Phorm criticism strengthens
by David Allen
Ever since there was the first talk of Phorm the secret internet surfing tracking tool, used by BT recently in a “Trial”, there has been many complaints regarding internet privacy.
But it would seem that Phorm is here and is definitely going to stay, with BT, Talk Talk and Virgin Media all expressing an interest in using this system.
This may not be too easy for the ISP’s, for recently the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) have declared that they are against the introduction of such technology.
While anti Phorm groups are being established like the BadPhorm group and a petition on the Downing Street website has attracted over ten thousand signatures.
However it still makes little difference, if the ISP’s are planning to introduce this into their networks, then there will be little that can be done about it. After all, out of all the internet users in the country, only ten thousand signed the petition which is a drop in the ocean. The ISP’s will take note of this and believe that those who have not signed agree to the use of Phorm.
Story link: Phorm criticism strengthens
Discuss this in the Techwatch Forums
Add to Bookmarks:
Related news to "Phorm criticism strengthens"
7 Comments »
Previous: « HP introduces Mini-Note PC
Next: The sale of Setanta Sports cools »
Visited 597 times, 5 so far today
Nonsense! Obviously the writer of this article has never studied business and been introduced to the “1 in 10″ principal. 10,000 people have signed the petition, but a good rule-of-thumb says that from this data, we know at least 100,000 people are strongly against the technology, but only 1 in 10 have bothered to register their displeaure.
Take a look at the other petitions. Do you imagine that only 500,000 people (just 1.5% of the electorate) support the idea of a new public holiday? Of course not - more likley 5million or more do.
Then extrapolate from the 100K likely to strongly oppose Phorm and ask about media penetration - how many internet users have even heard about Phorm.
2/10 Must try harder - or were you paid to write this by Phorm shareholders. Amateur!
Comment by Oblonsky — April 8, 2008 @ 11:15 am
From your comments I am assuming that you are not the webmaster of a site that will be being skimmed to make profits for Phorm and the ISP, nor do you have an account with one of the 3 ISPs.
No one can like an advertising network that tells websites that they either accept being skimmed for profit or lose all their search engine traffic. Phorm is all take and no give. If they think webmasters of real sites (not those that spam to attract clicks on adverts) are going to welcome them then they are not in this real world.
Phorm says they are better than search engines. Search engines allow users to surf anonymously.
Search engines help websites make profits.
Today Phorm, tomorrow all the other suppliers of Deep Packet Inspection Systems.
Don’t want. The only thing they offer is increased prices for goods to cover the exponential increase in the advertising market. Anybody would rather pay £10 more a month to a DPIS free ISP than see inflation over 10% and interest rates back at 15%.
Comment by Anon — April 8, 2008 @ 11:51 am
“After all, out of all the internet users in the country, only ten thousand signed the petition which is a drop in the ocean.”
You are assuming that every internet user in the country is aware of the petition? How naive is that?
How about a little perspective? Of over 8,500 active petitions on that site, the “anti-phorm” petition is in the top ten for signatures - so by taking a more rational approach we can see that this petition is actually one that people feel most strongly about.
Comment by Paul Turner — April 8, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
David, I gotta knock you for this one. Your article is not quite up to what the Public feel.
Only 10′000 signatures is only a figure that represents the Public who are aware of Phorm, and the risks involved with implementing.
Also, you say “However it still makes little difference, if the ISP’s are planning to introduce this into their networks, then there will be little that can be done about it.” This is not quite the right message from a member of the media to pass to the general Public.
You have clearly made a very biased view of the Company Phorm, and the ISPs who have unfortunately signed with them.
If you are unaware, I’ll let you know a little something - there are now a brace of Companies lining up to take on Phorms stance, and invading the Privacy of the Internet Users in the UK.
We are now fair game for all types of mischief, and this, if sucessfully implemented, will change the face of the Internet in the UK forever. And you think this is ok?
David, you are acting very unprofessionally with your view, and I would recommend a career change.
Comment by Save Our Privacy — April 8, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
I see that the art of censorship is alive and well on this site, nice to see some “unbiased” reporting.
Phorm is a parasitic intrusion into our lives, I am fortunate that MY ISP has no interest in participating in anything connected with this company.
The fact that so many people have bothered to sign an e-petition is significant, despite what you may think - it is of course easy to see you have an agenda here, and are NOT Impatial.
I claim copyright to my comments and reserve the right to reproduce them on other sites with a footnote exlaining that this site has a policy of censoring views which do not fit with its editorial stance.
Given the censorship that is being applied here it is clear that there can be no credibility in anything you post - indeed it matches the kind of spin we saw attempted with Wiki entries last week, desperate acts from a discredited company?
Comment by Cris Page — April 8, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
‘The ISP’s will take note of this and believe that those who have not signed agree to the use of Phorm.’
That would be extremely disingenuous of them, no surprise there then, since their ‘customer surveys’, depend on much smaller samples than 10,000.
Just because the ICO are dissembling it doesn’t mean they are out of the legal woods yet. The E.U. Commissioners are taking an interest and questions are being asked. Consequently amendments are being drafted for the regulations on e-privacy in the revised telecoms package.
Comment by Oar Wellin — April 8, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
I see that the ICO has decided Phorm’s technology should be only used on an “opt-in” basis. That should effectively screw Phorm’s business platform.
Comment by Stan Berry — April 10, 2008 @ 2:54 pm