[Stuart]

OK.. So on the one side, we have a multi millionaire who stands to make millions more from the sale of targetted ads. Said millionaire intends to install equipment in the ISPs network that will cache (and apparently anonymise) the sites each user visits and serves them ads based upon the sites they visit.

Oddly, despite the company's assurances that they don't process any personally identifiable data outside the ISP's network, they have established data centres in at least one country that doesn't have a strong equivalent to our data protection act, and, indeed, doesn't have a good record on privacy.

In terms of evidence, all this company has so far offered is assurances from themselves (which I take with a pinch of sat due to both the profit motive and the company history) and consultants who, while they have excellent records in the field of privacy, are presumably not working for free, so will profit if the company succeeds.

On the other side of the debate we have someone who has given a lot ot time and made a lot of effort to fight the company owned by the multi millionaire, and who's only profit (AFAIK) is helping people not get spied upon.

Said multi millionaire apparently is unable to answer straight questions, preferring instead to get abusive.

The anti-phorm aliiance (which I count myself amongst) has so far a lot more conclusive evidence. It's not perfect, but it's a lot more than just vague assurances.