Quote:
Originally Posted by rryles
It's just an interesting exercise to consider how they could try and work round problems. Invariably it shows that they are likely to come up with other problems.
|
This is actually a very useful approach and I think should be used more against BT in particular. (It won't work against Phorm)
1 - demonstrate that their current proposals on Webwise are illegal/insecure/technically unworkeable or preferably all 3 (we've done that)
2 - make an informed guess about alternative ways they might do it.
3 - wait a while (so that they get committed to exploring the alternatives)
4 - point out that the alternatives they might be exploring, are also illegal/insecure/impossible
5 - go back to 2 and repeat
I like to give them a month or so between cycles.
It is also important to intersperse, simultaneously, a spattering of (valid and justifable) regulatory complaints at strategic intervals, preferably from different directions - ICO one month, Ofcom the next, so that as they are working on a "new" solution to try and retrofit Webwise for legality, they simultaneously have to invest a lot of time arguing that the previous solution was not illegal - they have to do this at the same time as they are devising a NEW solution because actually they already know the original solution WAS illegal, but can't admit it. The potential for wrong emails/briefings going to the wrong people is enormous because they are having to think about diametrically opposed things at the same time.
Certainly from the public statements from BT that we have seen in various media, there is every evidence to conclude that at BT, this has already happened.
Think of it as ordering a suit from the tailor, and then sending in a different member of your family every time you go for a fitting. Eventually the tailor will become completely confused- you may even drive him completely mad. Obviously you would not want to do this to any tailor unless he had really upset you in the past.
Then, there is of course my former flatmate's utlimate nuclear deterrent method for dealing with awkward organisations with a toxic bureaucratic structure, and a lot of inefficiency and leakage.
Start to refer, threateningly, to non-existent correspondence. This method is explained clearly in the management training film (released as a commercial cartoon entertainment) called "Asterix and the 12 Tasks" - where Asterix, after being given the run-around in a manner which anyone familiar with customer service phone messaging systems will recognise, eventually asks for a Permit A39 as stipulated in circular B65 (or something similar). Neither documents actually exist, and the building eventually explodes or collapses with all the staff running out into the Via Whateverus gibbering and screaming.
Footnote - the above paragraph was a joke. (but only the above paragraph). The rest is serious.
---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
Astonishing TV interview with Tim Smart CEO of BT Global Services UK.
Tim Smart discusses benefits and downsides of surveillance. Mentions monitoring verbal conversations and delivering contextual advertising based on the content of the conversation.
States that the challenge is making sure both parties to conversation find it acceptable.
Watch here (click on chapter 5 and 19 to skip to Tim Smarts piece) |
I wonder what his email address is? FirstnameDOTlastnameATbtDOTcom ? like the usual format?
Tim Smart deserves mail.
Update - I got an immediate reply and have initiated a correspondence. Can't quote at the moment. We'll see how it goes.
If you do email him, be polite. I was impressed at the speed of the reply.