[D_Advocate]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

@D_A
No-one seems to have welcomed you to the debate yet, an oversight I'm sure..

Many thanks for your welcome, it is much appreciated

Just out of curiosity, based on the fairly aggressive stance of your initial questioning, would you mind giving us your frank opinion on this subject?

I cannot possibly comment on my 'initial questioning', as this will shortly be the subject of litigation. Also, I'm likely to get more points on my Cable Forum licence for breach of the T & C's and might be silenced.

My frank opinion ? ... is based on thinking for myself, and not being effected by all the hype and FUD. I have no objection to getting targeted ad's which suit me, rather than getting ad's which don't.

If that involves inspection of my browsing history/habits, then so be it - I don't see that as a problem, as, as yet, it has not been proven to my satisfaction that identifiable information will be used. If it were proved that the intercepted information was identifiable, I would be concerned.

The same applies to the earlier BT trials in 2006/2007 ... though it is wildly stated that such trials were illegal, I am yet to see or hear proof that they were illegal. Again, if proof does emerge that the trials were illegal, I will be concerned.

It seems to be a common theme of the anti-Phorm/webwise campaign .. lot's of accusations, lot's of techspeak trying to obfuscate the facts, lot's of speculation .. but, IMO, very little real substantiated substance.

To give you a very small, and recent example, in Tom Espiners report to ZDnet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...48963-1,00.htm, he said the following ...

Although BT has strenuously denied that its trials were illegal, Hanff is convinced that they were. On Wednesday, Hanff handed a case file to the City of London Police station in Wood Street, detailing instances where he believes BT broke the law.

"I can't guarantee that BT will be prosecuted," said Hanff. "It's been a nightmare to get anyone to have a look. The police have been saying it's a matter for the Home Office; the Home Office said it was for the police."

Hanff believes BT contravened several laws, including the Computer Misuse Act; the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act; and the Data Protection Act. Hanff said he also believes BT contravened the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.

Note the terms used .. 'convinced', 'believes', 'also believes'. I have seen lot's of that - lot's of 'belief'. When I see irrefutable facts, I may get concerned.

If you read back a few pages you will find a post of mine that gives you some of the information you haven't had an answer to relating to how the protest went btw.

Thanks for that, but the above ZDnet article was more forth coming .. 15 protesters. I rest my case (well, probably not ).

D_A