Quote:
Originally Posted by PhormUKPRteam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
You may not store directly linked information, but your systems do process a lot of personal data and it's entirely possible that the system will be (as happened at AOL) hacked, and that link will be made, and the data exploited by scammers. The systems placed in each ISPs network would become a target for hackers.
As for the "benefits" to the consumer. I do not consider advertising (whether targetted or not) to be a benefit. I personally have no problem with advertising (I moderate this site, which is funded by ads, so for me to have a problem with advertising would be hypocritical) but, I can honestly say that I ignore web based adverts, so targetted ads would provide no benefit.
Also, I personally would not benefit from the webwise protection. I am perfectly capable of protecting myself from scams (on and off line), and find the combination of my own intelligence, the anti spyware/virus software on my PC and my browser's own anti phising systems to be more than adequate. I've been browsing since 1994, and do you know how many times I have been caught out? Twice.
The main problem I have with the system is simple. So far three ISPs have been announced as having signed up. Not one of them (AFAIK) has actually asked their users if they want this system. I realise that CPW have said they'll look at ways of routing the data around Phorm's systems if customers opt out, and Virgin appear to be considering their position, but, they've only done this in response to the fuss caused by forums (such as this one) and the media.
Even where they have talked about the system, they've played up the percieved benefits of the webwise system without actually mentioning that the system watches what people are looking at.
|
Webwise doesn't have personal data or clickstream history stored in the same way as Google or AOL, so accidental or malicious disclosure is impossible. |
Google, AFAIK, does not store profile info on you UNLESS YOU SIGN IN TO ONE OF THEIR SERVICES. This is one important difference.
Even if you do, you can block the cookie they use (as you can with Phorm). One major difference is that Google don't install hardware at your ISP, so even if they wanted to, they cannot store profile data on you if you block their cookie. If Phorm wish to, this hardware (at least as described in the patent) would allow them to store info regardless of the user's preference, and the user would have no assurance (beyond not being served ads and Phorm's own assurances) that their data is not being stored. With Google, it *is* physically impossible for them to store profile info on you if you block their cookies. With Phorm, it is not. This is another important difference.
In fact, I am tempted to go so far as to say that if you aren't storing this info, you would not need hardware installed at the ISP. Google manages it using a combination of Javascript, cookies and the servers at their various data centres.
Quote:
|
Nobody wants to be bombarded with ads when they are online. In fact if you want to reduce the amount of advertising you see, Webwise is probably the best thing to come along. The reason is simple: you get bombarded with ads because advertisers today have no idea of the interests of the people to whom they are advertising. So the only way they can get any campaign to work is to throw hundreds of ads at you to see what sticks. It is a terrible system. It wastes your time and attention and wastes their money, whilst generating minimal revenue for only a few websites. If advertisers were aware of the product categories which interested viewers, the net result would be far less advertising.
|
You haven't read my post. It does not waste my time, as I ignore them. And if you believe that greater takeup of products as a result of advertising will reduce the amount of advertising, you clearly have never dealt with advertisers.