Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo
I don't think that's right vicz.
The ICO are not balancing the rights of legitimate business and the consumer at all.
One good example is when, straight after the leaked 2006 document was produced, the ICO made the statement that they still think BT did nothing wrong. The evidence of wrong doing was all there.
They still refuse to take action. That is not balanced at all.
|
I didn't say that they
had been balanced, but that their role is to be balanced. The relationship with BT must have been a bit like being married to an axe murderer - confronted with the evidence of evil there is a reluctance to believe it until it is so overwhelming it can no longer be denied. BT made soothing noises, the ICO believed them. Hopefully they won't get fooled again.
They still refuse to take action - One of the legislative weaknesses is that no-one appears to believe it it their responsibility to prosecute wrongdoers. This probably reflects chronic underfunding as much as anything else. The ICO seem to think that a public admonishment is sufficient to shame a company into behaving properly. Unfortunately we have seen that some companies have no shame...
---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTLVictim
Quick technical question; is THIS any help? |
Its probably a bit extreme for the casual browser (the Onion Router) More info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing but if phorm-a-like companies do manage to proliferate around the web I can see this or some other mechanism for a generally encrypted/obfuscated web as being the only way to go.