Quote:
Originally Posted by lardycake
I don't think this has been mentioned on here yet (thanks to madslug on BadPhorm forums for spotting it):
Change to webwise FAQ http://www.webwise.com/how-it-works/faq.html
"What about FIPR's analysis of the legality and RIPA?
We don't agree with FIPR's analysis. And its description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We've sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). We discussed our system with the ICO prior to launching it and continue to be in dialogue with the organisation."
I find it rich that they accuse FIPR of inaccurately describing the phorm system, in the light of phorms own inaccurate description of the system to Richard Clayton. I think it is an indication of how BT will try to discredit opponents of phorm/webwise. |
I suppose FIPR can always say that they had to rely on Clayton 1.0, and ICO 1.0 whereas we are now on Clayton 1.3 and ICO 1.3. Clayton 1.3 of course had to be issued because Phorm had a sudden rush of blood to the head and remembered there were more browser redirects than they had originally told Dr Clayton about in the first version.
---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------
Re: password protected sites
I have no explanation of HOW BT Retail claim to do this, but I do know that they claim they won't be going past password logins. Haven't time to look it up but you may find it on the Webwise FAQ.
It's when you ask "HOW" that they clam up. And quite often it means that when you really look at what they have said, it doesn't quite say what they hope you think it said. They are very good at being vague.
|
I've now found the relevant bit of an email from BT about this: (from Director, Value Added Services)
Now let me try to allay your concerns as to what will happen with the private, password protected areas of your own website……
First of all let me say that we completely understand the potential concerns of some website owners, who have sensitive/private/password protected websites or areas on their website, and are taking the necessary steps to ensure that password protected sites are excluded from this service and no information will be scanned from these pages. We are also excluding a range of more sensitive categories for example medical, religious and gambling websites. We are also taking steps to ensure that those websites that do not want search engines to 'crawl' them (by the use of robots.txt) will also be excluded from the Webwise service.
And here is the extensive explanation from the BT Webwise FAQ
http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/help.h...14,15,16,17,18
Actuallly it's so extensive, it's worth quoting in full
"BT Webwise does not scan password-protected content so it is ignored."
Richard Clayton Mark 3 (after Phorm phessed up to misleading him)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080518-phorm.pdf
refers to this briefly in para 37, p5
---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
The entire comment is completely untenable given the fact that they had the opportunity to correct any errors (and reportedly did so) before Dr Clayton published the analysis. The published document was agreed to be accurate by Phorm themselves.
Alexander Hanff
|
Did you mean Clayton or Bohm here Alexander?
the problem is that the Phorm goalposts are sliding sideways at the moment, a bit like the ad boards go up and down on the side of the pitch. As Dr Clayton is finding - having to constantly revise his analysis because Phorm keep "remembering" things they forgot to tell him earlier.