Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
Please, everyone, take a minute to consider what I posted before replying:
"It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content."
the ISPs...
I don't care if you don't agree with my statement but please don't misrepresent me.
We can simply and effectively avoid the strongest part of the ISPs defence by steering the debate away from the areas covered by implied consent (published material) and focussing instead on the private messaging services and webmail.
|
you didnt OC mean me with that "
don't misrepresent me" 
now that you have seen that Simon said
explicit consent and not infact Implied consent, then is there a real problem for any IPS's defence of implied consent, .......
personally i think it's good we have someone willing to play devils advocate, after all we do have currently 38 minus one person (that officially stated they changed sides after they learned more about how this effected them and the estimated 70%+ ISP customers) that i assume are willing to advocate this model on some level due to their vote cast (have YOU voted yet, join the thread comments and cast YOUR vote please).
are you one of the shareholders that have been advocating the Phorm model over on iii by any chance oblonsky?, perhaps your infact that brettypoos chap
, no matter, its all good as long as it stays polite and informative.
"
You will have read that we
emphasised that targeted online advertising services should be provided with the
explicit consent of ISPs' users or by the acceptance of the ISP terms and conditions, and undertaken with the highest regard to the respect for the privacy of ISPs' users and the protection of their personal data.
Explicit consent should be
informed consent, informed by a
clear explanation about what the advertising service
does and doesn't do. "