What a load of complete and utter tripe.

I have never backed down from a good argument/debate in my life. The point here was that Phorm was not a good argument and I was poorly informed and made the mistake of blogging about it too early.

It appeared to me in the first place to be a software tool which utilized behavioral marketing. There is nothing wrong with serving adverts based on preference or anonymous behavioral patterns in my opinion.

Phorm however has too much potential to be abused because it has the ability to identify an individual. Simply put PII (personally identifiable information) is in my view the privacy holy grail.

I will ask this site to remove their comments or at least publish the whole story.

I heard today through my friends at the WAA that The Commission has opened an infringement proceeding against the United Kingdom. I am pleased therefore that the EU listened to the complaints and am happy to have spoken out on behalf of the WAA on this matter.

Phorm are linking to your previous post on their “anti-smear” website as an example of anti-Phorm campaigners having bullied you into changing your position.

http://www.stopphoulplay.com/this-is-how-they-work/

I must say having read the debate on your previous post and now this post that phorm appear to be doing you a disservice and rather insulting your intelligence.

My interpretation is that you changed your position after reading the numerous opinions available. Is that the case or did you feel bullied into changing your mind?

Perhaps you could ask phorm to print a retraction, as they are fond of doing when others publish opinions that dont agree with theirs.

Nick, Fleet, UK

This kind of product/service is what scares people about trivial things like cookie tracking or log file analysis and is the reason web analytics vendors often get bad press.

I have given my full support in getting the current version of the system banned and prosecuting BT.

A big thank you for taking the time to do the analysis

I think that Phorm and BT have been cynically playing the opt-out cookie in their reassurances by talking about the targeted ads when everybody else is talking about opting out of the interception by the Phorm profiler. It’s really no surprise that some very smart people are missing the key issue.

With the collusion of a recognised SSL certificate authority, MITM/proxy interception of HTTPS traffic would be possible. Just as we rely on certificate issuers not to issue fraudulent certs, we rely on our ISP’s not to illegally intercept our communications. BT have seriously undermined that trust and the penalties for doing so need to be severe.

Do write more and circulate widely. Kent Ertugrul cannot and must not succeed. There are a growing number of us that simply will not allow it.

STOP. NOW. DO NOT WANT PHORM.

Phorm must never happen, and BT must be prosecuted.

Else what confidence can anyone have that their legal rights will be respected, if the regulators won’t act?

Its dead simple. People who break the law on this scale *must* be prosecuted and *must* go to prison.

Pete

Thanks for taking the time to look over the report from Dr Clayton, its is an immense piece in regards of the Phorm Saga.

I think I need to add somthing to this statement:

“Take note my friends in the USA. They’re trying the same with your ISPs.”

Phorm are also in advanced negotiation with ISPs across Europe. Somewhere a rough timetable was posted, sorry I don’t have the link, but there was an indication that Phorm would firstly be introduced in the UK towards Q3 of this year, followed closely by the likes of Germany and the US in 2009. Then quickly followed by about another half dozen European Countries.