Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenheart
"Hi there
I work as part of the comms team for Phorm here in the UK. While the ongoing debate around privacy is healthy, and we welcome it, one or two points above need clarification.
Kent has been very transparent about the Adware – not Spyware - business he was previously involved with He has discussed this openly in media interviews and in conversations online. Adware is a software component designed to deliver ads as part of a legitimate, commercial product or service. The software was installed with the knowledge and consent of individual users, could be identified and uninstalled, and did not cause harm or ‘steal’ information.
|
So why was it classified as SPYWARE, not ADWARE, by many anti-spyware companies?
Quote:
|
However, it became clear that it was difficult for users to distinguish Adware from Spyware.
|
So your defence is that all your "customers" were stupid, is it? Way to go in winning the PR battle
Quote:
|
121 Media quickly decided that the model of providing downloadable software was a wrong turn for the business. [The company then took the unprecedented step of voluntarily shutting down the download business model - worth $5-6 million a year to the business.
|
Yes you had to shut it down quickly because a well-known American privacy advocacy movement was about to sue your ass if you didn't. (*Yet another example of the precise phaseology employed by Mr. Ertugrul: He has claimed in interviews that nobody was ever sued or taken to court over the rootkit saga - and that is absolutely true - but what he fails to mention is that had he not shut it down when he did, then he most certainly would have been sued- one influential group had already announced their intention to do exactly that)
Quote:
|
Instead, it decided to concentrate on its ISP strategy of providing more relevant ads and higher levels of user privacy.
|
Translation: One avenue of spying was closed down, so we decided to exploit another one, in a country where the electronic privacy laws were sufficiently ambiguous for us to slip it in under the radar. Oh boy, that last calculation was a duff one wasn't it!
Quote:
|
The move away from the old model to the ISP strategy was announced transparently to the market."
|
You call what happened to 18,000 BT customers in 2006 and again in 2007 "transparent" do you? Is English your first language?
Come on PR Team, these same platitudes are getting very old. Haven't they issued you with a new set yet?
PAY ATTENTION VM - THIS ISSUE IS NOT GOING AWAY