[Traduk]

Alex,

Well done in the "Click" program.

There is no way that I have the confidence, courage or fortitude to go face to face on national TV, but there was one point he made that would have been a Godsend to my line of arguement.

Sites know and register IP's that visit. The custodian of the identity behind that IP is our ISP and we trust them to only release our true identity under legally appropriate demands, supported with a court order. ISP's are our gateway keepers and are in a position where we place in them a very high level of trust.

Although the anonymity arguement, with Phorm, tries to assuage the fear of loss of trust, it is the principle that the ISP's will sell our data for thirty pieces of silver that IMO makes them untrustworthy. I suspect that Phorm is the beginning of a slippery slope of exploitation and if the ISP's are to retain integrity they must reject exploitation before it begins.

If it's of interest..... years ago many ISP's were temporarily black-listed as they were open to "spam relays". That issue was resolved very quickly because ISP's could have been destroyed. The modern internet is fairly useless without major search engines and it would\could be more than interesting if "Google" et al banned IP blocks from data miners like Phorm. We tolerate what Google does because we need their service but we do not need Phorm and Google presumably do not need a parasite feeding off of them. Search engines block the parasitic IP's and problem solved in the blink of an eye.