as a side thought, did anyone go looking for any US legal rulings against these companys and executive yet?
---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucevans
From Richard Clayton's technical paper on the Phorm system;
"29. If the user does not accept any cookies in the webwise.net domain then they will always be allocated a new identifier for every website they visit. This situation is detected by the Layer 7 switch and the IP address is “blacklisted” and future traffic is not redirected."
If my IP address is blacklisted by the Layer 7 switch and as a result my future traffic is not redirected, why am I still allocated a new identifier for every website I visit?
Also, does "not redirected", in this context, mean that none of the 307-redirects occur? Does my original page request goes straight to the intended website, and it's response comes straight back to me with no diversion to any of the 3 machines described in Richard's document?
I'm not a tech, so any help would be greatly appreciated.
On a different note...the lead article on the BBC Technology News site is about Phorm, and has the word "illegal" in the headline; the two links to related articles each have the word "illegal" in their titles too. Let's hope subliminal messaging is all it's cracked-up to be.  |
it appears so,up to a point (and this is not a getout for them because.>), however, (remember the EU Data commissioners comments) your personal IP's still being directed as an extra path, to the Layer7 (AKA "deep packet inspection",profiler) kit.
its still being
collected, and its still being
processed ,it cant be any other way as the "deep packet inspection" kit needs to work
on your data stream to determine if you have that (unlawful, chattles?) cookie on your machine.
only TT/CPW have seen fit to make the statement they wont divert your stream to the "deep packet inspection" kit if you opt-out, and so, if they keep to their word (keep your eyes on them to be sure) then this "deep packet inspection" doesnt get a look in, the same cant be said for BT or VM as yet.