Mr E in the comments drew my attention to the Information Commissioner’s response to Phorm.
Ad-targeting system Phorm must be “opt in” when it is rolled out, says the Information Commissioner Office (ICO)
European data protection laws demand that users must choose to enrol in the controversial system, said the ICO in an amended statement.
Irrespective of any other considerations – such as the Phorm system collecting data anyway as the traffic passes through their equipment, opt-in must be an absolute as must full, clear and unambiguous information so that consumers may exercise informed consent. Of course, informed consent is not what Phorm wants, is it?
The decision could be a blow to Phorm which before now has said it would operate on an “opt out” basis.
Naturellement. Now, why might that be? Because, perhaps, fully informed consumers will tell them en masse what they can do with their spying and adware – and that will amount to “fuck off”.
Kent Ertugrul, Phorm’s CEO came up with a beaut of a statement in response to all of this:
“The more people understand what we are doing the more comfortable they get with it,” he said.
No, Kent, as you have seen from the somewhat vociferous comment around the web, the opposite is true. Why do you think thousands of us have downloaded Adblock? It is because we don’t want to see adverts and we certainly don’t want slimy little salesmen stealing our browsing activities and using it to make a fast buck by shoving those unwanted adverts in our faces – and the more we see and hear about your company, the less we like it.
I repeat what I have said before; if my ISP so much as hints at getting into bed with Phorm, I will cancel my contract immediately. My web browsing habits are not for sale. I am not a product to be traded by sleazeballs inhabiting the slimy underbelly of the Internet.
So, Phorm, fuck off!
‘So, Phorm, fuck off!’
Don’t beat about the bush LR, tell ’em what you really think… 🙂
Mac the Knife’s last blog post..How my heart swelled with pride…
I would hate to be seen as ambiguous 😉
But of course the row is not only over Data Protection, but also about the Interception of communications. Read today on someone else’s site (sorry can’t remember who) that they were getting the run around from government with the ICO saying talk to the Home Office, and the Home Office pointing him back at the ICO. One could even think it was a conspiracy to get it through by default, having worn everybody out by running them between the two sets of offices!
Interception is indeed the problem. That is why it is likely in breach of RIPA.
I repeat what I have said before; if my ISP so much as hints at getting into bed with Phorm, I will cancel my contract immediately.
Ditto.
jameshigham’s last blog post..[starbucks] palace of culture
Should it not be ‘phuck off’?
Yeeeeeeeeeeesss….