Quote:
Originally Posted by fidbod
Just got back from the meeting
Great work by Alex, didn't seem fazed by the event and put across a strong case against.
Dr Clayton also very good. Unequivocal that the process is illegal under RIPA and deeply objectionable from a privacy perspective
Kent was as you would expect - On message and deeply disingenuous!!! He has the politicians habit of answering a question by talking about anything but the subject of the question.
He also spent a lot of time trying to portray Phorm as being good for internet as a whole on the basis that it will lead to a fairer distribution of revenue from advertising. It basically translated as google make lots of money, I want some of it.
The techie from Phorm seemed honest, his main purpose seemed to be rebuttal of Richard Clayton - which was far from convincing
Quote of the evening
Kent: "contrary to popular rumour the guardian has not dropped Phorm..."
Charles Arthur: " Hi, Charles Arthur from the Guardian. Our senior commercial chappies have told everyone we are not having anything to do with Phorm. Are they misleading us?"
Kent: cue furious backpedalling similar to that seen by a politician who has been caught out.
|
Well done on attending and thanks for the update.
I don't doubt that Kent's backsliding and jinking was in evidence. He does after all hold a Bachelor's degree in Politics from Princeton University.
I pointed out similar in #3461
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post3461.html
Are you able to elaborate on anything mentioned in the much curtailed q&a?