodstore-bar-and-grill-info-16331.html

New Watchdog Chief Bares His Teeth

So, farewell then Richard Thomas. The outgoing Information Commissioner handed over the baton to Christopher Graham last June, and the new head of the ICO has wasted little time in getting stuck into parliament, the courts and newspapers for failing to stop the flourishing trade in illegally obtained personal and confidential information.The former DG of the Advertising Standards Authority was giving evidence to the Commons media select committee investigating phone-hacking and other unscrupulous press activity. This issue came to a head a couple of years ago with the revelations that the News of the Screw's was tapping Prince William and Harry's mobiles; the fact that it's taken until now to establish an investigation speaks volumes about the procrastination of our pusilanimous parliament.While it comes as no surprise that tabloid journalists resort to questionable - even illegal - activities in their work,what beggars belief is the complete absence of deterrent in the form of proper punishment. Graham raised this in his evidence to the committee, criticising the goverment for failing to introduce jail terms for hackers and other willful violators of the Data Protection Act, and claimed that custodial sentences could end the practice "at a stroke".It's worth noting that Clive Goodman, the Screws' former royal editor, did in fact do four months' bird for hacking the Princes' phones, but Graham pointed out that the NotW case was merely part of a much bigger malaise. Graham said that the ICO had tried to sound the alarm about the scale of the problem as far back as 2006, when it published a report showing that 305 reporters were using private investigators. Unfortunately, said Graham, "...we were let down by the courts, who didn't seem to be interested in levying even the pathetic fines they had at their disposal; we were rather let down by parliament in the end, with no legislation; and we were let down by the newspaper groups, which didn't take it seriously."It's good to see such forthright common sense from the new Information Commissioner - it's a sign that the ICO is fast becoming a Watchdog with real bite. Graham has made a great start, and we will be following his progress with interest.

Pre-roll Continues to Prosper as Companies Catch On

MTV Networks recently declared pre-roll as the ‘most effective and consumer-friendly’ advertising method within today’s entertainment and media industry. Their general belief is that companies should ultimately exploit online advertising or face falling behind their competitors. Jason Witt, Senior Vice President and General Manager of MTV's digital advertising unit certainly seems to think so and urges others to follow suit.Pre-roll is an advertising technique that has proved to be worth investing in. Companies that have the capability and readiness to exploit new advertising areas seem to reap bounteous rewards. For example, Southern Comfort, having previously spent $6 million on late-night cable TV and a further $1.5 million on magazines announced a change of direction. It has now increased its online advertising spending by 25 per cent, including on online video advertising on Hulu and other websites of NBC, CBS, Fox and FX. Online video advertising is essentially able to reach a wider range of consumers in a more cost-efficient way. Lena DerOhannessian, Southern Comfort’s U.S. Marketing Director said, ‘As we’ve focused more on 21 to 29 [year olds], TV becomes less and less effective at reaching that audience.’ More and more opportunities are to be found elsewhere, namely online.The online community is continuously expanding with it estimated to grow 85 per cent by 2013. This growth provides the perfect chance to exploit pre-roll to the full. Research shows that out of the 87 per cent of UK Internet users watching online videos, 52 per cent have taken action after seeing a pre-roll ad. Thus far, it appears that short pre-roll ads are the most effective form of online advertising. The web video company, BBE, asserts that pre-roll ads are 8-25 times more effective than other types of online advertising since viewers are more likely to sit through a short ad that is played 10-20 seconds before their desired content. Shorter online advertising, therefore, is able to promote companies in a way that does not ruin viewers’ enjoyment, especially since any pre-roll longer than 20 seconds threatens to send frustrated viewers elsewhere. Compared to TV, where 3 minute long adverts are tolerated by audiences, a pre-roll that lasts even 30 seconds seems like an eternity.Pre-roll essentially enables the relationship between brands and consumers to develop in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Kent J. Krizik, President of NewsProNet, declared that ‘online media publishers and local and national advertisers know there's no better way to reach consumers than through the compelling format of online video’. Moreover, after positive results from MTV’s study of over 50 million video streams across the US, Sharb Farjami, Vice President of Ad Sales within MTV Networks Australia & New Zealand, praised this form of online advertising as an ‘exciting area that is gaining popularity in this marketplace because it delivers rich user interaction’. Online video advertising may in fact help companies stay afloat in the current economic climate. Tod Sacerdoti, Founder-CEO of the online advertising network BrightRoll remarks that general advertising revenues for online video are ‘up 217 per cent between the first and second quarters of this year’. He argues that it will ‘rise 50 per cent to 100 per cent for the entire year based on increased volume, even though prices may continue to fluctuate during a down economy’. Of course, the advertising industry has, on the whole, been in a slump for quite a long time which further emphasises the importance of online video advertising.So, online video advertising is undoubtedly the preferred and wisest advertising method of today.

Samknows Bandwidth Hungry Britain's Real Broadband Speeds

According to a new report published today by regulator, Ofcom, the UK’s broadband speeds are getting faster but not everyone is happy.The report shows that average connection speed across the UK is 4.1Mbps, up from 3.6Mbps in January.A survey running alongside the tests found over a quarter of consumers (26%) said that the speeds they received were not what they expected when they signed up for their broadband service.SamKnows spoke to Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel, who has been lobbying for the current up-to speed claims to be changed to an average speed claim. “The Ofcom work is incredibly helpful because it exposes just how little the up- to speeds mean and exposes how variable the service level is from one provider to another,” she said. “The fact that they are still advertised with ‘up-to’ speeds is deeply problematic.”Over 60 million separate service performance tests were carried out in over 1600 homes between November 2008 and April 2009.

WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR EMAILS?

You don’t have to be spam to get blocked. One in five legitimate marketing emails fails to get to the receiver’s inbox. That is what Return Path reveals in their new research into European marketers’ knowledge about their own emails. In most cases marketers are ‘emailing in the dark’ not knowing what happens to their sent messages.Two in five interviewed people still think an email gets delivered if it is sent or doesn’t bounce back. But twenty per cent of messages are being blocked or directed to the junk folder, according to Return Path – the company that helps marketers get their emails into the inbox and read. Email is the cheapest way to distribute your messages but it’s got to be done properly. No matter how many hours you spend creating a really great message, the effort is wasted if it doesn’t get delivered and read.Many people think that reaching the inbox is the sole responsibility of Email Service Providers (ESPs). But it is ultimately in the hands of the senders themselves to make sure their messages are read. Demanding all-encompassing deliverability reports from your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is an excellent way to find out the destiny of your marketing messages. However, very few people do this at the moment, according to Return Path. This report must contain detailed metrics – the percentage of emails being placed to ‘inbox’, ‘junk’ or ‘missed’. Once you have that knowledge you can act upon it, but Return Path warns not to trust unrealistically high metrics. A delivered email is one that not only was sent and didn’t bounce back, but that actually reached the inbox. So why do some emails get blocked?They either look like spam or are not wanted by the reader. The first one is relatively easy to correct. You might need to change the email’s format and rewrite some of the content. The second one is almost as easy. Readers often mark emails as spam because they don’t want to go through a complicated procedure of unsubscribing. You need to make it easy for people to stop receiving your messages because too many spam complaints will affect your company’s reputation. Putting an ‘unsubscribe’ option at the top of the page should help. To keep your subscribers, try and make sure your emails are relevant and targeted to each individual customer. Special offers personalised with a customer’s name or the like usually work well.If you follow this advice, you stand a much better chance of getting your message to the customer.

ISPs Hit for Six by Sports Fans

As the nation’s sports fans gear up for a packed summer of sport, ISPs are keeping a beady eye on their bandwidth.Not only have online catch-up services such as the Beeb’s iPlayer, Channel 4’s 4oD and Sky’s Sky Player become increasingly popular but watching ‘live’ content is beginning to take off.Many sports fans stuck behind their desks during Wimbledon, The Golf Open Championship and The Ashes are turning to ‘live’ online coverage to get their fix and as a result ISPs are seeing spikes in traffic.Trefor Davies, Timico’s Chief Technology Officer, has provided an interesting graph in his blog about their network traffic during Wimbledon. Take a look at his blog here.Furthermore it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any easier for ISPs with bandwidth sapping high definition (HD) content beginning to rear its head on the ‘net.

The Story of a Staffie: Breed Prejudice

In the last few weeks, a Northern Ireland dog has attracted international attention. Two years ago, Bruce the Staffordshire bull terrier was taken away from his family and sentenced to die. Why? Bruce was deemed a “pit-bull terrier type” by the authorities, and therefore a danger to society. Bruce has never bitten anyone. He has never been threatening or aggressive to a member of the public. However under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, all pit bull terrier “types” are considered to be dangerous, and because of Bruce’s physical appearance, he has been sentenced to death.While in captivity over the last two years, Bruce has had to have his tail amputated due to infection. His owners have only been allowed to see him once, and have been shocked at the deterioration of his health. Thankfully, last week poor Bruce was given a stay of execution until the judge reviews his case again, but his future is by no means certain. This sad and infuriating case brings our attention to the issue of Breed Specific Legislation. Frightened and poorly informed courts all over the world have put laws in place to ban pit-bull terrier types. I seem to recall a European society in the last 100 years that executed living creatures based purely on “breed”, and the last I heard, we as a society condemned them. Any well-informed dog lover or expert will tell you that breed is not an indicator of aggressiveness. Irresponsible owners are a much better indicator. We can see evidence of these owners in the recent coverage on “weapon dogs”, dogs bred by gang members looking to use them as an intimidation tactic, or worse, as a weapon. It’s worth noting that even after specifically breeding these dogs to be aggressive, the owners still must train hostility into the dog, generally using violence. Owners and breeders such as these young men ought to be the focus of legal action, not their dogs, who are only trying to please their owners. American pit bull terriers (APBT) have often been the focus of media attention regarding dog attacks. It’s not hard to imagine why. The words “pit” and “bull” hardly seem synonymous with “fluffy” and “cuddly.” And don’t get me wrong. Strong-willed pit bulls are not a good choice for the first time owner. But they make fantastic family dogs, when trained by the right owner. As for Staffies like Bruce? Their nickname is the nanny dog. They are anything but aggressive and adore children (and I don’t mean for breakfast). An overwhelming number of Staffies become abandoned by reckless owners who were looking for an aggressive guard-dog, and instead got a loving and friendly family dog. Because of their muscular appearance and association with APBTs, organisations like the RSPCA have a difficult time re-homing these sweet and gentle dogs.
Still not convinced? In 2001, a Pomeranian fatally attacked a small child. Yes, a Pomeranian. One of those little dogs that look more like dusters than vicious animals. Any dog can be dangerous. What’s required is proper training and responsible ownership, and our courts would do better to punish an irresponsible owner, rather than an entire breed.

The Human Factor

There are some pretty thankless jobs out there, several of which we at Data Grub have experienced directly. And, while it can't match the indignity of chicken sexing or the sheer slog of meter reading, working in a bank comes pretty high up the list of crap jobs.(Obviously, we're talking about working behind the counter of a high street retail bank. The "master of the universe" type banking jobs - with its private jets, champagne, corporate boxes and complete lack of conscience - sounds quite a laugh.)What's so bad about working in a bank? Well, aside from the constant pressure to sell massive amounts of debt to the sort of people who shouldn't be trusted with real cutlery, there's also the Data Protection Act to deal with. Banks workers have to watch an achingly-bad training video - which looked dated when it was made in 1998 - about the Act, and how to stay on the right side of the law with regards to customers' data.No doubt this is a video that'll get dusted down and rewatched by the staff of HSBC, after the bank was fined a mammoth £3 million by the FSA yesterday for taking a laughably cavalier attitude towards customers' personal data.Another depressingly familiar story of data loss, sure, but it did remind us of that lame old video, in which a harrassed data protection officer pours out his worries about the new Act to a psychiatrist. At one point, the shrink tries to calm him down by saying: "It's really just a matter of common sense."Quite. Unfortunately, the global supply of common sense has been waning since around 1860, and it's currently rarer than platinum.But ultimately, it's humans who have the biggest bearing on whether a company successfully fulfills its data protection requirement. With all the talk of encryption, virtual private networks, network and site security, it's easy to forget that technology is only as useful as the human operating it - or forgetting to. Organisations spend time and money communicating their privacy policies; here at Data Grub we'd like to see organisations showing exactly what steps they are taking to ensure that their employees are following best practice at all times. People as a rule are pretty stupid, but when there's a corporate culture of sound data protection processes this cuts regrettable incidents to a minimum. And, with data loss stories in the media almost every week, there's also a business case for having a public and comprehensive data protection policy, in the same way as firms boast about their CSR credentials.

Auschwitz Horse Farm

The man who turned his horse farm into “Auschwitz” has been let out on bail and was seen at a horse fair. Last May, Jamie Gray and his son were arrested when investigators found horses left to die of starvation and surrounded by rotting corpses. They were found guilty of 11 charges under the Animal Welfare Act. He was sentenced for 6 months but walked free after 4 days as he launched an appeal. They were also banned from having anything to do with horses ever again. However just over a year later, outrageous pictures were found of them, at a horse fair.I think this whole story is disgusting. The fact that this man “had caused the worst case of animal cruelty ever seen” said by the RSPCA, would only be sentenced to six months imprisonment is disgraceful. Also that he should be allowed to appeal as there is nothing he could appeal about. He is a despicable man who should have been sentenced to a murder charge as that is basically what he committed. Animals and human’s aren’t that different so for this man to only get 6 months is shameful. If this was humans he would have a life sentence never mind less than a year.Also I don’t understand how this man could be even allowed to go near a horse fair. The people there must recognise him, so why they would even give him the time of day to look at their horses, I don’t understand.However, this wasn’t Jamie Gray’s first conviction of cruelty to animals; he had a record of cruelty to animals and in 2006 was fined £3,500 for unnecessary suffering to animals; however he was still allowed to continue his trading business. The police or whoever is in charge of these types of things should have kept an eye on his future dealings but I think he should have just been banned from working with animals so nothing like this could have ever happened.

Police Officer serves up "hot dogs" from back of patrol car

On Thursday 2nd July, Britain was angered when news was reported that a Police dog handler had left two Alsatian dogs locked in his car during a heatwave. The dogs died from the heat although it was unclear how long they were left in the car for.I think that this is shameful considering he was a trained dog handler, so he should have known that to leave the dogs in a car which heats up extremely quickly was despicable. Any member of the public could tell you that you should never do that and they’re not trained professional in dog care. Also these were donated dogs from a family; they weren’t breaded especially for the police. Therefore you would assume they would take extra care of them as they belonged to a family who had kindly donated the dogs for public service.Temperatures soared to 30˚C, so the temperature in the car could have easily reached more than 47˚C within 30 minutes. I think it’s appalling that something like this could have happened. Perhaps it’s because we all have had an idealised and maybe incorrect view that the police officers are supposed to set an example to regular citizens and with that a sense of responsibility and rational thinking would naturally be applied.I do not believe this happened out of maliciousness or forgetfulness but plain laziness. The dogs kennel’s were only yards away, so the police officer could have easily put them in the kennels while he carried out what he needed to do. However he chose not to bother, therefore leading to the death of the dogs.Not only is it the fact that two dogs were killed within all of this, but also it is tax payers money which is used to train these dogs and at over £7,000 to train each dog, it doesn’t come cheap. To train these dogs it also takes a 9 week intense course and as one dog was only newly trained, it was a waste of police time and tax payers money, which could have been put to other uses.A statement from Nottinghamshire Police said the welfare of its animals was "of paramount importance". Yet these dogs were still neglected by the person who was trained to look after them, so obviously the welfare of the dogs is not “of paramount importance” to everyone.The RSPCA should prosecute; as if this was any member of the public they would surely be charged without investigations. So why should it be any different for this man just because he is a police officer.

BT Would be Web-Wise to Get Back on Phorm

Although BT stated that it ditched Phorm’s Webwise system because of cost-saving issues, it seems clear enough that it was only to refrain from offending its customers. Phorm's behavioural targeting system tracked sites visited by Internet users to facilitate relevant ad-delivery and became controversial after criticism of privacy invasion. These privacy concerns did not come from ISP consumers but instead have been voiced by a small group of mis-informed privacy advocates.The negative publicity that has been whipped up against Phorm – and, as a result, behavioural targeting internet ad-delivery in general – is unfortunate. The benefits for customers themselves are too often overlooked. Targeted advertising is a great way for ISPs to generate income which can be ploughed back into improving networks for customers and reducing the cost of broadband packages. The dropping of Webwise means that BT has missed this golden opportunity to deliver a better quality and potentially cheaper service to consumers.The privacy issue has also arguably been blown out of proportion. Of course privacy should always be a concern in this day and age, but as often stressed by Phorm, the privacy of customers is protected as identities remain anonymous. Simon Davies, founding member of surveillance and privacy watchdog Privacy International, even commends Webwise’s minimal collection of personal information.Although privacy advocates have called for an opt-in approach to be made available to users of Phorm, this would be disastrous as opt-in means behavioural targeting ad providers like Phorm would have the consent of users to access all their personal information and surfing habits.Phorm could have made things much easier for themselves by being completely transparent about their service and opt-in/opt-out approach. That way, not only would all legal issues surrounding Phorm be irrelevant, customer satisfaction would also still be fully guaranteed.

Anything to declare?

Ah, America! The world's brightest beacon of democracy and freedom; the New World of limitless opportunity, where hard work and fair play are rewarded with the fabulous bounties of the American Dream.And who can forget that America was built upon the exertions and human capital of the millions of immigrants - themselves often refugees from war, slavery and famine?Modern day arrivals in the USA have a slightly different experience from these pioneering immigrants. Gone are the humiliating medical inspections, where those suspected of illness and physical defects were marked with chalk symbols. Instead, visitors are subjected to a terrifying ordeal of interrogation by customs officials, including such charmingly naive questions as "Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?" (WS Gilbert famously answered: "Sole purpose of visit".)But now it's not just fearsome feds with sunglasses and ear pieces that travellers have to worry about: they could risk having their personal data compromised, including fingerprints, employment history and credit information.It all stems from a company called Clear, which used to speed its customers through customs for an annual payment of $200. To do this, they asked their customers for the personal data that customs officials need to know about travellers. A quarter of a million customers signed up to Clear's service and, for a while, enjoyed VIP treatment at US airports, being rushed through customs and immigration while the plebs queued and sweated.Unfortunately, Clear shut down its operations last week, and the fate of customers' personal data hangs in the balance. What's interesting is that the company says that it will continue to hold onto this sensitive information, which could still be used by another Register Traveller programme. In other words, the data is a business asset that could be parcelled up and sold on to another firm - as long as that company is in the same line of business.This is proof - if proof be needed - that personal data is no nothing more than another commodity to be bought and sold. It's worth noting that Clear's privacy policy states that "We do not sell or give lists or compilations of the personal information of our members or applicants to any business or non-profit organization." Unless, that is, we go bust.We've noted before that companies often rely on burying objectionable practices deep within their Terms and Conditions, but if bankruptcy means companies can ignore their own privacy policies, that's a huge blow to data protection. Even if Clear's successor abides by the most stringent data protection policies, the transfer of such large amounts of sensitive information from one organisation to another is a fraudster's paradise, with plenty of opportunity for data to go missing.

Misunderstood NebuAd Forced to Close down

This week American online advertising company NebuAd closed its doors for good and with it disappeared a much needed new revenue stream for ISPs.The company ran out of money, and seemed to be struggling after the US Congress held hearings last year to examine its Internet practice which was deemed to be an invasion of privacy. Congress subsequently dropped the investigation, of course. But whilst NebuAd's customers took the very proper position not to use the service whilst the investigation was going on, the systems didn't seem to go back on, NebuAd seems to have lost cash and closed shop.NebuAd gathered information at an ISP level to serve customers with relevant ads.Unfortunately, the upshot seems to be that ISPs have lost out on a great opportuinity. The ad revenue, which would have been shared with ISPs, could have been invested in improving existing technology, cutting overall costs or even used to reduce the price of services for existing and potential customers.NebuAd explicitly stated in their privacy policy that they would "specifically not store or use any information relating to confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, religious beliefs, or sexuality which are tied to personally identifiable information ('sensitive personal information')."However, if NebuAd actually used technology that made the customer anonymous, hasn't the public lost something that would have protected their privacy as well? And how many people are opting into services - either inadvertently or lazily - and are giving their consent for companies to totally profile them without any attempt at anonymity. It'll be a very sad occurrence if the end of this company means the end of any attempt at anonymity by companies offering advertising on the Internet, with the excuse that, "Well, you opted in, so we can glean whatever information we like about you."

Google fails

Congratulations students of the globe! For anyone from the ages of 5 to 15 can enjoy Google’s new attempt at structured data search: Google Squared. And that’s presumably the only group of people that would ever consider using it. Remember when you were eight and your teacher asked you to make a pretty table on British Monarchy with all the monarchs of Britain including their children, spouses and important dates? How you pored over huge encyclopaedias to get all the information? Well, Google Squared officially heralds the end of early education as all these tasks are completed in a matter of seconds for our burgeoning historians and other putative scientists. If only it were that easy. Just as Babel Fish translate could only ever get a student 12/20 on French translation homework after its launch all those years ago, Google Squared fails to achieve… well anything it’s going for really. A search for the British Monarchy in an attempt to tabulate a chronological factfile brings up a table with the following order – George VI, George II, George V. The genius that is Squared then goes off on a little jaunt that includes the Act of the Union, the Irish Free State, Buckingham Palace and the House of Orange. This just gets embarrassing: the picture accompanying the House of Orange? Why of course! Its Gemma Arterton arriving for the ‘Orange’ BAFTAs at the Royal Opera ‘House’. This is surely Google gone mad. Actually we shouldn’t really be surprised; to be fair to Google, nowadays the Bond Girl must get more hits than the Dutch royals.It’s rather life affirming to know that even the great god Google isn’t completely infallible. This is an exciting day indeed. This revelation is like those wonderful moments when that beautiful woman who walks like she is better than everyone else trips and falls flat on her face on Oxford Street. At the Christmas Light switch on. On the podium. And the woman is Kate Moss.One must presumably conclude that the only reason Google released this in such an awkward condition was to distract attention from somewhere else: another attempt to make searching intelligent recently arrived in the form of Wolfram Alpha, the computational knowledge engine. It proclaims to ‘generate output by doing computations from its own internal knowledge base, instead of searching the web and returning links.’ This means, instead of producing lists of useless links or grids of questionable information, it creates pages to answer your search, to the best of its ability. When asked, ‘How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?’, the clever engine replies, ‘The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. (according to Bob Dylan).’ Indeed.

UK Organisations Failing to Follow Email Marketing Best Practice

Have you ever tried to subscribe to a mailing list or newsletter online and found that it took forever to sign up? Or that you needed to create an account first, or you couldn’t even find the box to put your email address in? Well, you aren’t the only one.New research from the email deliverability services company Return Path has found that two out of every five UK companies make it difficult for customers to subscribe to their email marketing programmes. As Return Path's Vice President for European Operations, Guy Shelton says: ‘Giving subscribers a great email experience isn't just “nice to do”; it is, of course, an essential marketing best practice.’ This great experience doesn’t just cover the sign up process but the content of the emails too.However, even when customers manage to sign up, out of the companies that successfully delivered a welcome message to the inbox only 45 per cent included a special offer for the new customer. By including a special offer, companies are able to show their thanks and start the relationship well with the customer, meaning they are more likely to read their emails and use the company in the future.Furthermore, by failing to follow email marketing best practice, many UK organisations risk generating spam complaints. According to Return Path, if a welcome message does not arrive within 24 hours it increases the chance of the subscriber marking the subsequent email as spam. This harms the company’s “sender reputation”, which reflects the likelihood of their emails being delivered successfully.But is it just too difficult and time-consuming to follow best practice? Not according to Return Path. Guy Shelton explains that ‘The steps that organisations need to improve their sender reputation are quick and simple to take’ and the easy steps can help organisations ‘build strong subscriber relationships, experience better deliverability, increase conversions and improve return on investment (ROI).’Return Path’s research has pointed out some major problems with email marketing in the UK, and it will be interesting to see how companies react. Return Path believe that it is easy to get right, and with their advice, companies can greatly improve their email reputation and therefore make more money.

The lady's for turning

We've taken the odd swipe at Jacqui Smith over the last few months, so it only seems fair to applaud her decision to scrap the Home Office's planned über-database of communications data.The database would have collected data on all electronic correspondence, such as the time, date and length of communication (and, of course, who contacted whom).Humble Jacqui said that she recognised the public's concerns that a giant database would be a further step toward a surveillance society. And, in a nice little turn of phrase, she said, "To be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single store."No longer any plans, Jacqui, no longer.Of course the cynics will say that Labour couldn't possibly get away with ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into a deeply un-popular government IT project in light of last week's austerity budget.We couldn't possibly comment.Anyway, the upshot of all this is that ISPs are now responsible for intercepting and storing the data that crosses their networks. To this end, the Home Office have earmarked £2 billion to help ISPs to expand their storage capabilities.Mobile and fixed line operators will be required to process and link the data together to build complete profiles of every UK internet user's online activity. Police and the intelligence services would then access the profiles, which will be stored for 12 months, on a case-by-case basis.Don't be surprised if even this plan is quietly dropped by the Conservatives after the 2010 election.A final point - John Reid, the frankly terrifying former Home Secretary, argues in an opinion piece today that communications data is vital to identifying serious criminals. In his short but predictably manipulative piece, he kicks off with a tear-jerker about a murdered 17 year old whose killers were brought to justice by communications data. This, he says, happened in 2007.So you see, Reid shoots himself in the foot before he's reached the end of his first paragraph, by showing that police then already had adequate access to communications data.He then comes up with a classic piece of patronising lip service: "Used in the right way, and subject to important safeguards, communications data can play a critical role in keeping us safe."Presumably, these would be the safeguards that ensured only 36,989,300 pieces of personal information were lost by the government in 2008. As for using it in the right way, it's as if he hadn't heard of the scandal of local authorities using the RIPA legislation to spy on dog fouling and catchment areas.If we really do need a giant central database, they'll need to do a lot better than this to convince the public.

Pirate Bay No Longer A Safe Haven for Internet Buccaneers

Last week a Swedish Court found four founders of file-sharing site, The Pirate Bay, guilty of “assisting making available copyrighted content” but what should ISPs make of this ruling and is it somewhat of a poisoned chalice?Similar to UK ISPs, The Pirate Bay had previously cited “mere-conduit” status but, unlike UK ISPs, had used it as a means of evading the long arm of the law. A quick look at their ‘About Us’ reveals:-“Only torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the tracker. Any complaints from copyright and/or lobby organizations will be ridiculed and published at the site.”This latest ruling is set to be fought and will not sink the site but it’s definitely a sign of stormy waters ahead.Some commentators have also speculated that search engines such as Google or Ask may be in the firing line because they can return results that link to copyright infringed material. Outlaw’s Struan Robertson argues these search engines have nothing to worry about because links to copyright infringed material are not central to their business model.“A crucial part of the case against The Pirate Bay was that the vast majority of content that people sought through the site was infringing copyright. Google returns some links to infringing content and eBay hosts some auctions for pirated goods but that does not make their operations illegal.”On the other hand this does not bode well for ISPs. If a website can be found guilty of assisting in making copyrighted material available then it logically follows that ISPs who, through no intent of their own, are directly involved in the distribution of copyright infringed material could suffer.

Facebook moves the goalposts

This week we've heard more rumblings of discontent from Facebook users - they're unhappy that the social networking site has moved the goalposts over the much-hyped "user vote" on changing Facebook's Terms and Conditions.The story first emerged last February, when Facebook casually mentioned that it had granted itself a licence to all its users' content in perpetuity, even if they deleted their account. Cue a predictable collective wailing and gnashing of teeth from millions of users who, almost by definition, are pretty clued up on the web.The backlash prompted a partial backdown from Facebook, who attempted to mollify its members by saying that it would agree to drop the proposal if 25 per cent of users voted against.This week, that threshold has quietly been raised to 30 per cent. What's more, a significant number of Facebook users have been disenfranchised by the decision to allow votes only from those who've used their accounts in the last thirty days.Simon Davies of Privacy International is so confident that the 30 per cent threshold won't be achieved that he's promised to eat his shorts if he's wrong. (As if there wasn't already a good enough reason to get voting - Ed.)At the time of writing, 73.11% of respondents have voted against Mark's Terms of Use, but unfortunately "only" 284,473 have voted in total - barely a tenth of one per cent of Facebook's 200 million regular users.So Zuckerberg is really expecting 60 million users to vote? And isn't he concerned that the respondents, while still so "few", should be so overwhelmingly opposed to his plan?Here at Data Grub, we're rather disappointed with the preternaturally young Facebook CEO. Changing the rules like this is pretty childish, after all, and we reckon he could do much better.Zuckerberg really needs to take lessons from a master manipulator, such as the late Saddam Hussein or even the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il himself. We'd love to see the People's Democratic Republic of Facebook announce that 99.8% of members had voted in favour of the rule change, on a 100% turnout. Read Zuckerberg's plans for Facebook here.

Speed: Know Your Limits

It seems that this week everyone's jumping on the 'Speed issue' bandwagon and has something to say about all that data whizzing (or not) around the 'net.The week started with the Broadband Stakeholder Group(BSG),"the industry-government forum tackling strategic issues across the converging broadband value chain.", releasing some interesting info about how telephone line lengths affect broadband speeds. This is certainly nothing new to those in the industry but it is important information for consumers who need to be aware of the limitations of the broadband service provided by their ISP.On the very same day T-Mobile announced that it's topped a YouGov mobile broadband survey of 1,958 coming first in 9 out of 13 categories, including upload and download speeds. Although speed isn't everything and there's no point in having a super fast connection if it's not reliable, T-mobile managed to secure second spot for staying connected. As the number of users choosing flexible mobile broadband over fixed line access increases, it'll be interesting to see if T-Mobile can keep it up or if a traditional fixed line ISP can catch them up.On Wednesday, Virgin Media questioned the reliability of online speedtesters which Virgin Media's Director of Broadband, Jon James, claimed, "Consumers rely on these sites for clear advice and honest results. The fact that many of them cannot accurately measure speeds of 20Mb, and some cannot even accurately measure speeds of 10Mb, demonstrates there is a clear need for more transparency."Further announcements included Manx Telecom boasting an average broadband speed of 5.5Mbps for their customers; Point Topic, partnering with Gavurin, giving free access to a website containing the results of the speed and uptake of ISP broadband services by region; and the independent watchdog, Consumer Focus, criticising Lord Carter's interim Digital Britain Report for its lack of vision, neglecting consumer interests and risk of leaving the UK in the Internet "slow lane".

Construction firms to mount the scaffold?

The information commissioner Richard Thomas has come down like a ton of bricks on a group of British builders who allegedly bought secret personal data about potential employees.Construction companies Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert MacAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain are among those alleged to have bought data about workers' trade union activities from one Kerr, Ian, operator of the shadowy-named "Consultancy Association".Kerr has apparently spent 15 years amassing an "extensive intelligence database" of thousands of construction workers with details of union activities stretching back to the 1980s. Samples of comments on these workers include: "Poor timekeeper, will cause trouble, strong TU [trade union]"; "Sleeper, should be watched"; and, simply, "Do not touch!".Workers could not challenge inaccurate information because the information was held without their knowledge or consent.Richard Thomas says that more than 40 construction companies paid Kerr a retainer of £3,000 a year for his "consultancy services", with a further fixed fee for each worker they wanted checked.The good news is that officials from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) raided Kerr's office and removed the entire contents of the database, as well as invoices - up to a value of £7,500 - from companies in the construction business. Steve Acheson, an electrician from somewhere north of Watford, believes he was one of the workers on the database, and that this was behind the fact that he's only had 36 weeks' employment in the past nine years. "It affects your character and demeanour," he said. "I'm hoping that because of this brilliant success I'll be able to get my family life back and it will open the doors for me and others to get back to work."Of course, this is all still sub judice, but the commissioner will be bringing a prosecution against Kerr. We'll keep you posted. Data Grub is sure that Mr Kerr will be found innocent, because we cannot believe that anyone would be capable of such repugnantly unethical behaviour as robbing people of their livelihoods for personal profit.(We should point out that some of the construction firms, including Laing O'Rourke and Morgan Est, say that they "inherited" payments to Kerr after they had bought up other constuction companies, and have since ceased paying him. Data Grub.)

IAB's Guide To Good Behaviour

We're pleased to see that the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), the trade body for online advertisers, has finally launched its Good Practice Principles for behavioural advertising.Drawn up in collaboration with companies like Google, Phorm and NebuAd, the IAB's best practice guide is, remarkably, the first set of self-regulatory guidelines to set good practice for companies that use users' online browsing behaviour to target ads that are relevant to individual users' interests.An accompanying website, http://www.youronlinechoices.co.uk/, will help consumers to understand what online behavioural advertising does and (crucially) doesn't do.The core of the Principles is formed by three commitments: Notice, where companies that collect online data must inform users that data is being collected; Choice, which says that companies must provide an opt-out; and Education, whereby they must let consumers know exactly how the information is being used and how they can opt out.And not before time, think we. The debate surrounding online behavioural advertising has for too long been dominated by single-issue campaigners relying on hearsay, misrepresentation and misinformation to argue that behavioural targeting infringes individuals' online privacy.That's not to say that some developments (not least BT's secret and most-probably illegal trials of Phorm's Webwise technology without users' knowledge or consent) haven't done real damage to the industry in the eyes of the general public.That's why we welcome the IAB's Good Practice Principles which, as well as advising on best practice approaches to online behavioural targeting, provide consumers with the information they need to make an informed decision about whether they want to take part in any new service.The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) have voiced their support, saying that 'a joined-up approach to promoting transparency, choice and education makes good sense.'Getting the thumbs up from the ICO, who know their stuff, is one thing; changing the public's perception of online behavioural targeting is quite another, especially given the bad press that it's garnered over the last couple of years. Whether or not it succeeds in its aim of educating the public about behavioural targeting, the code of conduct is certainly a step in the right direction for the industry.Taken along with another piece of recent news, we could be seeing something of a fightback from the targeted ad industry. Last week, Phorm unleashed its lawyers on Which?, which had published a press release highlighting opposition to their service. Nothing very surprising there, except that following the legal intervention, Which? immediately pulled the offending release from its website (though not before the story had been covered in several publications). It seems that some of the information in the release was inaccurate enough to be defamatory; Which? is now "working with Phorm" to correct the release.If consumer champions and all-round experts Which? can't get its facts right, what hope for your average Internet user? That's one reason, at least, to welcome the IAB's new code of practice.

Illegal Download Sites Used by Half of Web Surfers

Tiscali survey reveals 46% of respondents have used one or more of the sites most associated with illegal downloadingA recent survey from UK ISP, Tiscali has found that even though half (46%) of respondents are users of P2P sites, over half (53%) say they have never knowingly downloaded music illegally.Granted there are a growing number of ‘legal’ download sites (Take a look at ‘Where to download music legally’ which is a pretty comprehensive list from The Guardian) but the survey refers to sites mostly associated with illegal downloading such as BitTorrent, Limewire, Gnutella, emule, Ares or DirectConnect. If users aren’t accessing and sharing copyrighted material on these sites then what are they sharing, their own latest hits and home movies? I find that very hard to believe.The survey also showed that even though 75% of respondents knew what was legal and illegal in their music use, they didn’t think that their actions were damaging the music industry or maybe they’re just not bothered by the current lack of law enforcement.The UK culture secretary, Andy Burnham, is trying to address this lack of current law enforcement by calling on Europe and the US for support. He’s planning to have an international strategy that combats illegal internet downloads by the autumn.According to The Guardian, Burnham would like to see a 70-80% reduction in illegal downloading in the UK.“The ultimate aim of the plan, Burnham told MediaGuardian.co.uk, would be to develop a consensus with other governments that would make the UK's own initiatives to combat internet piracy more likely to succeed. Burnham said the government is seeking a 70% to 80% reduction in illegal downloads with its plans in the UK."I am working towards an international memorandum of understanding, it is time for much more serious dialogue with European and US partners. No solely national solution will work. It can only be durable with international consensus," he added.An interesting development in trying to find a workable business model for the music industry is the emergence of online music service Spotify - ‘A world of music. Instant, simple and free’. In return for having to listen to a few ads you get to choose your own playlist from a huge catalogue of tracks or let the company choose for them for you. You’d have thought that this was a pretty amicable solution for all parties involved but already the service has fallen foul to the music industry’s licensing laws with some tracks being restricted from play in certain countries.The site's global community manager, Andres Sehr believes, "These restrictions are a legacy from when most music was sold on tapes and CDs and they have continued over into streaming music," Sehr said, adding, "our hope is that one day restrictions like this will disappear for good."For now we’ll just have to keep our ears open and see what happens.

David's Damascene Conversion

Here at Data Grub we’ve so far held off from writing about ID cards, in part because this long-running saga has been so comprehensively covered in most mainstream media.But we couldn’t let the Rt Hon David Blunkett get away with Tuesday’s speech at, of all places, Essex University. Blunkett, the original panegyrist of ID cards in this country, used his speech in part to propose scrapping compulsory ID cards.So, what prompted David’s Damascene conversion, especially given that he’s often expatiated on the benefits of ID cards in his News of the World column and was at one point trousering a decent sum as adviser to Entrust, a company interested in bidding to run the UK card scheme?Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Blunkett went on to recommend that all UK citizens be required to have a fancy biometric passport which is, in effect, an ID card with a handy notebook attached for shopping lists. (Let’s be honest, when was the last time Bermondsey Bob needed a visa?)Blunkett proposes that ID cards be voluntary but that biometric passports – which contain exactly the same information and will be linked to exactly the same database – will be compulsory. That way, the government can spin ID cards as a handy “mini-passport” that fits snugly into your wallet.But even if compulsory passports are merely ID cards in disguise, one wonders what his rational is for jumping horses now, especially given that the current Home Secretary is still keen on the cards. Could it be that he wants the law on the statute books before the Tories’ inevitable election in 2010?Blunkett and his successors have been trying to get make ID cards mandatory for donkeys’ years, but couldn’t do so until a large proportion of the population started carrying them voluntarily.That’s clearly not going to happen in the next 12 months; but plenty of people have passports – make them compulsory and you’ve got your ID database system sorted.Of course, all this completely ignores the question of whether ID cards might not, in fact, be quite a Good Thing after all. In spite of the government’s claims that they will prevent benefit fraud and halt terrorists in their tracks, Data Grub remains to be convinced of their utility.Should Jacqui Smith decide to take Blunkett’s advice by making passports compulsory, it’ll be interesting to see if she employs the traditional ID card arguments (fraud, terrorism) or if Labour spins it some other way.Watch this space.

Watchdog Bites Before Children’s Charities Bark

Today, almost three weeks after Internet filtering experts, Watchdog International, announced that Talk Internet was the first UK ISP to implement a cost effective one size fits all blocking and filtering service, children's charities are warning that a number of UK broadband providers are still ignoring government requests to block illegal websites.Previously ISPs have had problems implementing certain filtering systems due to their varying infrastructures which have posed both technical difficulties and cost issues.Watchdog International's MD, Peter Mancer, told Grub, "It's true that until relatively recently there has been no affordable, one size fits all system to block images of child sex abuse. However the technology now exists. Watchdog International is able to offer ISPs in the UK a system that blocks their subscribers' access to URLs on the Internet Watch Foundation's list for as little as £250 a month. Contrary to popular opinion even small and medium sized ISPs can play their part in combating access to this illegal content. We're active in the UK and are pursuing partnerships with ISPs to provide them with an affordable, one size fits all blocking and filtering service for child sex abuse images."

Clayton makes a suggestion

Enough has been written about the House of Lords' report into surveillance in Britain, so today we'll be returning to Microsoft's latest version of Internet Explorer.We've written previously about IE8's notorious InPrivate function, the sole purpose of which is to keep the wife from knowing about the surprise holiday / present you've bought for her online. According to Microsoft, anyway. Let's face it, they weren't going to dub the function "PornCloaking+" were they?But still, there's nothing inherently evil about InPrivate.What does cause concern is IE8's "Suggested Sites" feature, which allows users (in Microsoft's words) to "discover websites you might like based on sites you've visited". By activating the service in your browser, you consent to send various data about your browsing activity to Microsoft. This could include the URLs of visited sites, search terms and form data, as well as information that could potentially identify individuals, such as a user's IP address.It's the classic trade-off: you agree to give up personal data in return for a service. But since users are fully aware of what data they'll be giving up and are able to give their informed consent to the service, this shouldn't present a privacy problem, should it?Unfortunately for Microsoft, Suggested Sites has attracted criticism from the esteemed Richard Clayton, the Bill Bryson-lookalike and doyen of Internet privacy campaigners.Dr Clayton says Microsoft must be clearer about explaining the risks, as well as the potential benefits of the service. He points out that full URL sharing via Suggested Sites poses a privacy and security risk and in particular warns that Microsoft should avoid sharing data submitted by surfers with other users of the service.The risks hinge upon the fact that Microsoft will get the full URL of the site you visit. In some cases, this is essential - knowing that you visited blogger.com ain't going to help Steve Ballmer to suggest sites, but a visit to blogger.com/animals-do-the-funniest-things will help him to point you in the direction of some cutesy squirrel pics.But sometimes, a full URL may hold clues to your identity, give permissions to others to access the site, or compromise your privacy or security in some other manner, says Clayton.It's not so much that a Microsoft employee might one day go rogue and start stealing these sensitive URLs; it's the possibility that Microsoft hands the URL to someone with similar tastes and these users visit the exact places that you go to. "Suddenly all that "security through obscurity", the pious hope that no one could possibly guess that URL, goes up insmoke," says Clayton.Dr Clayton is a Cambridge academic and an eminently sensible, if somewhat cautious, voice in a debate which is all too often conducted by shrill, ignorant or ill-informed comentators.Clayton doesn't want to score cheap points by gratuitously slating Microsoft - he merely points out that they could do better, by minimising the data transfer, and only obtaining longer URLs for the sites, like blogger.com, where it actually matters.In the meantime, they should honest and transparent about the potential risks.But Clayton's comments do have a silver lining for Microsoft: he points out that selecting the InPrivate mode automatically disables Suggested Sites, even if users have opted in. So, at least they can claim another alternative use for Pr0n-Mode...

Kangaroo gets thrown on the Barbie

There's no need to worry about blowing your bandwidth restriction on Project Kangaroo, the new joint IPTV venture between the Beeb, ITV and Channel 4.Today, the Competition Commission(CC) has blocked the new service citing threats to the video on demand(VoD) market.Peter Freeman, CC Chairman and Chairman of the inquiry group, said: "After detailed and careful consideration, we have decided that this joint venture would be too much of a threat to competition in this developing market and has to be stopped.""The case is essentially about the control of UK-originated TV content. VOD is an exciting and fast-moving development in TV, which makes programmes previously broadcast available to viewers at a time of their choice. The evidence we saw showed that UK viewers particularly value programmes produced and originally shown in the UK and do not regard other content as a good substitute."

"Dealing with Child Sexual Abuse Images (CSAI) on the Internet is not an optional extra"

Secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition for Internet Safety, John Carr, says, "Dealing with CSAI on the Internet is not an optional extra. It's part of the cost of doing business for a modern ISP. Governments round the world know that, technically, access to CSAI can be blocked and can be blocked inexpensively."No ISP wants illegal activity on their network and contrary to popular opinion even small and medium sized ISPs can play their part in combating access to CSAI.ISPs are able to block access to CSAI by deploying the first affordable one size fits all system from Internet filtering experts, Watchdog International.Talk Internet is the first UK ISP to implement the system and is a good example for other UK ISPs to follow in making the Internet a safer place by embracing new technology.Watchdog International’s MD, Peter Mancer, said, “The UK Internet industry has an excellent track record of fighting illegal content on the Internet, exemplified by the establishment of the IWF. On the technical side we recognise that no ISP's network is the same. There has been no one size fits all technical method of blocking CSAI. Now UK ISPs can implement a low cost system that protects their users from CSAI content without interfering with the speed and reliability of their network.”

A day for quiet reflection

Yesterday was European Data Protection Day; this blog held a one day's silence as a gesture of respect to the millions of pieces of personal and sensitive data that have been lost in the last year.Across the continent people gathered in their hundreds of thousands, coming together in their workplaces, in their communities, in the fields, in the hills and in the streets, to mark this most solemn and momentous day of data.I need not tell you what an emotional day it was for us all.Some of us may have brushed aside manly tears as we reflected on the 182 per cent rise in card cloning and phishing in the second quarter of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007; others may have stifled their sobs over the $2.8bn cost of phishing attacks; still more wept -openly and without shame - for the 44 per cent of small businesses that have fallen victims to identity fraud through phishing, internet scams and data theft.But all were united in their fervent hope that 2009 finally marks the year when the UK's government pulls its bloody finger out and puts a stop to departments' haemorrhaging of our personal and sensitive data.Fat chance...

A load of nonce-sense

If the first law of marketing is that sex sells, the first rule of tabloid journalism is that paedos shift papers.Things may have quietened down a bit since the 2000 moral panic, when the News of the World whipped up a hysterical mob of mouth-breathing simpletons into an orgy of vigilante violence, but tabloid editors still know that their barely-literate readers love a good “hate” almost as much as a new Lizzy Duke sovereign ring.So it’s no surprise to see yet another paedo story in today’s Sun, with the baffling headline: “Internet pervert charges rap”. In a nutshell, the story concerns comments made by the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre which "slammed" (criticised) Internet Services Providers (ISPs) for charging child abuse investigators to access their data.The way that the Sun spins it, cynical ISPs are making an easy profit from the authorities hunting down Britain's biggest nonces. Naturally, the Sun is sympathetic to CEOP’s chief executive, Jim Gamble, who believes that ISPs should waive these charges in the public interest.Balance has never been the Sun’s strongest suit. If it were, they would have pointed out that under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) ISPs are entitled to charge the police for reasonable costs for data retrieval and that in the last four years, the Government has paid ISPs and telcos £19m for its agencies’ growing demands for access to communications data. This information was obviously deemed by the Sun to be of no interest to its audience, even to its more intellectual readers who don’t need to use their index fingers to read a newspaper.Interestingly, CEOP’s share of this £19m amounts to around £170,000 – less than one per cent of the total paid to ISPs. With CEOP having made just shy of 10,000 requests, the average cost of each request works out at less than £18.Why, then, is the Sun focused purely on paedophile investigators, when all regular police forces and government agencies are charged, fairly and under UK law, for using ISPs’ time and resources?As Malcolm Hutty, policy chief at the London Internet Exchange (Linx) points out, "Regular police forces investigate extremely serious crimes using communications data, including murder, rape and kidnapping, and they believe they are better served by cost recovery. We don't believe that the situation becomes different for child abuse cases merely because they are investigated by a specialist national unit."But here we come to the second law of tabloid journalism: never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Effect of terrorist attacks on India Property Market

The recent terrorist carnage in Mumbai has pushed India into the spotlight with many questioning the horror and condemning those responsible. In the aftermath of the attacks, concerns have been raised about the country’s financial and commercial economy with attention drawn to the deceleration of the Indian property market.India’s property market was previously thought to be a ‘crunch-free haven’, being seemingly unaffected by the recession. Merrill Lynch had even predicted a 700% increase in property prices from 2005 – 2015, yet evidence has now shown a damaging slow down in home sales.The immediate response to the attacks with property advisors revealing a massive loss of pace in enquiries and sales of properties in many areas of India. Concerns are rife that because British and Americans were targeted in the attacks, there has been a vast loss of interest in property entrepreneurs from these countries. There are also worries of more attacks resulting in property demand decreasing further.The terrorist attacks are not solely the reason the markets in India have been falling back. Recent months have already seen a great deal of pressure on India’s property trade with predictions of land prices falling by a quarter in the coming year. The recent attacks have magnified the flailing market but the real causes being the uneven supply and demand in property with there being more property than people are actually willing to buy. With the recession diminishing confidence in buying property, interest rate upsurges together with the rapid rise in home prices help to slow sales of properties. There is also the ‘wait-and-watch’ effect with many potential investors waiting for prices to drop so they can take full advantage so there is hope for a pick-up sometime soon.In the short-term there has been an effect as a result of the attacks but it is important to remember that the property market was already sluggish before the attacks.But bargain hunting anyone?