Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander Hanff
Let's not forget that children are already regarded as susceptible to advertising which is why tobacco adverts have been banned and there have been restrictions placed on advertising for things like Alcopops. So the very concept of profiling children to target them with behavioural advertising is a serious concern before you even take age of consent into consideration
|
Hello all,
I am another lurker in the shadows who has been following the Phormgate affair, on this and other sites, for the last month but without any original thoughts to contribute. I still don't but this aspect of profiling children does open up a rich train of thought.
Many users would not give a second thought to the eventual consequences to personal privacy of the unholy alliance of Phorm and ISP and would happily accept the patronizing fluff put out by VM and the BT equivalent.
If, however an emphasis was put on the profiling of children they may well view Phorm in a different light. Would it be too strong a comment to say that targeting children would be a lucrative approach from the point of view of advertisers? All parents know the strength of pester power.
Also (unworthy thought) this slant would probably appeal far more to the mass media than the more esoteric technical aspects on which much of the anti-Phorm case is based.
With, possibly, one or two exceptions the national dailies do not have the mindset nor a target audience to appreciate just what it is that Phorm is capable of with the ISP's connivance. A threat to children is another matter.
My two pence for what it's worth.
Martin