URLs, IPs and interception

[Peter Fairbrother]

ken wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>> And they do, else why do they claim to filter out numbers with more 
>>>> than 3 digits (to prevent credit card umbers being collected), or 
>>>> anything with an @ in it (to avoid collecting email addresses?
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with whatever it is you are quoting from.
>>
>> http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/EY_Phorm_Exam.pdf
> 
> 
> The document is quite waffly. It looks as if it was written by someone 
> who has never used this new-fangled Internet-thingy. It boils down to 
> "Trust me, I've got enough money to pay an accountant". But the 
> "assurances" and "assertions" are merely that. No hint of either legal 
> accountability or transparency nor any discussion of the technical 
> methods used to achieve the claimed privacy.
> 
> It also says that the opt-out mechanism only works "as long as a user 
> retains the Phorm opt-out cookie" - so they require the user to allow 
> them to store something on their own computer and offer it up for 
> inspection in order top prevent them storing. If you delete the opt-out 
> cookie you are supposed to go back to their website to opt-out again.
> 
> If anyone can think of an ISP can can offer decent speed in to domestic 
> users in south London and that actually works and that doesn't have any 
> business connection with BT or NTL/Virgin I'd be very tempted....
> 

Zen ain't bad at all - but they're not cheap.

-- Peter Fairbrother