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...