Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch
Kate Devlin, from the Torygraph article, doesn't say who these 'experts' are, and I can't see any reason why Phorm should be questioned about this matter over someone more qualified.
---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------
Shall we ask her?
http://www.journalisted.com/kate-devlin |
Perhaps her attention could be drawn to the
Terms and Conditions of the Telegraph Website
Section 4 "Use of the Site" is particularly relevant should a Webwise linked visitor use the Telegraph site. It is very comprehensive and seems to ban just about anything that Webwise would be doing during a visit to that site, as well as defining the intellectual content, controlling the extent of copying, and making it clear that there are a variety of "agents" or means of access in the mind of the author of the paragraphs.
Of course she also needs to remember that according to BT's Ms Sanderson, the Telegraph website Terms and Conditions aren't worth the pixels they are written on as Webwise won't be paying any attention to them - it's "unreasonable" to expect them to do so. Probably because it's too difficult - like it's too difficult to explain to thick people like me, how a small scale technical trial illegally intercepting my data might work.
Sorry - getting in a rant there. Slapped own wrist. Ouch! That's better. I love everyone again.
Website Terms and Conditions are rapidly becoming a hobby of mine.
Edit update
Took my own advice and sent her an email about the things she left out, discussing the site T&C's and also asking about any relationship between Telegraph and OIX. Also included links to the Register article about Phorm and Congress, and the BBC one about EU