Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
In case this has not been posted already
http://www.capmarkets.com/ViewFile.a...HRM_230408.pdf
and in particular
"And third, the launch customers – BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media – have
also undergone extensive trialling of the technology, and none are in the business of
taking unnecessary risks on new technology adoption."
|
Is this the Charles Stanley document that brettypoos is going on about on iii.co.uk ? Looks like it.
I think this bears some careful reading. It's an interesting mixture of Kent's spin, and some stuff that "may" represent what is "really" being planned/has "really" been done. Some of the phraseology would be very embarrassing and not what I imagine Kent Ertugrul and the ISP partners would like to see in the public realm - the wolf beneath the Phorm grannie mask? "Grandma what good commercial prospects you seem to have!" "All the better to track you with my dear!"
Significant parts of the document are now out of date, it predates the third ICO statement, it predates the latest FIPR paper by Nicholas Bohm, and it predates today's smart "one step backwards" by the Home Office. It is wildly unrealistic about the legality of Phorm.
It also seems to contradict a number of statements from the ISP's about opt-in/opt-out, and about the relative "firmness" of any relevant contracts between them and Phorm.
It also is technically very light, and fails totally to engage with Richard Clayton's analysis of how the system actually works, and where its security weaknesses are - this document is wildly overoptimistic on security of Phorm.
Various parts of the document might well be worth throwing at the ISP's to ask them if various statements in it are true. They may have to contradict the bits they are definitely embarrassed by and that could be interesting!
For example, the assertions that VM and TalkTalk have conducted trials on Phorm/Webwise. Really? How interesting. When? With whose consent? How many customers affected?
Time for bed methinks.