Quote:
Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking
PI looked at Google and Doubleclick because we've been following those organisations for years and know something about their infrastructure and core business. And, as JohnHorb pointed out, we published a broader overview of online advertising at http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-560974
We (as PI) held off on commenting about Phorm (beyond saying that it should be opt in) and will continue to hold off until we understand the complete operating environment. Once the PIA is in the public domain PI can join other organisations in expressing a full and frank opinion.
Simon |
Yet you still didn't notice the main difference is they are reputable people at the helm also they do not have control over oour internet service.
I wouldn't allow them to monitor my searches if they wre also my ISP.
the fact if I see 10 adverts a month then I have had a bad month I was shocked to hear Kent say hundreds as to me that says his plan it so bombard us with adverts I do not pay for internet connection that is capped to have the bandwidth to be wasted on adverts.
Edited to add another thought.
At present the internet is supplied in a way that anyone caught downloading copyrighted games, movies etc the ISP is in the clear since they say they are the carrier not the content. Once this goes live anyone downloading copyrighted material the ISP then also becomes the accessory as they cannot plead they didn't know.