Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
People need to realise that it is not -their- responsibility to make Phorm's technology legal, it is the ISP's responsibility. They have to get your consent to intercept your communications, their rubbish about implied consent from web publishers is exactly that, rubbish. The only reason I am suggesting people explicitly deny consent on their web pages is to just guarantee that the ISP cannot even go near the implied consent argument for their defence.
Contacting the ISPs and asking to be added to a blacklist is insane. What are you going to do if the technology gets deployed by more and more ISPs around the world? Are you going to write to every single one to get added to yet another blacklist?
Alexander Hanff
|
I hear your point Alexander but I think a "confused" situation probably benefits US more than it benefits the Phorm/Webwise/ISP end.
For example, my sites have a text statement banning Webwise. Because I've been making a nuisance of myself with my own ISP BT, and told them they did NOT have my consent to profile my data exchange with visitors, they have voluntarily added me to their blocklist.
But I haven't told VM or Talk Talk. And I don't expect BT to tell them, I haven't given them permission to do so. So VM and TalkTalk will have to work out their own way of noting my body text ban on Webwise as no one is providing robots.txt or meta-tag methods of banning Webwise and no one is actually thinking of how to ASK webmasters for consent. So I can still watch out for Webwise visits when the system goes live (which I hope it never will).
I'm choosing not to correspond with VM or TalkTalk which is my choice. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I actually don't think BT can honour that offer to individually add sites to their blocklist - they'd be swamped and they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it - I'd love them to discover that quickly - I'm anxious for them to have a really stressful "Webwise ISP management and feedback experience".
but if you think there are genuine legal reasons to avoid this approach then fine - I'm not a lawyer. And I'm still grateful for your advocacy on this!