[3x2]

Where to start except to say - remind me not to invest on the recommendation of this outfit. The future is bright, the future is Phorm

Phorm’s technology therefore promises to monetise the ‘long tail’ of internet real estate – the 70%-or-so of web pages that currently carry no advertising messages

Assuming of course that the 70% want to "carry advertising messages" and that the big three don't just cut off Phorm's hands when the find them in the cookie jar. I'm already looking for a Apache module that will dump all Phormed requests to a modified 404 page.

The company has received support in principle from the relevant authorities, the Home Office (in respect of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)), and the Office of the Information Commissioner (the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR)), conditional on satisfactory commercial roll-out. We think this endorsement will grow stronger and clearer over time.

Well it's a point of view I suppose.

While the public debate has been vigorous, we think it has been within a narrow, selfreferring constituency, and it has often been poorly informed.

That will be us then? The ones who looked past the Webwise "safer more relevant Internet experience" drivel and asked the awkward questions.

At heart is a conflict – Internet ‘purists’ argue strongly for the right to opt out of all targeted advertising

No, we want to opt out of Phorm - I choose to let Google profile me in return for their search service. The key word here is choice

Phorm management likes to point out the seeming double standard being employed by those who might object to Phorm’s tracking of anonymised browsing behaviour, but who at the same time disregard the far lower
protection standards employed by Google and other search engines

What is it with these people that they cannot distinguish a compulsory, unavoidable Phorm wire tap from my voluntary use of Google?

Phorm received its first encouraging official public endorsement for the integrity of its platform from the UK’s Home Office, ultimately the gatekeeper on matters relating to RIPA (unlike most legislation, criminal prosecutions cannot be brought privately, but can only be brought on recommendations to the DPP by the Home Office).

Interesting statement.

Phorm’s response to this is that any website that has a Google tag can be assumed to be in the public domain, and is accessible by the OIX.

Again the assumption being that Phorm is free to steal anyone's content straight off the wires and use it to build their business. Content providers may have a different view.

it strikes us that Phorm has clearly won the technical argument, and appears also to have won the legal argument,

When did this happen?

after an initial favourable press response, was soon dealing with a firestorm of orchestrated vitriol from disgruntled bloggers, companies and self-styled privacy campaigners.

Phorm has clear potential strategic value to one of the established Internet giants such as Google or Microsoft.

Microsoft and Google in the exchange wire tapping my connection - where do I sign up?

All in all a very interesting read - a couple of points though ..

The assumptions on consumer uptake are based on what exactly? The upper end of 90% seems absurdly optimistic.

Confidence in Phorm's legality and Government backing seem to be equally optimistic.

The report avoids almost completely the issue of content provider co-operation. The view of the "70% long tail" as just an untapped resource ripe for monetisation under our new overlords is a dangerous one. As Kent himself pointed out the net is made up of the big three and a lot of amateurs. Those amateurs cannot be relied upon to tow the line in any situation, especially one where they are coerced.