Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
If VM and TalkTalk agreed that BT would do the trials, and if the trials were illegal, then it would seem as if VM and TalkTalk would be in legal difficulty too. I imagine if BT were being prosecuted all on their lonesome, someone might just manage to find the minutes of the meetings involving VM orTalkTalk, that could give them some company in the dock. (That's company in both meanings of the word!)
|
I doubt very much that VM or TT are doing anything other than a 'wait and see'. There would be no way that there would be some collusion as they are all vying for a piece of the same pie with limited ingredients.
For BT to undertake costly trials and then hand this information out to business rivals makes no sense.
I expect it's nothing more than VM saying at board level "hey, let's do nothing until we see if BT get away with their plans, if they do then we can go ahead, if they don't then we can walk away scott free and claim the moral high ground by telling our wonderful customers we won't have that nasty Phorm"
---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
Technical question. If Phorm works by setting cookies with the Webwise UID, is there anything to stop 'Anti-Phorm' web sites (including, hopefully, CF) reading this cookie with client-side script and generating a pop-up warning:-
Warning - you are being Phormed and your 'anonymous' WebWise ID is 123456789ABCDEF
If this works, it should throw some doubt in even non-technical users' minds on the assertion that the ID is anonymous and cannot be tied back to the user.
|
As I understand it the website can never see the webwise UID