Quote:
Originally Posted by madslug
Free phones already exist, see blyk in EU and sugar mama in USA - both supported by ads. Probably lots more around the world, so what is new about G joining the market?
On the other hand, I use a VoIP phone which allows me free calls without having to see the ads, so why would I go for a phone with ads?
Anyway, this is a distraction. What has viewing ads for a minute a day got to do with all your internet traffic being copied?
It would be news if the free phone came with voice recognition software that serves ads based on your conversations or text messages received or send.
BTW - the voice recognition on mobile phones is next on the list and being followed just as much as phorm. Hopefully, blocking the one will have the same effect on the other. Spyware, tracking and profiling is the same, regardless of the medium.
|
Sorry Madslug, but I think you may be at cross-purposes here. I wasn't referring to the voice stuff per se, I just included that reference as what followed was directly related to the previous sentence.
I was attempting to draw attention to the article where HW said it supported Phorm, but when you read it, it doesn't. The only thing the article put forward was that people might be offered free broadband services in return for having their connection monitored. If this is an optional service and people really want to do it then I see no reason why they shouldn't. (Again this is deliberately ignoring the website aspect).
On a slightly different note, in reference to the US companies dropping the DPI products, this is really what I thought BT would do when news of what they were attempting was brought under public scrutiny. Internal policies are geared to prevent making a fuss from within hence the leak to El Reg.
I obviously gave BT upper management more credit than they deserved, because I was basing my opinion on the middle-management of which I had more day-day knowledge. If some of those managers had a say in the matter then I daresay we wouldn't be in this position today and BT would have wisely dropped this insidious product from their portfolio.
This simply serves to highlight that BT cannot respond to the market quickly enough to compete with US companies in the same space. The only reason they are where they are is because of their previous role as incumbent Telco. Any other business making such blunders would be out on their ear much more quickly but their massive resources and stranglehold buffer them from so much of their real world mistakes that they cannot appreciate just how much people were going to get up in arms about this.
Their recent email correspondence with the ICO made it very clear they were shocked that this storm was still going on. Arrogant management in Ivory towers. I feel sorry for the tens of thousands of BT employees who are horrified about *their* companys' actions in this matter. (I say 'their' because pretty much all full time BT staff are also shareholders).
If anyone other than the ex-BT Retail CEO had just taken over the company then there would have been heads rolling within BT (eventually) as this is perfect political assassination stuff.