We don't get our connections for free, so why should we accept any of this illegal guff?

So now you want to waste bandwidth with a video ad? Lets think this through...

1. ISP complains that they need more money to pay for the bandwidth their customers use.
2. Advertisers help the ISP by paying for access to their customers private data for behavioural targetting of ads.
3. Advertisers use higher bandwidth video ads leading to the ISPs customers using more bandwidth.
4. GOTO 1

Long live AdBlocker and FlashBlock !

It seems the marketing types are beginning to believe their own hype. In the rosy future the article paints there may well be more ads, cleverer ads, more subtly invasive or prying ads, but with each added irritation users make a little more effort to switch off or block ads entirely. If the future of the net is based on advertising, it's goingto be very short.

Advertisers can, with the consent of content creators, monkey about with the *media* however they like. Popups, sidebars, banners, cookies... if the content creator allows that crap on his web site that's his own choice.

But what they can't be allowed to do is compromise the privacy, security, and integrity of data communication networks.

That includes intercepting private communications, modifying communications, and injecting content, without the consent of *BOTH* parties to the communication.

The content that Phorm exploits is not owned by the end user, and Phorm obtain no licence to use the content they copy.

So DPI marketing cannot operate legally, even before you consider computer misuse or fraud.

Phorm must never happen.