Quote:
Originally Posted by SMHarman
Both are telling the truth IMHO. Phorm and VM have an exclusivity agreement in place in that VM will implement Phorm and has stopped evaluating competing technology. That exclusivity agreement gives VM the ability to opt out or not implement. Both can say what they are saying.
|
So the agreement is that VM might, or might not, one day agree some sort of commitment to the technology. And it won't look at any competing technologies for a while.
---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------
[QUOTE=AlexanderHanff;
By showing that this is a real risk to search engines it allows the search engines to look at managing this risk through methods like SSL.
Alexander Hanff[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would be the logical next step for search engines. But it would be a shame if everyone's effort (search engines, users, would-be internet parasites) had to be expended in such an escalating arms race: efforts to repel the parasites would be met with ever more ingenious ways to overcome the "immune system" of the productive parts of the internet. Which would in turn cause more investment in defences against the parasites.
From an economic perspective, it would be far more efficient for regulators to enforce the laws against the parasites - so search engines (and we) can put our energies into productive or enjoyable activities, instead of fighting the effects of illegal surveillance. And people working for the parasites would get proper jobs.