Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
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.
|
Yes, I knew this. I "think" we're in agreement?
The ISP's are claiming that webwise fulfils explicit informed consent on the part of the surfer/ISP customer. (We are challenging that on the basis that they will need to give us a heck of a lot of inphormation for it to be phully inphormed consent - a lot more than "anti-phishing and relevant adverts"
They are "assuming" implied consent on the part of the website operator.
(We are challenging that on the basis that allowing search engines is NOT the same as allowing Webwise, and anyway there are a shedload of problems - such as websites who specifically say they don't allow Webwise, such as webmail sites not on the blacklist, such as protected parts of sites and whether Phorm/Webwise can detect/distinguish them - etc etc - list is quite long including Dephormation's copyright arguments)
And anyway - before we get into that there are fundamental reasons (Alex Hanff etc) why the whole thing is illegal in the first place, on the grounds of the fundamental interception required and the level at which that interception occurs.
Am I summing this up right?