Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonglet
Ok here ceedee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm thats where i got the information from
"The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."
I actually thought a commissioned report was were some party got paid correct me if im wrong.
so i took bbc's report out of context apologies again to Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.
Satisified ? |
You have to be careful about accepting anything reported on any site as fact unless substantiated by references and citations. All comments should be taken as an opinion of the author and it is far safer to accept them as just that.
It is better to offer counter opinions based on informed knowledge than to continue to attack individuals with spurious allegations of misconduct or misdeed.
I don't doubt you are any more angry than many of us here but we have to offer intelligent and precise counter-argument rather than offer what surely amounts to abuse?
We need to be better than that. Like it or not you have to accept that Phorm Inc. have every right to try and enter this market with their business model and I don't doubt that on some level they will succeed. This is possibly the largest global market that there will ever have been and Phorm will not be the only players. The only thing we can hope to do is to ensure that they do it within the parameters of every applicable law and that we ensure that people operating such systems give non-consensual users every opportunity to be apart and distinct from the technology.
I look forward to the account of tonight's meeting for it will only be afterwards that we are better informed and in a position to discuss where our efforts might be best directed.
---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OF1975
Thats referring to 80/20 thinking who are conducting the PIA and as far as I am aware neither Richard Clayton nor Nicholas Boehm (the two who were invited for the technical analysis meeting and produced the 10 page report) are members of 80/20 thinking.
|
You are of course, correct. Richard and Nicholas were there purely by invitation and in an independent role. I'm of the understanding that areas of their report were amended to correct inaccuracies about the technology and those amendments were agreed by both parties.
That is to be expected and anyone would insist that in such a high stake area nothing is said that is misleading. There must be fairness adopted throughout the whole debate.