Quote:
Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking
This point has been raised before, so I'll clarify the situation.
In my Privacy International capacity, I have for some years known and worked with each member of the 80/20 advisory board, and I have a high regard for every one of them.
I knew Ray well before his BT incarnation and even before his UNISYS days, and regard him as a man of enormous energy and intellect who always believed in following an ethical compass.
The vast majority of the advisory board, including Ray, joined 80/20 weeks before I had even heard of Phorm.
I wouldn't accuse you of being a tinfoil hat brigade member, but please do understand that in our view the privacy world is bigger than Phorm, bigger than online targeted advertising and broader than the Web. We certainly don't choose our AB members to suit a small contract involving a tiny part of the global privacy spectrum.
Simon
|
We do seem to be at the mercy of 80/20 since we already know from previous posts that Phorm will use selective extracts to make the system look good. It only takes one bad apple to ruin the load and in this case the bad apple is at the head. The main problem is this bad apple is very good at sales talk and those who only look for £££ do not see the undelying ajenda.
I think the local elections might have been a warning shot to the government and until there is a court case I would say Phorm shouldn't be deployed as any ISP that does could then leave themselves open to prosocution..
The management of Phorm are much wiser than the managment of the ISPs since phorm only incite the crime the ISP actually commits it.