Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffW
So maybe getting as many things added to the black list *is* a good idea - sorry Alexander.
|
I'd suggested we should do this in the past, but I've reflected on what Alexander said about it and I now think this is a very bad idea. If an official blacklist exists, it renders any RIPA notice placed on the front of a website totally ineffective - Phorm would have the defence that they should have requested that their site was added to the black list.
What we should be doing is encouraging as many website owners as possible to place a notice on their site prohibiting interception. If we all do it in our own words to make it difficult for Phorm to automatically detect the notice - so much the better. If the notice is there they have to obey it.
What
should be happening is that Phorm specify either an entry in robots.txt, or a similar file just for this purpose, which permits Phorm and any similar organisations to intercept the traffic for profiling
providing the visitor to the website has also given their informed consent. That is it should be an opt in for websites as well as the Phormed ISPs users.
I'm having a PM conversation with Pete @ dephormation about something that would complement this approach very nicely - I hope he'll have something to announce soon.
---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
Dephormation.org has various webmaster tools available but I haven't examined them yet - I will if Webwise actually goes live. The one I would most like is the Webwise detector, followed by a redirection of the Webwise-using browser by the affected site, to a Phorm/Webwise information page which encourages people to opt out of Webwise, complain to their ISP and offers links to all the various anti-Webwise sites available. Now that is what I call targeted advertising!
|
Funny you should say that! (see the post above)
