Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Media Sightings |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| Simon fights back | ||
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| skyuser.co.uk |
| ||
 Registered Member #207 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:54AMPosts: 10 | Simon Davies (of Privacy International, and 80/20 Thinking) on Phorm The record needs to be set out in full regarding the "conflict of interest" claim relating to 80/20 Thinking and Privacy International. I have no objection to public discussion about the matter, as long as the facts are laid out in full, rather than relying on a twisted, abbreviated account. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Sammy |
| ||
   Registered Member #143 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 08:36PMPosts: 191 | Hense my posts asking people to stop discussing the matter re Simon Davies. He is raging, and posting a lot on the ukcrypto mailing lists. I feel now a reality check is needed. The whole point f the campaign is to stop phorm from breaching our Privacy, and NO individual should be discussed. Why? As I ve said several times... it is VERY easy to put forward a libel case by an individual, especially if he/she feels they are targeted. We must remember, the issue is NOT PI, 80/20 nor any third party organisation, and also dicussions must be limited to discuss possiblities and concerns, and this should be indicated in any post. ALL members should refrain from making clear allegations. That is my personal, and well informed, take on this. [ Edited Sat Mar 22 2008, 12:18AM ] -- Protect your Privacy; Stop Phorm Petition Government to Stop Phorm | Stop Phorm on Bebo Win a 12 Month Modelling Contract | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
 Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | I feel for Simon and Gus, I have been in contact and know their position, but this is directly involved in the anti Phorm movement. There is a PI and 80/20 issue here, and it directly links to IFPR. Phorm are spreading the word far and wide that PI endorse them, this is wrong. They have been able to get away with it legally due to the 80/20 link and careful use of their language. I think that there should continue to be debate here, but it should be focused on how Phorm have mis-represented PI, Simon, Gus and 80/20. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| serial |
| ||
| Registered Member #100 Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 06:22PMPosts: 158 | Also lets not forget that the Guardian has already signed up to use Phorms data even before they have been declared legal. I'd be interested to know if they are part of the current BT trial as this could also mean that the Guardian are profiting from illegally obtained data. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Sammy - libel cannot be used to suppress an opinion, and nor should the AUP of this forum be used to suppress a valid discussion topic directly related to Phorm. In discussing this we may infact uncover new evidence about Phorm or enlighten those otherwise satisfied with assurances given by 80/20. Please take a careful look at some of the comments still being posted by PhormPRTeam: " We have already stated don't agree with FIPR's analysis. The law is untested and the FiPR 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). " You can clearly see that, without engagment with Simon and discussion around this topic we would not have the 80/20 report to hand, which gives us better understanding of statements such as quoted by a PR company. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Sammy |
| ||
| Registered Member #143 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 08:36PMPosts: 191 | Oblonsky If Phom wish to misrepresent/inflate information they get - let them. Quesion it, but don't put anyone in the firing line, unless it is proven that they have made the comments they have been claimed to. Additionally, Libel is basic in Legislative form, and suits can be started for the slightest little thing. Also, Simon Davies is making clear his position, which to an extent is refuting information given by individuals/groups in the spotlight - therefore ONLY comment if you have the evidence. The AUP is not being used with the past few comments I have made - its commonsense, and the knowledge of Simon Davies countering the statements made. Serial I agree.Tthe matter should be concentrated on the Phorm involvement, and discussion should only be about the 80/20 report, and whether or not it is in balance, or not, to what Phorms claims are. [ Edited Sat Mar 22 2008, 10:03AM ] -- Protect your Privacy; Stop Phorm Petition Government to Stop Phorm | Stop Phorm on Bebo Win a 12 Month Modelling Contract | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | And libel in case law?!! Sammy, we disagree. Please do not try to stifle debate when Simon himself states he encourages open debate. This is just your view. We need to be free to talk about all issues surrounding Phorm and PI. Your view is valid, that in many respects we must focus on the ISPs and Phorm, but we MUST be free to discuss all topics, and it seems the Guardian by inviting comment on their blog is in agreement. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Sammy |
| ||
| Registered Member #143 Joined: Sun Mar 09 2008, 08:36PMPosts: 191 | Oblonsky I agree discussion is rife concerning this - but with 80/20 and PI, not the individuals. Simon Davies is, at the moment, conducting a classic campaign of his own to distance himself from the reports personally - why? Beacuse you can refer to him in three forms: 1/. Simon Davies the person 2/. Main contributor for 80/20 3/. Main Contributor for PI. I feel the line is getting a little hazy, and the emphasis should concentrate on the organisation, not the individual. Simon is clearly distancing himself on a personal level - which is classic in terms of Litigation, and similar events in the past which have lead to Legal Suits. I do not suggest for one moment to stop the discussion, I suggest readjusting the line to where it should be, which is questioning 80/20 and PI - and not Simon Davies. Note, there is only so much a person is willing to take, and let others push him over that line - not us, that is all I ask. -- Protect your Privacy; Stop Phorm Petition Government to Stop Phorm | Stop Phorm on Bebo Win a 12 Month Modelling Contract | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Oblonsky |
| ||
| Registered Member #132 Joined: Sat Mar 08 2008, 10:59AMPosts: 91 | Sammy - then we are in agreement. I was fighting only for the basic right that this topic shouldn't be off-limits, however you are right that it is somewhat, for the time being, off-relevance. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
Powered by e107 Forum System