Am not as upset by Simon's stance. We all know his company is hired by Phorm so that is not a revelation and with the CV's of everone in 8020 I don't think it is fair to jump to a conlusion of them just being hired goons to do as they are told.
Yes Simon did seem happy for Phorm to go ahead, but (and I think it is a relevant but) he did state (even on that video clip) that he see
a way in which Phorm could be deployed. That does not mean that he (or 8020) approved of Phorm going ahead in its current state; only that there was a method of having the system available and working within all of mentioned legal/ethical constraints.
If you look at 8020's main statement on their website, you'll read that they advertise themselves as being consultants to guide a company and make it aware of its responsibilities and to make it comply with what is ethical and legaa in terms of privacy etc. In a way that's a brilliant thing, as they are working on the inside of Phrom to help shape it into a more acceptable product, and the company is getting paid in the process.
Personally, I can't really think of any more capable hands I would rather be at the wheel of steering Phorm into the seas of acceptability to the ISP's customers than Simon et al's (except maybe Alexanders
) - it's the best thing we have to having someone working on the inside.
Best case scenario is of course, the ISP's say "actually, forget all of this Phorm idea". But the more likely one is perhaps that Phrom will change to a more acceptable Opt-in (where non opt-ins dont touch any kit of Phorms period), and I think that stands better changes of happening with 8020 in their ear.
Obviously it is wrong for me, or anyone else to say your opinions or interpertations are wrong - I just felt the need to offer mine in contrast