[AlexanderHanff]

Simon,

They may have come to you before there was controversy over their current plans, but what about the illegal trials? There was controversy over them a long time before Phorm came to you and even before 80/20 existed.

Furthermore, what is your opinion on Phorm Inc. refusing to divulge what user-agent they intend to use so people can add explicit rules in robot.txt to block them? I suspect they won't be using any special user agent and in fact they will masquerade as the same user agent the user's web request is using.

Another important point is that the system is closed and proprietary so we only have Phorm's word that it will not be used in a way other than described (putting aside for a moment that even their public statements on intended use are horrific). The reality is this technology can be used to do many illegal things and would be pretty much impossible to detect when it does. Why should we trust a company borne out of Spyware not to use the capabilities of their technology as described by themselves in their ICO register entry and their patent application? In fact I will go even further and say why should we trust -any- company irrespective of their reputation, to not use their technology to commit illegal acts that can't be detected, in the name of profit?

How do you feel the possible uses of Phorm's technology (with very trivial changes that would take an experienced sys admin literally minutes to implement) stands in the light of Net Neutrality?

Do you for example deny that Phorm's technology could be reconfigured with ease to block access to ISP's competitors, or competitors to OIX ad platform?

Do you deny that the technology can be used to add noise/latency to competing VOIP products in order to encourage people to use their ISP's own VOIP services (or the services of an OIX advertising partner)?

Alexander Hanff