"To avoid the re-emergence of prior confusion: Privacy International, one of the leading privacy advocacy bodies, did not endorse us and do not endorse any companies."
This is massively dishonest and patronising - you appear to be trying to imply that this "confusion" is due to public misunderstanding. It is not. This "confusion" is due to public statements made by yourselves and the management team stating in so many words that Privacy International had okayed the system.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ternet.privacy - Marc Burgess specifically states that "Privacy International" did the impact assessment. Having read the report I cannot believe that this was a mistake - it mentions 80/20 Thinking constantly. To me this looks like a deliberate attempt to use the reputation of a fairly well-respected campaign group as a figleaf for a business which has been characterised by dishonesty and a disregard for those who are affected by their plans from day 1, although I'd be interested to know why we should think otherwise.
The public DO NOT NEED OR WANT this technology. The online No.10 petition demonstrates that pretty clearly: more than 7,000 signatures now, in a little over two weeks, is one of the fastest-growing there has ever been on the site.
Importantly, and something that must not be dismissed out of hand, I also haven't seen you or Phorm management explain why they think they have the right to use this data. It DOES NOT belong to the ISP: it's not theirs to sell. As Tim Berners-Lee said in his interview, "It's mine. You can't have it." If you want to use it you have to ask us each individually and tell us what we're getting in return. Using it without the explicitly-granted permission of every single user AND website owner is, to my mind, straight-up theft. IF I don't want what you're peddling (and I don't), then you have absolutely no right of access to anything my family or I do online, whether you use it to profile or not. Why do you think you have the right to use it without my permission?