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."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 3:13pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 6:21pm

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 6:36pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Nismoto, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 7:24pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Phorm Comms, Mar 19th, 2008 @ 5:05am

    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 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 www.webwise.com/chat

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    tony, Mar 20th, 2008 @ 3:39pm

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This