Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
Could bring it up in the appeal that sine the homeoffice does understand privacy with the reasons for withholding the information. So could they explain why we have no rights to privacy from companies like phorm.
|
Right argument, wrong target. It is not Phorm who are invading our privacy, it is the ISPs.
Whether you take Phorm, NebuAd or Adzilla, they only write the extra software which allows the ISP to take the DPI data and convert it into a form which can be used by the ad networks to deliver targeted adverts. The ISP buys the DPI kit - and each box will be costing thousands. If the ISP was not already wanting to make our personal data available do you think the ad networks would have been able to get a foot into the door, getting them to agree to such a large capital outlay with only the promise of an income in return?
On the other side of the coin is the DPA - websites are businesses and as such do not have any protection under the DPA, not even when staff or minors use the business ISP connection for personal surfing.
There are only 2 sides to attack.
The first is the need for ISPs to respect their customers and not try to make an additional revenue stream out of something over which they have no rights as per the original agreement with their customers. If they try to do otherwise, they are in breach of contract. The amount of money involved is small enough for a small claims court action to decide who has rights under any change to the relationship between ISPs and customers.
The second is for the rights of websites to have communications between themselves and customers treated as confidential and not be intercepted or copied for any purpose by a 3rd party. Copyright and SSL - both are rights which no one can take away from the websites.
---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch
OK, updated Open Letter:
|
I feel that the most important concept in the letter is "BT and Phorm are, in effect, using your content to create demographic profiles of your customers. Phorm have no legal right to snoop on it, intercept it, redirect it or profit from it." and that this sentiment should also be mentioned near the top of the article. Preferably within the first paragraph as not everyone will read more than the first 3 or 4 sentences.
Otherwise, I spotted a Security 'expoert' .
Another point to consider adding is that even though BT and Phorm are currently only operating these interceptions in the UK, customers will be visiting sites anywhere in the world so no one is able to escape from this exploitation.