Quote:
Originally Posted by SMHarman
Love the arguement. If I send a mail to a gmail account... Well by sending the email to a gmail account I am consenting for gmail to read that mail. By my friend recieving that mail and reading it there I they are consenting. And well the mail itself contains personally identifiable information such as my email address and a conversation. V.Strange analagy IMHO.
|
Not only that but there are two key issues they are missing regarding use of gmail, google search engine and other services like it:
1)
Choice. People have a clear choice. We can choose whether to use their email in full knowledge of what they are doing. Its easy to spread around your browsing in other search engines so that no one company or search engine gets to see the totality of what we do. Changing Internet Provider is not so easy and in some cases, such as in rural areas, just isnt feasible at all.
2)
Quid Pro Quo If I allow google to profile me via using gmail I am actually receiving a useful service in return. I get large storage and the convenience of easy to use web based email.
There is absolutely no quid pro quo with Phorm and their webwise. "Relevant and targetted ads" arent a benefit to me as I ignore online ads. If I want to buy something online then I will go look for it myself, thank you very much. Secondly, the much spun "antiphishing" technology is nothing that isnt already available in IE7 and Firefox.
On another point I am getting really peeved with the Phorm spin that this is somehow an advancement in privacy because they are at least trying to anonymise data. They point their fingers at google and say look what they are doing. They store data blah blah. To use an analogy, it just makes me think of two peeping-toms peeking into someones house and one (Phorm) points to the other and says "Look how bad HE is. Hes snooping with both eyes open. We only snoop with one of our eyes open."