Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonHickling
This received today from BT.
I'm pondering my response
|
Simon,
I wonder if we used a real world example to highlight why they cannot assume implied consent? For example autosport.com run a lot of normal news items which are readable by the public however you have to pay a subscription to read their more involved articles. The following is a link on autosports front page but when you follow it you are prompted to log in to read the entire article.
http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/1623
Google will not be allowed to view the content of these subscription articles as they have taken sufficient steps to prevent the article being generally available to the public. You have to log in with your account to view the article and notice that the authentication is not using the HTTP authentication that phorm say they will ignore.
Webwise/Phorm will still profile the content even when you QUITE CLEARLY cannot assume "implied consent".
This is just one example, how many other websites use how many different methods to protect their content? Some will use cookies to authenticate their users (like this forum) some will use server side sessions instead of cookies (this would be my personal choice), some may even use something as primitive as including something in the html code to identify the current user.
The point is that there is no standard way to protect content, it is impossible for them to say that they will recognise every single way people have protected their web pages and therefore cannot assume that they have implied consent.