Quote:
Originally Posted by popper
 Mesmer, your not that No.27 are you 
i dont remember any such official ' will not mirror, intercept or permit Phorm surveillance of data' statement, but perhaps i missed it ?
regarding the provisional comercial contract, YES thats exactly what i thought.
there MUST be something in that signed contract that will cost them dearly, otherwise you would expect them to run the numbers and come to the conclusion its not werth the loss at this time.
apparently it would seem, given the VM hush,they are infact in deep on the cash and related front if they back out now.
perhaps if and when Virgin Media run a Phorm trial, that gives them some breathing room!
OC as i pointed out above somewere, Neil couldnt really be held to a comercial contract or its cash liabilitys that deemed they act unlawfully could they.
perhaps he's waiting to see something with a legal stamp, VM do keep quoting the vague nothing will be put in place for a long time ,it seems they are just waiting for one of the others to break or give them a way out perhaps.
|
Many thanks for your welcome. If I am number 27 then I must have clicked the wrong thing in error! I didn't because there is absolutely no way that I would ever agree to a company like Phorm profiling my data. I've always taken care to ensure malware programs are denied access to my computer. If there was some way to apply Spybot S&D to Virgin's equipment I would be one of the first to be standing in line.
You are correct that I was paraphrasing CW. I believe they did state that data would not touch any Phorm supplied equipment unless you were foolhardy enough to opt in.
I was trying to be charitable to Virgin in suggesting that they might have contractual obligations as a consequence of their ill-advised dealings. On the other hand, CW's statement and BT's trial statement suggests that they could offer a default opt out completely bypassing Phorm's data interception equipment without breaching whatever contract they have if one assumes that the three contracts were similar. This may or may not be the case. The less charitable interpretation is that they are determined to impose this because they have scant regard for their customers’ privacy and wish to maximise financial gains arising from their new targeted advertising venture.
My understanding is that contracts for illegal or immoral purposes are void. It seems reasonable to assume that Virgin could escape from their contractual obligations without penalty if it can be shown that the data interception is illegal. The big question is whether or not Virgin care about their customers.
In my view, the object lesson for all companies is that they should devote fewer resources to marketing and redeploy that effort to provide the people that pay them and keep them in business with a product or service that is second to none.