[dav]

I have a particular disdain and vitriol reserved for the phrase, "public relations," much the same as "estate agents" or "traffic wardens."
These are words usually uttered through clenched teeth or have their letters punched heavily on my keyboard.

However, in the interests of looking out for the interests of fellow human beings (much the same as Phorm's "anti-phishing service"), are the PR companies involved in this venture leaving themselves open to accusations along the lines of "Incitement to Commit Criminal Acts" when this dog of an idea finally falls foul of the law?

I'm no legal eagle, so I was wondering what was the extent of liability these companies are carrying.

---------- Post added at 08:43 ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 ----------

popper: the serving of ads to minors is an obvious worry and I can't see how Phorm can ignore the fact that they opening themselves up to all kinds of legal woes.
Their assertion that people use individual accounts on shared computers and that kids accounts could be opted-out is clearly erroneous. It only takes one accidental click by the child to opt themselves back in. This is then, by definition, not with informed consent making interception of subsequent traffic illegal.
However where, as in the case of our household, PC's are run on a single account with access open to all, Phorm have absolutely no way of knowing if the traffic is being generated by a minor. Subsequent serving of advertising to said minor is therefore subject to a far stricter set of rules. Has there been any comment from the ASA on this?
Is it something worth following?

A straw-pole of colleagues has shown that very few people operate their home PC's with individual accounts for individual family members. Yet again, planet Kent bears no relation to the real world.