So we have a government which, for reasons best known to itself isn't keen on investigating breaches of RIPA. Yet we have a local council quite happy to
use RIPA to spy on people making school applications!
At the risk of getting political I have commented elsewhere about how this country is heading towards Gordongrad.
Here's a definition of a new word that has emerged from these particular events:
Inphorm:
v, To state as facts views which are based on questionable interpretations of language. To amend already accepted factual articles, removing known facts as part of the amendment process.
Examples: "We have been
inphormed that neutral opinion means yes." "I see the
Phorm Wikipedia entry got inphormed the other day." "
If you mention a company then you are inphorming people that you endorse it."
---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca111
|
What a pity Charles doesn't leave an option to make comments.
Where are the "exaggerated claims" from this forum and The Register? I believe along with many others that Phorm is illegal under RIPA and must be investigated. Nothing exaggerated there. I believe along with many others that BT and Phorm must be bought to book for the secret trials in 2006 and 2007 which broke the Data Protection Act, European Privacy Regulations and RIPA. Where is the exaggeration there? Phorm say they are confident they are legal and have QC opinion (from a hitherto unnamed QC) to confirm that.
Bring on the full legal investigation. Once the full legal investigation has taken its unhindered course I may revise my opinions. Until then I won't.
I believe that Phorm's PR offensive on the web has been based around spin, obstructive and manipulative language. That reflects poorly on a company which as we already know has a murky history. How you behave influences what people think of you. The Guardian's rejection was telling - Phorm didn't fit with their business values. An ethical, trustworthy organisation? Not what The Guardian think.
Charles hasn't defined what he thinks a proper opt-in (and thus an opt-out) would be. That suggests he's either misunderstood things or has just omitted to mention just why so many people are unhappy about Phorm.
MY DATA GOES NOWHERE NEAR PHORM'S SYTEMS
The battle is far from over. Until a full legal investigation happens and (ideally) Phorm are told they are illegal under RIPA this issue may well continue to rumble on.