Paul Delaney

(Sorry for delay in replying)

Maybe you're right - My MP is quite tech-savvy and was really helpful when it came to the slow local bt broadband roll-out scheduling but I've read a couple of times of MP's, due to either not reading or not understanding the issue assuming that it's about P2P file sharing or else failing to reply at all. There's also the instantly denied hidden agendas issue

I forgot that was looming but isn't PIA going to be about how Phorm so care about privacy and they're so privacy conscious it makes people feel all fluffy and warm and can be as relaxing as a radox bath on valium

I'm not sure how they're going to convincingly side step the opt-in consent issue. Regardless of how much they sugar coat the privacy aspects of their system that one operation endorsed by the ICO is going to make or break Phorm. Their business model is reliant on the Internet Service user showing indifference towards (or preferably being unaware of) Phorm's nasty little system. Without a high percentage of data cows to milk - it won't fly!

ICO: "Regulation 7 of PECR will require the ISP to get the consent of users to the use of their traffic data for any value added services. This strongly supports the view that Phorm products will have to operate on an opt in basis to use traffic data as part of the process of returning relevant targeted marketing to internet users."

Phorm: "We believe the approach that we will take to user notice will not only provide for such consent, but will in fact exceed the level of notice provided by anyone else.
We're very confident, as has been the case with the DPA and RIPA, that closer scrutiny will demonstrate that the way in which we obtain consent will substantially exceed any legal requirement."

Wow - that good eh! When they respond with PR designer statements like the one above historically it means "we'll stall you on that issue and hope it goes away because compliance would hamstring our product but we don't want you to think that it will"

In any other scenario merely changing T&Cs does not constitute opt-in consent. That would have to involve some form of action on the user's part like logging on to the site, putting a tick in the check box next to "Sign Me Up for Phorm & General Abuse Now" and clicking Apply Ok - in other words it would need to be agreed to at account level only carried out the once and lasting until you wanted to opt-out.

As usual they will try their best to conceal the fact that this for them represents their biggest problem which, as usual, will result in being be a mostly futile exercise on their part after their PR spin gets the better of them and destroys their argument...

I realise they've dumbed down their PR - but has Kent dumbed himself down (leopard vs spots etc)

So far it has not been that difficult to disarm Phorm because they always highlight aspects of their system that their target audience couldn't care less about in the hope that they'll be so dazzled they'll completely forget about the real problem areas. That's going to happen with the PIA even with Simon's input - it will still be OTT PR driven and delivered to us in a contemptuous manner because that's Phorm's perception of us and it's not difficult to work out the true company policy with regard to us - the user/doner/victim. Kent Ertugrul gave it away at the meeting by refusing to acknowledge Alexander, if the CEO behaves this way it's a fair assumption that this attitude will be prevalent in the board room which, in turn, reflects in company policy - he can be sooo transparent!

Just my 2p

And


Kent Ertugrul must've listened to this a lot as a child...

Prince charming
Prince charming
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of


Kent Ertugrul vs Amy Winehouse

They tried to make me change to opt-in but I said 'no, no, no'
Yes I've been bad but now we're named Phorm I'm white as snow, snow, snow
I ain't got the time - if BT Retail thinks I'm fine
They tried to make me go for opt-in but I won't go go go