Quote:
Originally Posted by vicz
Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).
There was also the issue of 'hidden' URLs not designed to be linked to. And of course the blacklists of webmail services, and agent types that we have never been allowed to see.
Maybe we should re-visit some of the original key issues lest they are forgotten.
|
Nope - I've had no answers on that. They have said they won't do it, "and of course BT is an honourable company" so of course I believe them (Julius Caesar, apologies to Brutus, at least he's dead and won't sue me for defamation).
Of course you can just copy the details of the official ADMISSION that Phorm were hosting the contact page, which several of us have received, and the Dephormation logs about bt.com cookies, and the details of the overseas hosting, and the lack of listings of US partners on Safe Harbor, and then ask if all that was explained to the ICO - and I suspect the correspondence might dry up - or end with the "it's all legal cos Ernst and Young said so". And Ernst and Young of course are honourable men too, just got some dodgy friends and a few US judges who don't like them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicz
Did they ever answer the question over exactly how they will supposedly avoid processing password protected forums? I remember K*nt saying they would not process password protected content, but I don't remember him saying how. The reason I bring this up is that it is one area where consent to view can be definitely shown to have been denied. (There is always the argument of a reasonable expectation of consent for 'published' website even if subsequently found to have disclaimers).
In order to guarantee that they have not visited a Password Protected Site, I believe they would have to look at the Form Fields.
I thought I read or heard in one of the interviews, that this is something this system is supposed to avoid? (could be wrong though, it's difficult to keep up with this thread & others.)
|
Yes, they claim not to look at form fields. But then of course if that is turned into an http GET request, (like on a google search box) then they DO look at that, because they have admitted collecting google search strings that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe
Exactly so that is what happened on the BT beta forum and finnished with bans an thread closure but thanks to the few that remained they kept it rolling and I am pleased to see that it is once again gaining momentum .Many thanks to the many contributers to all the main forums especially the cross posters as it gives a more united appearance to those who are against this privacy intrusion.
Where can I but an anorak anyone?
Tarquin  |
What about anoraks as the official uniform for the demo?