Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex @ Phorm
Hi. It's Alex @ Phorm
The ICO has posted its latest statement on Phorm, which includes the following:
"They assure us that their system does not allow the retention of individual profiles of sites visited and adverts presented, and that they hold no personally identifiable information on web users. Indeed, Phorm assert that their system has been designed specifically to allow the appropriate targeting of adverts whilst rigorously protecting the privacy of web users."
The full statement is here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_..._releases.aspx |
Clearly these ar***oles had advance warning of publication, by a public body. It is clear where the Government is going with this.
To HMG, I accept your right, with a warrant, to spy on me and other people. I see the benefit, it protects me from being blown-up, from kids being molested or worse and other heinous crimes being committed.
I do not see why you should allow it, without a warrant, for 'better adverts', that I don't want.
I can afford to go Phorm free, via satellite and a provider in a decent country if required, but what about the vast majority of voters?
Is there any pattern noticed by people on this forum as to responsiveness from Labour or opposition MP's? Have the Labour back-benchers been told to shut-up? Are opposition MP's more responsive?
I just want to know if we are taking on a scummy business idea or, a scummy business idea backed by government?