Questions Raised Over Phorm's Legality As BT Admits It Tested The Service Secretly
from the transparency,-transparency,-tranparency dept
While Phorm has gone on a charm offensive to try to convince people that its efforts are not as bad as some are making them out to be (including, by the way, using my post as a de facto forum), it appears that the effort still isn’t convincing skeptics. Tim Berners-Lee made some news last week for suggesting he would switch ISPs if his started using a service like Phorm, but the bigger backlash may be coming from the legal arena. First, there was the news that BT (who had originally denied this) tested Phorm’s technology, without letting users know, last summer. That has resulted in some people threatening a lawsuit. And, speaking of lawsuits, a bunch of scholars and think tankers are pointing out that Phorm may actually be illegal based on current UK laws, if it’s used without first getting users to “opt-in.”
Filed Under: clickstream data, tim berners-lee, uk, user tracking
Companies: bt, phorm
Comments on “Questions Raised Over Phorm's Legality As BT Admits It Tested The Service Secretly”
More generally, on opt-out
I think it’s now axiomatic that if you can opt-out of something, then you want to. Companies keep telling us how much we want these things and how great there are for us…but seem very very reluctant to make their case and let us choose to opt-in.
It is illegal
now what … a slap on the wrist.
bad BT – bad Phorm
now go sit in time out
meanwhile, the data collection continues
Above the law
If things with BT in GB are anything like they are with AT&T in the US then BT is essentially above the law anyway so it doesn’t matter if it was legal or not.
We don't need no stinkin ads...
Why is it that we (internet users) seem complacent in letting businesses tell us that we want more relevant advertising?
Just for the record, I DON’T WANT ANY ADVERTISING!!!!!
I use the internet to educate myself, keep in touch with friends and loved ones, work, share my interests and masturbate.
I also shop online but far less than I do the other things mentioned above. I don’t need a bunch of stiffs telling me want I am interested in or what I want.
FUCK ADVERTISING AND THE MINDLESS SHEEP THAT NEED IT!! Google text ads are just as bad as the images-that-look-like-Windows-forms-so-you’ll-click-on-them and, yes, ad-revenue business plans are wack.
Just one legal (untested) view
Hi Phorm Comms Team here
We don’t agree with FIPR’s analysis. And its description of the Phorm system is inaccurate. Our technology complies with the Data Protection Act, RIPA and other applicable UK laws. We’ve sought our own legal opinions as well as consulted widely with experts such as Ernst & Young, 80/20 Strategic Thinking, the Home Office, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We discussed our system with the ICO prior to launching it and continue to be in dialogue with the organisation.
There’s loads more information on http://www.webwise.com and you can put your questions directly to our CEO in a live webchat on Thursday (20 March) at 1.30pm – the URL is http://www.webwise.com/chat
Re: Just one legal (untested) view
hi comms team
Just a point for you to remember.
Telling the same lie over and over again, does not make it true
The the Home Office advice was not legal opinion, it was advice from civel servents. Thy have been know to be wrong in the past.
20/80 thinking, well we all know you lied about that one… PI anyone.
Ernst & Young, not it people or legal people. did teh assesment under American, not UK law.
The ICO.. Only recieved paers a few weeks ago you you can not have been in talks with them.
I could go on, but the spin is making me dizzy