From Baphorm - a blog about what Phorm appear to get up to in South Korea. It is an email thread relating the tale of someone allegedly a Phorm VP, exploiting old Doubleclick contacts in S Korea to garner some contacts/intro's in S Korea so they could allegedly do some 4-6 week trials of their technology. The guy gets strung along, promised a paid hotel room in Seoul for a face-toface meeting - spends time and money going to Seoul, but Phorm allegedly never pay for the hotel room and never turn up. Hotel boot him out.
This is certainly compatible with the Phorm we know.
http://therealsouthkorea.wordpress.c...ok-not-to-use/
Enjoy. Of course - I cannot verify this. It may not be true. Decide for yourself.
If it is true, is this the sort of company BT want to keep?
---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
That's fascinating. I'm getting much the same result with the Home Office. My FOI is currently under 'internal review' at the Home Office.
Simple questions to answer. Who asked for advice, when did they ask for it, what was the request & reply. Why should that be difficult to answer? 
Regards the ICO response, they just don't seem to 'get it'. You can't guarantee to me you can anonymise a block of data from the internet, its not possible. Your web traffic is personal data; BT/Phorm processed it, QED. And how do they decide there was no privacy risk without a critical analysis of the evidence of leaking profile information in forums and blogs.
ICO shouldn't be dabbling in stuff they don't understand. They need to hire independent expertise if they don't understand the internet. They are hopeless, absolutely incompetent to be regulating BT/Phorm. |
In addition- they repeat the assertion that no one suffered significant harm - which Stephen Mainwaring would disagree with, and they know that.