Quote:
Originally Posted by thebarron
See may post above : The sensative parts of my websites can only be viewed once logged on. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on and therefore cannot know the data has implied consent or not. I do not need meta tags or robots.txt to prevent Google from seeing this data as Google (other search engines) cannot see them. If I have to use meta tags or robots.txt then I am being asked to Opt-Out which is not legal!
|
Exactly. Phorm cannot know if the user has logged on.
---------- Post added at 06:54 ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
BT have said to me that their Webwise will not profile pages that are password protected - ie behind a logon. They havne't explained HOW that works, and of course the basic interception of the traffic (though not the profiling in theory) still occurs anyway if the visitor is a Webwise user.
|
They haven't explained how it will work because it cannot work. Phorm have indicated that they will password authentication, which can be taken to mean Basic Authentication (RFCs 1945 & 2616) and Digest (RFCs 2069 & 2617).
But so many websites now use bespoke cookie-based authentication mechanisms that it will be a challenge to say the least to work out and ignore each of these.
---------- Post added at 07:00 ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
I agree that the real issue is the legality of the interception in the first place, and the need for explicit, informed, rather than implied consent, but I am trying to challenging the way even their "implied" consent model works.
|
The "implied" consent applies only to the website owner. Not the user. The user must still give informed consent. And even this model falls apart because of protected content. This is leads to a very powerful argument against Phorm.
---------- Post added at 07:08 ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMHarman
No it is not. This is a small cap, thinly traded stock with high volitility. When you buy or sell you are likely to be doing it through a market maker that needs to hold inventory to be able to make that market. Market makers don't like holding inventory that costs them money, a cost to carry and a cost or risk of price falling to less than you paid. To mitigate this latter risk the spread, the difference between buying and selling prices widens.
|
It's also a small cap with a volatile history and lots of people watching it, making it relatively easy to influence the price. I really don't think anyone involved with Phorm would be silly enought to cross the line into market abuse knowing so many of you guys were watching the stock. More likely speculation growing that they're closing in a deal with an American ISP. AT&T have been touted as a potential partner during roadshows.
---------- Post added at 07:14 ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumulus
Can I suggest a clear distinction is made between the 2006 and 2007 trials as the technology did differ considerably e.g. PageSense parsing pages with Javascript, and ProxySense being server-based (and therefore more like Webwise).
IANAL and I don't know whether this is significant legally but perhaps it is?
|
It is believed that JavaScript can get around intercept laws e.g. Googlemail (even though gmail servers are based abroad so not covered by UK intercept laws). The script reads the page after it has been "opened" by the user therefore is not intercept but a consent for someone to come to your house and watch you opening your mail.
HOWEVER because the JavaScript was most likely injected at the ISP level then there would then still be some level of intercept involved to achieve that.