[bigsanta11]

Originally Posted by popper

Omg
related to this invation of privacy and data export.....under Jacqui Smith OC ,no wonder she ignored the Phorm questions.

perhaps a seperate set of questions to the lords on this matter.....

its hard enough getting access yourself, if you were to send a DPA request for any footage of you they might have, and the US gets all this for free .....
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...-allows-spy-uk
"
Secret pact allows the US to spy on UK motorists

Big Buddy is watching y'all

By Egan Orion: Monday, 21 April 2008, 4:16 PM


THE UK Home Secretary secretively signed a "special certificate" last year that gives foreign security agencies real-time access to traffic camera images and related data monitoring British motorists on highways throughout the UK.

Opposition politicians and civil liberties advocates yesterday accused Gordon Brown's government of attempting to hide from Parliament its covert plans to facilitate international surveillance of UK citizens in violation of privacy laws.

Under the authorisation signed last July 4 by Jacqui Smith, video feeds and still images captured from roadside TV cameras, along with personal data derived from them, can be transmitted out of the UK to countries such as the US, that are outside the European Economic Area
......
"

If you watch the third bourne supremacy film,they have a scene where a US security firm are using the cameras in london ,just like what's in that article .

Unbelievable to think that the film was showing something which is now possible.

---------- Post added at 05:51 ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 ----------

Originally Posted by lucevans

BBC Enterprises are allowed to show adverts to non-licence payers as a means of bolstering funding - for this purpose they assume that all UK-resident websurfers are licencepayers and all non-UK surfers are not.
Sadly, I think the latest incarnation of the BBC Charter allows advertising to be pushed at all non-licence payers (they justified it as "helping to keep UK licence payers fees down") and given that they've allowed this mission-creep, they're also likely to be okay with profiling of UK users for the purposes of targeted advertising on sites visited other than www.bbc.co.uk

My personal opinion: Roll-on all-digital TV, when they can do-away with the licence fee and charge those people who actually watch BBC (I'm one) by means of direct subscription, hence continuing the brilliant tradition of advertisment-free, high-quality television in this country.

Come to think of it - I think this is Kent Ertugrul's biggest miscalculation in the whole sorry Phorm affair: He assumed that UK citizens are, in consumer terms, the same as US citizens. What he failed to realise is that, unlike our US cousins, we have a great tradition of high-quality, advertisment-free media content which is funded effectively by subscription (OK - licence fee, but hopefully subscription in the future), This contradicts his business' premise that content services cannot survive without advertising (and therefore Phorm is a necessary evil), so he choses to ignore this inconvenient example of how good the internet could be.

High quality tv, that made me chuckle