I'd love to come for a drink. Where is the nearest defibrillator? - Mike Magee
|
|
|
Phorm conforms, says UK government
IN RESPONSE TO complaints of 'intrusion' from critics, the government has confirmed that new ad system conPhorms to EU data laws.
The controversy over the ad-serving system known more commonly as Phorm, began after exposure that the system had been tested by BT without the consent of users – thus intruding on their privacy.
Although the gov has said that this system conforms to EU standards – it has been made clear that any further deployment of the system must be done with consent only, giving those who wish to the choice to opt out.
In its statement sent to the EU the UK government said that, "Users will be presented with an unavoidable statement about the product and asked to exercise choice about whether to be involved. Users will be able to easily access information on how to change their mind at any point and are free to opt in or out of the scheme."
In response, a spokesman for the office of Information Commissioner Viviane Reding, which was called to clarify the legality of Phorm, said it was analysing the reply and preparing a legal assessment of the situation.
Commissioner Reding's request for more information was sent to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Berr) earlier this year.
Berr told the Beeb that it was not making the whole letter public but wanted to outline the main reasons why it considered Phorm to be legal,
"After conducting its enquiries with Phorm the UK authorities consider that Phorm's products are capable of being operated in a lawful, appropriate and transparent fashion," it said.
Phorm's legality is summed up by the fact that profiles are based on a unique ID rather than the identity of users, search terms are widely drawn thus concealing users' identity alongside the reality that Phorm does not keep any documentation of actual sites visits.
Even though this is true, it was still stressed that it be done "with the knowledge and agreement of the customer."
For this reason BT is cited as being in the wrong as this agreement was blatantly absent from the company's two trials.
Three different internet service providers have apparently shown initial interest in Phorm – however only BT has conducted any trials (even if they were wrongly done).
The boys in blue are following this up after a torrent of abuse from angry customers. µ
Share this:
Share
We know the reasons :
"Well you see, next week I'll be getting my new Mercedes CLS 320 in midnight blue, and next month the pool company is going to take measurements in the back yard."
The right to privacy means nothing when those who have a responsibility in ensuring it no longer have the will or the moral sense to care.
i hope it fails miserably.
they used to make malicious rootkits - isnt that enough?
Lies, Sex and video ads “vile” and filled with "dishonest smears" from a "disgraceful, dishonorable campaign
"It's not just where I go to decide where to buy my shoes which is the commercial incentive - it's where I go to decide who I'm going to trust to vote. 
It's where I go maybe to decide what sort of religion I'm going to belong to or not belong to; it's where I go to decide what is actual scientific truth - what I'm actually going to go along with and what is bunkum". I'd thought it be a fourgone conclusion: lipstick on a pit bull bites like a plain barracuda. But no the Haoloed Alfalfa's of this world is to find out me buckwheat. Fibre or no, this will bogger like a righty tighty lefty loosy wonky-whiff! gigo forced thru a sieve? Why canst punters google amazons in their native privies? Ad-hunters? or Head-spotters? Is this sight hotornot? Woolworth launch counters were never segregated, and if they should, who will vouch for me Phormasuiticals? Terribly sorry. I mistook you for the Beeb-B-Queue. Right. Off I go searching for happy pils.
Nice to see our government selling us out again....I wonder how much Phorm and BT semt they're way
Under the Berne copyright treaty, as soon as a work is "saved" it is a copyright work. In this case, the author is the person whose web-habits are being analyzed; moreover, transfer of that copyright is actually controlled more stringently than transfer of real estate -- specific written assignment is required. So when Phorm further distributes that analysis, it is engaged in felony copyright infringement for profit.

FWIW.
That it conforms and that it needs to be done differently next time are a contradiction in terms and an intentional attempt at confusing the public. It is simply a lie.

That their products are capable of operating in conformance, and that they are now or ever were in conformance are two entirely different things as well.

The simply fact is they broke the law, and the people charged with the enforcement of those laws, and our "protection" are far more concerned with protecting each other.

Yeech!
If this is the EU standard, then there is something wrong with the EU standard.
Time for a new Internet, seriously.
http://www.torproject.org/