Many thanks for your welcome, it is much appreciated
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 ...
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.
Thanks for that, but the above ZDnet article was more forth coming ..
15 protesters. I rest my case (well, probably not
).
D_A