Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 23-05-2008, 02:44   #7042
icsys
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Services: Virgin - BB,TV,Phone Sky box - with no sub Freeview - idtv
Posts: 270
icsys is just really niceicsys is just really niceicsys is just really niceicsys is just really niceicsys is just really niceicsys is just really nice
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
I don't want to get into any spats, but I'm really uncomfortable with the personal criticism of Simon Davies that is going on here. I don't think the world will come to an end if we just wait to see what happens with the PIA.

We can disagree with actions that 80/20 may have taken, but I do get uneasy when that turns into personal remarks and they certainly don't take our campaign forward. The guilty parties here are the ISP's and Phorm.

Just my penn'orth.
This is not intended to be personal criticism but Simon appears to actually have three caps...

1...his 80/20 cap - (80/20 Thinking)
2...his 'Privacy Campaigner' cap - (Privacy International)
3...his FIPR cap - (A member of the advisory panel of the Foundation for Information Policy Research)

1 - 80/20 praises Phorm on how it 'protects privacy'. However, the final PIA may change this.
2 - Privacy International says 'Phorm is not endorsed'.
3 - FIPR says 'technology is illegal'.

If correct, that does appear to be quite a conflict of interest.

With regard to the Home Office guidance note on Phorm:
I note paragraph 20 which states that the service should be provided with the explicit consent of ISP's users or by the acceptance of the ISP's terms and conditions, and paragraph 21 which states that the ISP's users' consent can be obtained expressly by acceptance of suitable terms and conditions.

The above would suggest that it is possible for the ISP's to fall foul of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) - Regulation 5(5) 1. (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract - if T&C's are changed without proper written notification.

It is also possible that if Phorm's interception of the ISP users web surfing is proved to be illegal then consent obtained expressly by acceptance of terms and conditions will render that contract void and the contract terms are not enforceable. A contract which cannot be performed without doing something illegal is void.
icsys is offline