Hi all.
Heres an interesting read.
The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) has today, 24th April 2008, sent the Home Office in-depth legal analysis [pdf] of the Phorm behavioural advertising system. The analysis has been produced by FIPR’s General Counsel (and ORG Advisory Council member) Nicholas Bohm, and complements the technical analysis produced by Richard Clayton earlier this month [pdf].
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...vice-on-phorm/
Direct link to the analysis is here:
http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf
I would like to draw your attention to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in particular.
---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenheart
I've had a reply this morning from the British Bankers Association, I wrote to them and highlighted the potential of Phorm and how it could affect the new Banking Code.
They thanked me for my concerns, and have passed my letter on to the trade association for internet banking APACS, and have asked them to reply to me directly.
As soon as I hear any more I'll keep you posted.
|
I wrote to Bank Safe Online regarding Phorm. This is what they had to say:
Thank you for your email. Please note that banksafeonline is operated by
APACS on behalf of the UK banking industry to provide general advice on
online banking security, and we are not a financial institution.
The banking industry is aware of Phorm and will be observing the results
of the pilot with interest to ensure that customer security is not
compromised. Our understanding is that the Phorm service ignores HTTPS
and does not break ssl sessions. A broken ssl session would in any case
be readily detectable, as it would result in customers being presented
with a Phorm/webwise certificate rather than the one from their bank.
Beyond that we are unable to comment.
Best wishes
APACS Internet Fraud Response Team