Quote:
Originally Posted by isf
I could do this if there's sufficient interest although I don't consider robots.txt to be a suitable exclusion method. Phorm isn't a spider and is not indexing publicly linked content. They intercept pages swerved during authenticated user logon sessions. At the very least Phorm should append themselves to the UA string when they strip the phorged domain cookie from the request headers.
|
I agree that there are a lot of things Phorm
should do, but in the event they don't then there are many steps webmasters can take to hamper the ISPs attempt to make money off the back of people's private data and other people's content.
I trust that the ISPs will ensure that Phorm complies with robots.txt. Their argument for implied consent is weak already but disappears entirely if webmasters are serving them a DENY ALL robots.txt.
In the unlikely event that Phorm does get rolled out, and is allowed by the regulators, it would be suicide if an ISP was found to be breaching other people's copyright by ignoring the robots.txt.
Other steps webmasters will be taking will be to detect Phormed connections so that they can educate visitors what their ISP is doing with their data.
Without the online community behind this, Phorm and the ISPs simply cannot win. They have chosen to confront this head on, with PR agencies and hardcore lobbying of parliament, dismissing the anti-Phorm campaign as ill conceived noise.
This will be Phorm and BTs undoing, chosing to fight the very people whose support they most need. Chosing to run trials in secret and attempting an equally quiet and secretive roll-out.
Without this campaign, the ICO would not even have gone so far as to rule that Phorm must be opt-in, and that consent muts be clear and unambiguous. THis was a major victory for us, let's not forget that.