Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayceef1
Yes but that is all ifs, buts and maybes. And you could say that about any website that the government or whoever wanted information from. All I am asking is people stick to facts and not conjecture or in some cases pure make believe.
|
Oh, no you don't.
The "what if"s are an essential part of evaluating any system. If you're suggesting that it's good practice to take the Phorm service simply at the word of its inventor, without subjecting it to any critical analysis at all - which should, no, must, include the setting of credible future scenarios, in order to establish whether the inventor has a/ forseen and b/ allowed for them - then please tell me who you work for, so I can make sure never to buy any of their products.
Six months ago, it was pure conjecture that someone might take 25 million child benefit records off their secure database, burn them to a CD and put them in the mail. I'm quite sure that HMRC would have sworn blind that our data was secure because there were processes in place, and talk of someone making a CD of the data would have been pooh-poohed as pure conjecture.
Yet, here we are.
---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayceef1
Your child would only get adult adverts if they went to an adult site. <snip>
|
Not true. A child could get adult adverts if any other user of the computer was a user of adult sites - assuming the computer only has a single login. And I, for one, am not reassured by Phorm's assertion, in their FAQs, that most people have separate logins, which would prevent that from happening.
Even if it is true, *most* is not the same as *all*. Phorm are knowingly exposing children to adverts for porn.
There, add that to your list of hysterical anti-phorm postings. It's a corker.
