Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
What people need to remember is we only have Phorm's word on how they are going to use the technology and unfortunately that word is tainted not just by their history in Spyware, not just by the unethical behaviour they have displayed in the name of PR (misquoting R Clayton, wikifiddling), not just by the lie they told regarding Privacy International BUT also their patent application and the entry on the ICO data register.
Make no mistake, this technology CAN be used very easily to do anything they want to and with your http traffic (and through man in the middle attacks even https) and the reality is, it would be very very difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove if done correctly.
Alexander Hanff
---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------
I wonder if packets which Phorm phiddle with could now be classified as malphormed packets?
We should come up with a new category for companies like Phorm akin to the phrase used for child abusers. From this point forward I classify Phorm and related technologies as "Privacy Fiddlers"
Alexander Hanff
|
Agreed, but the arguments at the moment, particularly on Tuesday, should centre on what they have done (BT trials and 121media history) and what they are planning to do (breach all the laws you have outlined etc).
What they could do needs to be laid out then left alone, as the thin end of the wedge.
I'm just saying concentrate on the things that we know are wrong now, rather than the things that may go wrong in the future. There are strong arguments about what we know now.