Quote:
Originally Posted by 3x2
I think this is the key problem I have with the technology. It is so obviously skating thin ice as far as the law is concerned. The problem seems to be which laws should apply. We see Phorm and BT playing one set of laws against another, one department against another. The one thing this debate has illustrated is that the (new?) law needs to be much clearer.
There will be a host of companies waiting in the wings once Phorm is in general use and you can bet that their proposals will be way beyond anything currently proposed by Phorm.
|
Indeed. We are the thin edge of the wedge and Phorm are doing their utmost to convince the FTC in the US that they comply with all their rules on behavioural targeted advertising. What's more worrying is that I understand that the FTC are looking to legitimise behavioural targeting as an acceptable medium.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080414/20080414006002.html?.v=1
My main issue with the whole process has always been this.
Quote:
|
The company also strongly supports a standard of transparent notice and informed choice that would permit users to make a meaningful decision whether to switch off Phorm’s service. Phorm points out that this standard is common practice and is understood by industry and consumers without being overly burdensome.
|
I still fail to see how the proposed technology allows for a user to truly 'switch off' Phorm's service as there seems no way as of yet to be a proposed system to allow Virgin users to avoid the DPI system regardless of the fact we will not be served the adverts. I think this is where any legal challenge must be levelled however we simply can not begin to prepare such a challenge until the technology is in operation and we understand how Virgin are implementing it because as yet it is just conjecture.
I also think it is time to move away from the 'personally identifiable information' point as Phorm quite possibly do comply within the law on this and it is why all of their statements continue to roll out the spin. Far less clear is the 'interception of communications' point and I feel this is where a battle can be fought unless of course the law lords change the goalposts on us. I don't doubt that the government will see this as a technology that should be implemented and not for any surreptitious snooping activity they can tap in to ( I don't believe they need to, they will have that already covered IMO ) but purely because of the huge tax revenue to be had from this market.