Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
The law says intercepting communications is illegal.
The law says copying content without a licence is illegal.
The law says misuse of computers is illegal.
The law is sufficient to make Phorm illegal to operate.
At risk of putting words into Peter's mouth...
There is no scope for negotiation or compromise. Nothing to "work through".
Privacy, security, and integrity of data communications must not be violated by unethical parasitic advertising systems.
Last time people met to discuss Phorm, we were promised a video, but apparently Kent doesn't want that made public. |
I am not a lawyer, and that is something we will need to see if can be upheld, or if there is some way around either the law or their method of operations to come within the law. Surfice to say DoubleClick got around it,
http://www.junkbusters.com/new.html#DCLK
and even more recent Google did with hedging off length of time they needed to store cookies - the fact that data can be passed to police before they needed to clear their cache, or users accessing Google refreshes their date of access, just shows what an ass the law is in legislating privacy concerns.
Agree on 'unethical' aspects. Can't state that advertsing per se is unethical though, and that is the role of the ASA to ensure that.