So, after contributors to the nodpi.org forum posted publicly available information that incuded Kent Ertegrul's phone number, legal threats were made (Shoe on the other foot).  Presumably nodpi.org is a big enough thorn in Phorm's side that they decided to have go at them.

As usual in such matters, it's spurred the indefatigable band of anti-Phorm activists on to deeper investigations.  Read for example this contribution to the Trouble at Mill thread at the nodpi.org forum.  The author provides many supporting internet links.

A list of websites supposedly blocked by the Great Australian Firewall, most of which (but by no means all) are porn sites, has been posted at Wikileaks.  Since the list was posted, there have been recurring reports that Wikileaks has been blocked or shutdown.  It's also possible that high traffic in response to this and other stories has overwhelmed the Wikileaks servers. 

According to Wikinews, blocking is taking place (Portions of Wikileaks, Wikipedia blocked in Australia):

The fallout from the revelations of just what is on the Great Australian Firewall blacklist continues, even as Wikileaks is still submerged.  The Age reports (Labor's blog-watch plan hits Whirlpool of dissent) reports the latest utterances of Stephen Conroy, the minister behind the assault on internet freedom:

THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.

It appears that the James Randi Educational Foundation have had their YouTube account suspended - no reason is known. The JREF are an outstanding bulwark against the rise of paranormal and supernatural ideas in society, internationally.  The blog and forum at the JREF website make for excellent reading.  I cannot for the life of me see why this decision can have be made.  The JREF's mission, as quoted from their website:

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

This mission statement seems eminently reasonable to me.  You can write letters in protest, though I guess it would help if we knew why the JREF's account had been suspended.  Perhaps the JREF trod on too many toes -from what I've read, YouTube tend to react quickly to takedown requests, but can be persuaded to reverse their decision, as in the case of David Colquhoun's video work.

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Cn_gjevik 480x295]

Brand Republic give space to the IPA's legal director Marina Palomba, who fails to comprehend the technical aspects of Phorm's intrusive deep packet inspection system for delivery of targeted advertising (IPA blasts privacy campaigners for anti-competitive threat to Phorm).  The article quotes her as saying:

The IPA's legal director, Marina Palomba, said that if the major companies were to take this action, it would be anti-competitive.

Among all the hullaballoo surrounding the nefarious activities of Google Streets, The Register has the answer: (El Reg Street View snappers caught on camera):

The Open Rights Group reports (Data retention endangers democracy):

European legislation that came into force today requires internet service providers to retain details of user's emails, net phone calls and other web traffic. This requirement, imposed on all all EU states, is a serious erosion of our fundamental human right to privacy. 

As we move further into 2009, and with no sign that Phorm's vile deep packet inspection technology will be introduced by British Telecom, one wonders if Phorm may be having cash flow worries.  Phorm appeared to have entered a new PR offensive, and have held a new "Town Hall Meeting" to spread their misinformation.

As usual, the BBC report (Phorm eyes launch after hard year) doesn't really challenge Phorm's claims over anonymity, and gives Kent Ertegrul a hugely useful opportunity to give more media puffery for his company (which don't forget is a rebranded spyware outfit known as 121media).

Adzilla, another vile company aiming to use deep packet inspection to monitor internet users' browsing behaviour to deliver targetted adverts has bitten the dust, according to to a report at Wired.com (Another ISP Ad Snooper Hit With Lawsuit).  This follows the demise of Nebuad's plans to carry out similar nefarious activity.  Adzilla may be no longer with us, but a class action lawsuit has been launched against it and its ISP partners.

In early June of 2007, Susan Simon noticed odd things happening to her internet connection and traced the troubles to an outfit called Adzilla that turned out to be spying on everything she did online. 

The Which? report on Phorm and BT Webwise (Phorm uses legal muscle against critical press reports), and which was suppressed by legal action threatened by former spyware company Phorm has surfaced on Wikileaks (UK media suppressed Phorm survey and article, 2009).

There is a meeting at the House of Lords this morning about

The Internet Threat: Who needs privacy when we can have relevant ads?
Online Privacy and the Interception of Internet Communications

You can read more on it at NoDPI (Press Release: House of Lords - A Round Table Event).  Participants will include:

The Register has a report on the House of Lords privacy meeting (Phorm CEO clashes with Berners-Lee at Parliament), and it sounds as though sparks were flying.

It would seem that comparisons have been made between the pathetic response of the UK government to the far more robust attitute of the US government:

Google have announced they will be launching behaviourally targeted advertising (The Guardian: Google introduces targeted display ads on sites including YouTube).  However, as a poster on the nodpi forum points out, there are significant differences between the Google strategy and that of Phorm:

Phorm uses intercepted ISP traffic - Google collects its OWN data and is easy to block.
Google is just a website - Phorm infiltrates an entire ISP network

 The Register - Phorm CEO clashes with Berners-Lee at Parliament

The Times - Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee wants ban on snooping on internet users

There's a new Phorm web presence, which seems to mark the beginning of a new PR offensive.  The new site, called "inphorm", is a nicely laid out website featuring more spin from Kent Ertegrul, the Phorm CEO.  It should be be named "misinphorm".  It can be found at http://www.phorm.com/newsletter/01/article01.html.

The main story seriously misrepresents the Phorm system.  Remember, as it currently seems to work:

Over at the nodpi foums, there's a discussion about some rumoured employment changes regarding Phorm in Korea (Trouble at Mill).  Some of the emails contain Kent Ertegrul's contact details as they were at that time, and these have been looked at to see if the veracity of the Korean story could be checked.

One of the posters googled Ertegrul's phone number and found:

Here's a clip from Newsnight, in which Jeremy Paxman chairs a debate about the dangers of social networking.  Baroness Greenfield doesn't come out of it too well.

 [video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg8LlUME-IM 480x295]

Two reports in the press highlight the database dangers the UK is sleepwalking into.

The Guardian reports (DNA details of 1.1m children on database) that the details of over a million children remain in the national DNA database,  despite over half of these individuals having no criminal convictions.

I'm visiting friends in South Wales, and I'm using their BT internet connection.  This gives me the first check that the BT-Phorm warning system is still working (it is - if you're on BT, you'll see the grey box with warning script on the right.

If you see this warning, click on the  InPhormation Desk link for more information about what Phorm, BT Webwise and deep packet inspection are, and why yo should be worried.

The Register reports (Phorm unleashes legal attack on critics) that much-criticised former spyware company Phorm has unleased legal missives in the direction of Which?, who conducted a user survery which supposedly found that internet users were deeply unhappy about the intrusive and possibly illegal Phorm system, which scans all internet activity in order to extract keywords for targetted advertising.  According to The Regiser,

News articles based on a survey indicating public opposition to Phorm's web snooping and advertising system have been withdrawn after the firm made legal threats to their publishers.