>But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.
We have already addressed the issue of Google Mail many times over. There is no comparison.
>John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…
I successfully block 99.9% of all ads on the web. I've been surfing ad-free for a few years now. Of course I am constantly bombarded with ads when I go into public spaces. This is not something I'm happy with, and, in fact, I think it's a problem which needs to be addressed... unless the public eventually wants to end up with every square inch of public space covered in ads.
>I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)
>Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result.
Google doesn't track your every move across the web. Furthermore, you can delete Google cookies, or choose not to use Google, or use Google Scraper:
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
>Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..
Isn't it the case that advertising is shifting away from TV, simply because people are spending less and less time watching TV and more time on the web - especially 'target' groups who are young, wealthy, and have disposable income?
>That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).
You know, you're not doing a very good job at selling Phorm, here...
>So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!
Many advertising/spyware companies did, in fact, die. 121Media died precisely because users wouldn't tolerate it. There is no logical reason why the same will not happen to Phorm. It is, after all, an intrusive spyware technology, just like its predecessor.
>I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?
The issue isn't only anonymity (though the ability to use private data in an 'anonymous fashion' is a mirage:
http://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=33), but privacy. Privacy means non-disclosure of personal information which a person doesn't want disclosed. So, even in a theoretical example where anonymity is 100% assured (not the case with Phorm, btw), many people will still object because they simply don't want their private data being used/exploited for commercial or other gain.
>Isn't that how we will win?
No.
Here is a suggestion:
Have an ISP advertise a service to users which will offer free internet access, or discounts with participating sellers in exchange for the following: A user must go to a certain ISPs page, and OPT-IN to an agreement. This agreement means that the customer must fill in 20 questions related to his or her demographic information and interests. They customer promises that the information is truthful and promises to update the information. The customer is then given information to sign up to a proxy server to get his internet connection (this can alternatively be done very easily with a plugin) and given a cookie.
There is no need to intercept data. Participating websites (like the OIX concept) can serve targeted ads based on the cookie.
In this way, the customer wins, the advertiser wins, no DPI is taking place, and no internet standards are broken, no copyright violation takes place, no forged cookies are made, and no reputations destroyed.
If the pull for free content as you say is so strong, then people will be dying to opt-in to this scheme to get a free net connection or discounts on goods.
We don't have to look at advertising in black & white. Advertising can take place without it being intrusive and a violating people's privacy. Phorm is intrusive and it does violate people's privacy. Furthermore, it violates internet standards and is illegal.
It will no survive.
Join CF
You are here: 
