Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
OK let me clarify a little. Say for example you are searching on Google for a family member who shares the same surname, or you are searching for information about yourself; those search terms will be profiled based on the BT explanation posted. So clearly stating that no identifiable information is taken from search forms is incorrect. That was my only point, just a simple example of how those search terms can actually contain personal information.
My other point was that even if you never use anything which might be considered as personal information, you can still be identified from your searches as happened with one elderly woman in the US who was identified and tracked to her home address as a result of her anonymised search data being leaked by AOL.
So my post was more about the inaccuracies of BT's FAQ as opposed to anything ground breaking or new.
Alexander Hanff
|
Okay I've got you now. A general point that the Phorm/Webwise collection/profiling that is going on, must include a lot of personally identifiable information (including google search items in Get requests- they can't prevent it (just as the BTYahoo cookies include our post-codes, and they are shorter than US zip codes but Kent forgot that) - and that all that information DOES end up in the profiling machinery under a Phorm UID, even if Kent tells us it doesn't. And if he feels like it, he can do what he likes with it once he's got it (or some "associates" have obtained it by whatever means they choose, CD's in the post, laptop in a taxi, server maintenance crew etc. "taking a backup", essential BT Webwise network "maintenance" on BT servers - sorry correct that - FASTHOSTS servers etc etc).
I can understand that and agree.
And as for the BT FAQ being inaccurate - I took that for granted anyway. I'm a long time connoisseur of BT customer informationl. The Webwise stuff is up to their usual low standard.