feesch-
Quote:
Originally Posted by feesch
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
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. |
I'm amazed that you link to articles such as the junkbusters article above, and then in the same breadth say that it is 'something we will need to see' whether there is some way around the law - and then expect us to support it.
Quote:
|
DoubleClick seems to have convinced the FTC that it did not actually associate names and addresses with its previously anonymous cookies, despite the fact that this was their stated intention prior to their backdown in March. Even assuming that DoubleClick did not actually get around to matching up any of its massive stockpiles of online and offline data, they are still technically able to do so, and they continue to collect huge amounts of identified and identifiable information in ways that are unfair and unacceptable violations of privacy. And the practices of DoubleClick and other ad companies could go from bad to worse at any time, particularly in the case of competitors who have been quieter about what they do and subject to less scrutiny. The FTC's action did not respond to the relief requested in EPIC's complaint, that the DoubleClick be permanently enjoined from linking cookies to names without consent. It's deplorable that there is still no law restraining these enormous databases of clickstreams and transactions. The FTC's investigation resembles a hypothetical case where the police cleared a company called the Molotov Cocktail Lounge after finding warehouses full of empty bottles and stolen gasoline -- in a country where theft and arson aren't illegal unless the perpetrator promised not to steal or incinerate particular goods.
|
Laws relating to privacy concerns are there because people don't want their privacy violated. This is a fundamental human right, and is enshrined in both EU and UN human rights charters. Furthermore, if people do not feel confident about their privacy (online or otherwise) then this will affect the information they divulge, the technology they use, and the business they do transactions with - all of which may negatively damage the economy.
Privacy laws are not some problem which need to be worked around or rescinded. They are something to be cherished and re-enforced. If Phorm and related spyware technologies are incompatible with privacy legislation and the expectations of the public, then they must be stopped. It is they who have to change.
PS: You still haven't answered my questions in post #13116. What, specifically, do you think of Phorm's conduct in terms of ethics?