Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch
That's great, feesch, but I see you studiously avoided answering the questions.
Here is a 'reminder' of what PeopleOnPage is, and its behavour:
"121media, the former name of Phorm, has had its products described as spyware.[9] As 121Media it distributed a program called PeopleOnPage[10], which was classified as spyware by F-Secure.[11] PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a root kit called Apropos[10][12], which used tricks to prevent the user from removing the application and sent information back to central servers regarding a user's browsing habits.[13]
In November 2005 the Center for Democracy and Technology in the US filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over distribution of what it considered spyware, including ContextPlus. They stated that they had investigated and uncovered deceptive and unfair behaviour. This complaint was filed in concert with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Internet Center, a group that was filing a similar complaint against Integrated Search Technologies with Canadian authorities.[14]
In May 2006 ContextPlus shut down its operations and stated "[Contextplus are] no longer able to ensure the highest standards of quality and customer care". The shutdown came after several major lawsuits against adware vendors had been launched.[15] Phorm has countered this with an admission of a company history in adware and the closing down of a multi-million dollar revenue stream as people confused adware with spyware.[13]"
Is it really 'difficult' for you to see that 'deceptive and unfair behaviour' of software classified by anti-virus vendors as 'Spyware' is unethical?
>Ok, the second issue something I often discuss in my presentations. What web 2.0 has done (starting with ratings/reviews by Amazon) is given the consumer a voice-back to the advertiser. No longer is advertsing a single-way. If advertisers expect two-way interaction, then they alos have to be preapred for negative fall-out. This is new and most do not know how to handle effectively I agree. The only ensible option, to remain credible, is to show the problems and then offer solutions and to embrace any comments as constructive criticsm and feed into product development. Obvious statements like "don't buy this car" in reference to Chevy Tahoe fiasco, are taken at merit, and would expect "ban Phorm" to same degree. Chevy are not going to stop making cars, but will have to find ways to make better cars.
How about answering the question instead of spinning and marketing? I wasn't asking what you thought about how companies in general need to approach marketing and PR in the age of two-way mass communication. I was asking specifically whether you thought Phorm's behaviour, with respect to withholding the town video after declaring publicly that it would be released, was inappropriate and unethical.
How about a straightforward answer?
|
hold on - difficult to keep up! ;-)
Thanks for that. Can you share the source?
In relation to first - theres your answer in bold. They did not give user choice. So in that regards this is where crux of argument lies. Not as to whether the technology has beneifts or commercial jutification or even user merit, but in adoption of a system that fundamentlaly takes away that choice, which is not acceptible. SO that needs to be addressed.
In relation to second: Well it was obvous their PR decision - one they thought they could control and realised the you could not.
I answered that, no it was not correct. They should have released, and addressed concerns squarely. Hence my example with Chevy, as that is exaclty how they handled it.