Today in Parliament

[David Hansen]

On 19 Jul 2008 at 10:21, Nicholas Bohm wrote:

> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> ...
> >> "PricewaterhouseCoopers have conducted an audit on specific Hitwise 
> >> management assertions on privacy practices ..."
> > 
> >> I wonder why these people (and Phorm) seem to think that a firm of 
> >> accountants are the right people to give assurances? Surely a firm of 
> >> lawyers would be better?
> 
> Client:  "What is the sum of two and two?"
> 
> Accountant:  "What number did you have in mind?"
> 
> (Trad., at least according to lawyers.)

Of course, though lawyers are also apt to tell people what they want to 
hear in this sort of situation. If the court case goes against them, 
they have the easy get-out that others did not agree with their 
opinion.

On the main point, these firms with long names and deep carpeted 
offices tend to offer a variety of services. I have no idea what the 
rules are about lawyers marketing themselves in England these days, but 
even if the lawyers (I suppose as they are in England we should call 
them solicitors) are not in-house they will be from a tame 
organisation. No-doubt some will be impressed by a well known name, 
particularly those who know little or nothing about the subject. 
Getting the name of some big organisation is about marketing and 
vanity, not about rigour.

-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54