Quote:
Originally Posted by PhormUKPRteam
Hi all
{usual spin and bluster}
|
Straight back to the trenches after the Easter holidays. It must be very boring going to the same old forums posting the same old spin which doesn't answer anyone's questions.
And just as I predicted you've tried to spin the Guardian's rejection of Phorm by completely ignoring the one issue that really hurts Phorm. I'll repost it here in case you missed it:
Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company... In this instance, however, I agree with you that this is not something that we should be partnering.
The Phorm brand stands for intrusiveness and invasion of privacy. Phorm has done
NOTHING to demonstrate its trustworthiness. When an organisation with a public moral standing such as The Guardian says "no thank you" then it is clear that Phorm falls short of a decent standard of moral conduct.
Remember Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man you want to "re-educate"? (Oh, the arrogance!) Let me quote him again in case this fact hasn't yet penetrated your minds. On his internet browsing data he said:
"It's mine, you can't have it"
And here's another quote for you. One you should recognise...
"As you browse, we’re able to categorize all of your Internet actions," said Virasb Vahidi, the chief operating officer of Phorm. "We actually can see the entire Internet."
Still claim you're trustworthy now?
The easiest way to silence a cynic is to prove him wrong openly and honestly. Hopping round forums spouting the same old spin isn't going to do that.