Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Phorm Talk |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| Can someone explain what is going on here? | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| Gordon |
| ||
 Registered Member #287 Joined: Thu Apr 03 2008, 08:06PMPosts: 201 | I do not work for anybody, and I do not receive payment in any shape or form from any commercial organization with the following exceptions: I get a few pounds now and then from the ISP I use, Namesco, if some kind soul signs up via my affiliate link. I don't plaster it everywhere, so it doesn't get used much, and from memory I think it comes to £90 since I joined them in 2006. As of the last time I sent my book in for updating (a few months ago), I've earned £24.30 on shares I've had in The Phone Co-op, who I joined in 2000. The Phone Co-op could be considered to be an anti-Phorm company, based on the statement on their web site. In fact, as I pointed out in a thread elsewhere on this forum, they use Opal Telecom, a Carphone Warehouse company, as their supplier, so I am rather disappointed with them, probably won't have my line rental (or the shares) with them for much longer, and they are certainly not paying me to knock Phorm. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| skyuser.co.uk |
| ||
 Registered Member #207 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:54AMPosts: 21 | I too am totally against Phorm and have no finacial interests in doing so. However, if any organisation wanted to fund a stop Phorm campaign, I really do not see why that financial help could not be accepted. I would welcome this and as long as there was no personal attacks / aggression etc then what harm would that come to? Hopefully, someone like Google or any other competitor would indeed sponsor or provide the funds for adverts to stop Phorm, how cool would that be? And if anyone is getting paid for fighting Phorm, good on them. All they are doing is using their initiative, ideas and resources to make some money. A bit like Phorm eh? I don't care if anyone is being bunged a bung, but abusive and personal attacks are not what we are about. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Cowherd |
| ||
 Registered Member #352 Joined: Fri Apr 18 2008, 08:28AMPosts: 160 | Phorm's 'competitors' are quite capable of taking on Phorm on their own without recourse to funding pressure groups. It should be noted that Phorm has no 'competitors'. It is a monopoly in the DPI spying game (unless you count HM Gov). The likes of Google aren't 'competitors' to Phorm, they are probably victims. However, unlike the poor ISP Customer Phorm victim, big web based organisation have huge clout and influence. Possibly, like sleeping giants, they have merely woken up to the damage Phorm can do to them. I'm still at a complete loss as to how an organisation such as PI can still support Phorm when all of the evidence from senior and respected authorities such as Richard Clayton and Tim Berners-Lee hold that it is a major threat to personal privacy. PI supporting Phorm is like CND supporting Trident, IMHO. Phorm, just say NO! | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| revrob |
| ||
| Registered Member #372 Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:09PMPosts: 198 | PI wrote ... Thanks everyone for your comments. 80/20 Thinking will be making a statement about its position and its future direction at lunchtime next Tuesday. Thank you. I'll look forward to that, and hope it specifically includes mention of DPI. revrob | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| warescouse |
| ||
| Registered Member #452 Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 02:16PMPosts: 11 | I honestly think that the lack of action by PI and what seems to me an avoidance of the Phorm issue has resulted in Phom/Webwise lasting a little longer than they have. I honestly also feel that 80/20 relationship with Phorm and PI has been used by Phorm to Phorm's advantage and also IMHO to the detriment of online privacy as a whole. I think the relationship has stalled some issues and clouded others. It should never have happened and I hope that PI will soon repay that lost time to all the privacy compigners who may feel like me that Phorm have had an easy time off PI during the last twelve months or so. Oh, and just for the record my only affilliation with Google is that I do have a Google email account and I do use Google Analytics from time to time and I also have a Yahoo email account. Sorry no Hotmail. [ Edited Thu Apr 09 2009, 05:46PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
  Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 646 | I just want to add, that I find it quite insulting that someone like Simon Davies will come to this forum accusing us of some quite distasteful actions and then doesn't return to respond to the outrage he has caused. I know that the internet can be a fickle entity, but you hold a position within PI of great responsibility. http://www.DoNotTrustWebwise.org (Personal opinion and statement in this forum post is my copyright and may not be used nor reproduced elsewhere without my permission. To request permission send a personal message using the button below.) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
| Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 646 | Just been re-reading the Guardian PI v Google article and also: http://www.microsoft.com/uk/publicsector/government/blogs/jerry-fishenden/the-privacy-wars.aspx My first visit to Microsofts uk government blogs, how quaint and how open. So we have 8020, they employee Jerry Fishenden, Microsofts UKs lead technologist, who is this guy: "Prior to being recruited by Microsoft in 1997, Jerry worked in some of the UK's most senior IT positions including as Head of Business Systems for the UK’s chief financial services regulator in the City of London; as an Officer of the House of Commons, establishing the Parliamentary data and video Network at the Houses of Parliament; and as a Director of IT in the National Health Service (NHS)." Hmm, too me, he is a perfect lobbyist for MS UK(just my opinion, well his last paper was on "Microsoft Vision for Parliaments" Now 8020 saw NO conflict of interest by appointing this chap onto their board of trustees. PI see Google as one of the biggest privacy concerns of modern times(and rightly so) and Simon Davies sees nothing wrong with recruiting Googles biggest competitor to it's privacy board? I find that amazing, why do they need specifically him? Now 8020 work with a number of companies on privacy, from the wiki entry we have Facebook, eBay, BT etc. Now surely the company they would most like to work with would be Google, afterall these guys needs a serious talking to about their privacy policy. But could you ever see Google employing 8020 with an employee of their biggest competitor on their board? Lets not forget that Phorm are also a competitor of Microsoft, so why isn't Microsoft going after PI? Is my enemies enemy applicable here? I don't know why Simon chose to post here proclaiming we have been hijacked, that we ourselves have been working for the enemies enemy. To me, something very odd is going on, I guess we'll have to see how it plays out, though I expect us meer mortals will never find out exactly what. http://www.DoNotTrustWebwise.org (Personal opinion and statement in this forum post is my copyright and may not be used nor reproduced elsewhere without my permission. To request permission send a personal message using the button below.) | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Midnight_Voice |
| ||
 Registered Member #180 Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 08:51PMPosts: 503 | serial wrote ... I just want to add, that I find it quite insulting that someone like Simon Davies will come to this forum accusing us of some quite distasteful actions and then doesn't return to respond to the outrage he has caused. I know that the internet can be a fickle entity, but you hold a position within PI of great responsibility. Let's not be too hard on Simon. He came roaring in here, looking for some terrible conspiracy against Phorm, fomemted by all the newbies in here who are actually paid by Phorm's competitors to be their unwitting dupes. And found only long-term denizens, who aren't paid by anybody, and aren't anybody's unwitting dupes, and who have been consistently against Phorm since the beginning. But who have wondered, vocally and with good reason, if PI and 80/20 haven't actually been Phorm's unwitting dupes. But he has gone out like a lamb, and it does sound as if he has finally obtained clue; he knows what he's done, and he knows what we think, and there's no big conspiracy. in which case, let's at least give him until next Tuesday's announcement to see if he will come out for the dark side, or utterly renounce it. If he comes out for it, then PI is phucked, and there is no more to be said; if he comes out against it, then we can work together again. If he comes out in the middle, then no doubt he would appreciate SurAlan's cushion for his arse.... but again, PI will be phucked. Years of work, and a fine reputation, thrown away for thirty pieces of silver. Please tell me it isn;'t going to be that way... I'm a nonconPhormist; I won't be conned by Phorm | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| lardycake |
| ||
| Registered Member #141 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 06:17PMPosts: 86 | Midnight_Voice wrote ... in which case, let's at least give him until next Tuesday's announcement ... I really hope this is not going to be "jam tomorrow" Value your Privacy? BT Webwise and Phorm must be stopped. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| PI |
| ||
 Registered Member #635 Joined: Mon Apr 06 2009, 11:42PMPosts: 10 | Just to avoid (or add to?) confusion, I'll write this with both hats on - 80/20 and PI. Thanks for all your comments. We've consulted the respective advisory boards of each organisation and have worked internally over the past few days to find a way through the issue of perception of conflict of interest. As I said earlier, we intend issuing a press release on this shortly. I still hope we can do this tomorrow, though the easter break may delay its release until Wednesday. Fingers crossed we can do this sooner rather than later. As for everyone's comments about PI's silence on the issue of Phorm, all I can do is remind you of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7280791.stm in which I said: "Mr Davies said he remained opposed to services which required users to opt out. He said: "If firms say this "enhances the user experience", if that is true and users want it, then make it opt in." I will also refer you to my statement from last year at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/mar/20/simondaviesofprivacyintern Will people please read our report to Phorm. Read it in its brief entirety. [link] Once you'll do, you'll realise that there are no conflicts whatever. In that report we argue that the system should be opt-in, that there are unresolved questions, that the matter of legal compliance is irrelevant to the issue of intrusion. For example, from page 10 of our PIA: "Phorm liaised with the Home Office to assess whether its system could infringe the UK law that regulates communications surveillance. The Home Office concluded that Phorm's system is consistent with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and does not intercept communications. While this conclusion is a fair interpretation of Phorm and the system's capabilities, communications monitoring still takes place. Even if the Home Office's conclusions were appropriate and relevant, it would mean that if an ISP or any government wished to conduct similar monitoring of communications for segmentation purposes, albeit with consent of the user, then they may indeed do so and yet still be compliant with UK law. This could indeed give rise to a worrying situation." Yes, FIPR has lodged a detailed complaint with the ICO. That complaint dealt with matters outside 80/20s remit. There is no conflict there. Is there a conflict between our role in PI and our role in 80/20? Absolutely not. See above. My view is on the record at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7280791.stm Read beyond the headline. People have asked: "Why are they doing this?" "Why are they advising the evil empire?" Two reasons. First, we believe that engagement is more constructive than non-engagement unless there is no alternative. As PI we have directly engaged companies such as SWIFT, Microsoft and eBay with positive results for privacy. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page << >> | |
Powered by e107 Forum System