[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Fluffykins

"But the Information Commission ruled in May that no action would be taken against the telco due to the difficult nature of explaining to consumers what it was doing."

So................. Would it be OK not to pay my phone bill and expect just to carry on, on the basis that explaining why I haven't paid is just toooooooo complicated for their patronisedly tiny minds?

I am on VM now and to their credit I can understand their bill. But when I was on BT I have to admit had I known that the ICO would have backed up my none payment due to my lack of understanding due to BT's complicated layout, I would have turned to them.

Perhaps the same person who designed the BT bill forms had input to the Phorm / Webwise design also.

Then again, maybe the BBC statement should have said:

But the Information Commission ruled in May that no action would be taken against the telco due to the difficult nature of the ICO understanding of what was going on, so they buried their heads in the sand and prayed in the general direction of Kent.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Originally Posted by lardycake

Baroness Miller has been asking some very good questions (spotted by felixcatuk over on Badphorm) House of Lords unanswered Questions for Written Answer
or here for a list of just Baroness Millers questions.

Its so funny that Phorm are still using comments of Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer who was leading the debate in the House of Lords on data protection, June 12, 2008 on their website.

Still, I suppose they are desperate for some good press albeit out of date.

Baroness Miller clearly seems to think different about them nowadays.

Long live the InPhormed (Post June 12th) Baroness Miller of Chilthorne.