House of Lords Data Protection Debate

[Peter Fairbrother]

Richard Clayton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Phorm seems to have been spending some time in Westminster recently:

Hmmm, are they lobbying for a change in the 
both-parties-to-an-interception-must-consent rule in RIPA?

> 
> Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
> 
>  More sophisticated is the collection
>    of information by Google, for example, in developing targeted
>    advertising. 

Do Google do that? I didn't think they did, but I may be wrong.

>    There are all kinds of technological advances which are
>    hard to grasp.

By you, my darling.


>    I was talking with the chief executive of Phorm this week who told me
>    that once something is stored you have lost control over it. 

Well, that's correct (in general)!

Phorm
>    has been the subject of an interesting article in the Economist
>    recently which some of your Lordships may have read. It is a company
>    on the cutting edge of what can protect the public. 

No, it isn't, sorry darling.

It's a company who want to get access to people's web traffic. They 
don't need identifying information for what they want to do today, so 
they are trying (badly) to develop non-identifying technology so that 
their wants might be legal or made legal, but for their tomorrow's needs?

A bit of
>    controversy surrounds its work because, with its client BT, it
>    intercepted people's online business without BT customers knowing.

It intercepted people's total web traffic - which is not what I'd call 
their "online business".

>    But Phorm is certainly correct when it says that if consumers knew
>    what was actually stored they would decide to opt for true anonymity
>    online. This is what Phorm is trying to develop with major
>    telecommunications clients on a global scale.

 From the well-known Phorm conmen that is not very credible, to put it 
mildly!!


Perhaps we should try and educate Baroness Miller to the realities?


-- Peter Fairbrother


> 
> - -- 
> richard                                              Richard Clayton
> 
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin