Quote:
Originally Posted by dav
As with BT there needs to be full disclosure about any trials that have been carried out. What kind of and how was informed consent obtained (easy for BT; none), who was tracked, how many were tracked, how long the trials were, what was the user feedback etc.
Drip-feeding information just looks as if they have something to hide. The smart money is on that they do have something to hide.
A question for the more legally literate...if people find that they live in a trial area, can they submit a DPA request to find out what information on them was harvested? If the ISP replies that we don't know if you were Phormed or not, is it legally possible to make the case that the law has to assume the user was subject to this invasion of privacy? Furthermore, by extension, does the law then have to assume that every user in that area was subjected to data interception and processing simply because the ISP cannot fulfill the requirements of the DPA request?
|
Good post dav. It is the legal approach that will stop Phorm or bring its plans to a grindingly slow pace. Share holders will continue to get the jitters and before you know it noone will touch this Company with a bargepole. In fact, if the penny hasn't dropped yet with potential investors that this is one very hot potato, then they deserve to lose all that they hoped to gain.
Let's not waste any more effort or energy on Phorm. The ISP's are respectable Companies that should respond to their customers wishes. They can remain solvent through our subscriptions, there's no need to be greedy and attempt to sell that which doesn't belong to them.