Behaviour-based advertising explained

Phorm in a teacup?
With the new forms of behavioural advertising, it’s less clear exactly how much control users will have. Internet use will be monitored as information passes through their ISP, and stopping it won’t be as simple as deleting a few cookies or uninstalling some adware.

The best-known example of this technology is that made by Phorm. Its Webwise technology is designed to be installed by ISPs, where it will monitor what users are looking at online and serve them relevant adverts.

Rather than just noting when a user is online and whether they’re using email or the web, it examines exactly what you’re looking at or saying. If you search an online store for pet food, for example, it’ll spot this and serve you pet-related adverts. The level of analysis is far greater than that used by Google Mail.

Phorm says that it allocates random numbers to individual users rather than tracking them via their network address, and says this makes for ‘full anonymity’. Nonetheless, Phorm has faced significant opposition.

Early concerns about the system revolved around the idea of users having their internet use monitored without their notice or consent. BT ran a trial in the summer of 2007, monitoring the surfing habits of thousands of its users. It then ran another Phorm trial in 2008. Users were not notified beforehand that their surfing would be scrutinised.

The police, government and Information Commissioner’s Office (which advises the public and government data security) all received complaints from the public after Phorm’s first trials, but no action was taken.

Opt in or opt out
Other concerns about Phorm revolve around the idea of how users can choose not to be a part of the service. There’s a debate over whether users should ‘opt in’, choosing to take part if they want to see more relevant adverts, or whether ISPs can enrol all their customers and give them a way to ‘opt out’.

The Information Commissioner’s Office says that under the Data Protection Act, companies must choose ‘opt in’ only if so-called ‘sensitive personal information’ is being monitored. But the law isn’t clear what ‘sensitive personal information’ is, and BT claims that the data it looked at in its Phorm trial was not sensitive. It’s something the courts must decide on.

The European Commission has already taken action against the British Government for failing to ensure internet users’ privacy after receiving several complaints from UK users.

Viviane Reding, EU telecommunications commissioner, said in April: “The rules are quite clear. A person’s information can only be used with their prior consent. We cannot give up this basic principle and have all our exchanges monitored, surveyed and stored in exchange for a promise of ‘more relevant’ advertising”.

The Government has said that Phorm’s technology doesn’t break the law but privacy expert Richard Clayton of Cambridge University disagrees. “The EU has concluded that the Phorm system’s snooping is unlawful because permission has not been obtained from both the user and the website owner,” he told Computeractive in April.

Phorm has responded to the EU, saying: “Our technology is fully compliant with UK legislation and relevant EU directives. This has been confirmed by the UK regulatory authorities and we note that there is no suggestion to the contrary in the Commission’s statement today. Our system offers unmissable notice and clear and persistent choice to consumers.”

Websites want out
Some websites have already expressed a desire to opt their pages out of the Phorm system. The giant online store Amazon has requested its own removal from Phorm, and the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has done the same.

This stops Phorm seeing the pages users visit on their sites, but the Open Rights Group points out that Phorm can still see what items are being searched for as the words being searched for will pass through Phorm’s system at the ISP.

Phorm itself has fought back against its critics, describing itself as the victim of a ‘smear campaign’. It set up a website, www.stopphoulplay.com, containing allegations against a number of anti-phorm campaigners, some of whom it lists by name. One of them, campaigner Alex Hanff, told Computeractive the allegations on the site were ‘childish’.

The future of Phorm’s system is hard to predict: it faces vocal opposition, but several major ISPs have spoken of their plans to use it.

Some might suggest that behavioural advertising should be stopped, but that could have downsides: with the recession biting, websites and ISPs that currently rely on advertising to provide free or low-cost services might be forced to raise their prices.

Even if the technology becomes widespread we might, in future, face a choice between cheap broadband packages supported by behavioural advertising and more expensive ones with greater privacy.