Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasanonic
I'd suggest then that the PIA whenever we see it is not worth the paper it is printed on and we as consumers have every right to ignore the findings.
|
That is a very dangerous line to take!
Suppose the PIA pulls the rug out from under Kent's feet. You're giving Kent the perfect excuse to ignore it - "If those opposed to Phorm were prepared to ignore the PIA if they didn't agree with it's conclusions they must consider that it carries little weight, they can't have it both ways and now complain if we chose to ignore it".
I suggest we all stop speculating about what it will or will not say and wait until it is published.
---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
.. and I forgot to mention the secret trials in 2006/7.
From your own ethics statement
"Any instance of deception or dishonesty by an 80/20 client during the course of our work will result in the termination of that relationship"
From your own privacy policy
"We strictly limit the processing of your personal information, and work only with other organizations who do the same."
Given you haven't terminated your relationship with Phorm, should we conclude they made you aware of those secret trials before your engagement commenced?
Or are you ignoring your own ethics statements and privacy policies?
If you were aware of those trials, or you ignore your own ethics... what value do you add to this?
|
Have you any evidence that Phorm engaged in deception or dishonesty
during the course of 80/20's work? That they did so during 2006 and 2007 I would suggest is irrelevant to the current relationship.