[phormwatch]

feesch

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the majority of people opposed to Phorm's intrusive technology are somehow anti-technology luddites, and believe the advertising doesn't work.

Either you genuinely misunderstand our arguments or you are being disingenuous.

To re-enforce what's already been said, we are not anti-technologists or luddites. In fact, many of us are 'geeks'. We love IT and technology. Many of us work in IT or technology related fields and hold degrees in IT or technology.

Secondly, we did not say that advertising doesn't work (though many of us, myself included, studiously avoid advertising whenever possible). What we are opposed to is the method of advertising delivery used by Phorm. The technology is intrusive and almost certainly illegal.

Finally, you claim to be concerned about the ethical side of marketing. What do you think of BTs covert trials using Phorm's technology in 2006 and 2007, and BTs subsequent lies about it? Do you think the 'product' which 121Media produced called 'PeopleOnPage' was ethical? If so, do you disagree with the decision of anti-virus companies to label it 'Spyware'? Finally, do you think it was appropriate/ethical for Kent/Phorm to organise a 'Town Hall Meeting' with technologists and the press in order to have an 'open debate' about Phorm, claim that the whole event will be filmed and released on the web shortly afterwards, and then subsequently refuse to release the video when the meeting put Phorm in a bad light?

I'm genuinely interested in your responses to these questions. Do you talk to Kent often? Have you discussed these things?