4 good reasons not to take part in the BT Webwise Trial An excellent summary from the Open Rights Group explaining many of the issues at stake.  Includes many useful links.

Wikipedia has a pretty good synopsis of Phorm, its history and its system.  (This is the page that Phorm itself tried to edit to paint them in a better light).

The BT support forum has a thread for BT/Webwise questions.  There are never any answers, but it's worth looking at.

So Frank Schleck transfers 7000 euros to Dr Eufemiano Fuentes, who he claims never to have met, has never sought to make use of a prohibited substance or method. Should I send him my bank details so he can send me 7000 euros? (Report at cyclingnews.com)

Seriously, how stupid does he think we are? What was the payment for, then?  He goes on to offer a DNA test to match the blood bags retrieved during the investigation.  Whats that?  The blood's not available for testing?  That's OK then.

I got my MAC, now to switch to a new ISP, an ISP that respects users' privacy, and which won't deal with Phorm.

I also finally got a response to my email requesting my web pages not be scanned by Phorm, a request that was NOT sent to an obviously Phome address, but which was read by at least 12 Phorm employees.

I have to confess to being something of a novice with mobile comms.  I have steadfastly refused to have a mobile phone on the grounds that I don't want people phoning me up!  The various acronyms associated with mobile comms still confuse me a bit, and I have never sent a text message! However, I find myself travelling quite a bit, and within the UK, it seems  to me that in British hotels internet access is often just another way to extract cash from the guests.  (This is is contrast to my experiences in the USA and Japan).  One criterion I had for selecting a system was that some support for Linux should be available.  Browsing various fora, I decided to have a go with the Vodafone system.

Vodafone have a quite a large website covering development of drivers etc for their mobile devices including the USB modems.  The associated Betavone Forge site has a forum which was very helpful in getting the system working on Linux (Ubuntu 8.04).

Ofcom have published a consultation document entitled "Delivering super-fast broadband in the UK": this is an interactive affair, and I notice that the comments on one particular paragraph exceed the others.  Guess what that's about?

1.38  The introduction of new business models can be controversial, but may be very important in the delivery of new access networks. Regulation can have a role, for example in helping to increase consumer confidence in new services. One example is improving consumers' perception of behavioural advertising. We are interested in views on where else Ofcom can assist in new commercial developments.

The information at the BT Webwise page seems to me to avoid discussing BT's real motives in proposing to employ this system.  The quoted blocks below come from BT's Webwise page.

BT Webwise increases your protection against online fraud and makes ads that appear on participating websites more relevant to your interests. It's completely free for BT Total Broadband customers and you don't have to download or install any software for it to work.

This is rather disingenuous.  Most modern browsers offer protection against phishing sites.  I strongly suspect that most broadband users would prefer to minimise all advertising: certainly this is one reason I use Firefox with its adblock add-on.  Of course it's free, BT will be selling our browsing history

Lest readers feel I (and others) overstate the dangers of the deep packet inspection that is about to be perpetrated on BT Internet customers, here is a quote from Kent Ertegrul, CEO of Phorm, Inc.:

I just received the Glasvegas album (cover to left).  I came across this (believe it or not) from listening to the BBC World Service very early one morning.  I was taken by the strange Glaswegian wall of sound.  To be honest they do remind me at times of Win, particularly in the vocals, but that's no bad thing, particularly combined with an appealing sort of indie version of a wall of sound!

Cyclingnews.com reports that Floyd Landis, who tested positive for testosterone and was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title only days after finishing in Paris, has launched an appeal against the final CAS decision to uphold their verdict of his guilt.  Oh, and the $100k bill he got stuck with.  The bases for this action are two-fold - firstly that the three arbitrators on the panel (including the one chosen by Landis and his team) had conflicts of interest, and that the decision on dumping the costs on Landis was made in a way that prevented any right for his team to respond.

What's less certain is whether the appeal can actually go anywhere - it is an appeal to a US Federal court, while the CAS arbitration was decided at their HQ in Switzerland.  Landis is due to return to racing in 2009, having served his ban.  There seems to be a curious pattern with high profile sports doping cases involving American athletes, with defence often hinging on perceived (and often minor) procedural defects.  Rarely are the athletes really able to challenge the laboratory tests themselves.  I recently wrote about an opinion piece in the journal Nature, which seemed to me to be rather cautious on the statistics of positive dope tests, particularly during lengthy sports events such as the Grand Tours.