Phorm and consent

[Ian Batten]

On 11 Mar 08, at 1453, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <D0034140-77A1-4AC7-9E1E-A0538E15B20E@batten.eu.org>, Ian  
> Batten <igb@batten.eu.org> writes
>
>>> You might say "well, no-one has yet discovered that Apache is  
>>> actually spyware, and there would be an almighty row if it ever  
>>> was".
>>
>> The authors of Apache don't have a previous life selling rootkits.  
>> Phorm do.
>
> So it comes down to the colour of their hats.

How can it not?

>
> As I keep hinting, one reason we in the UK might think they've  
> reformed *enough to be legal* is the possibility of being found out  
> and thrown in jail (along with their ISP friends).

No matter how illegal your operation, the chances of a director, still  
less an employee, being jailed are approximately zero.  Neither the  
principals nor the developers are UK citizens, and the operation has  
offices in several jurisdictions and its technical infrastructure who  
knows where.  The ISPs will have plausible deniability, and the idea  
of a BT employee being hauled off to jail is laughable: the 90-day  
rotation policy means that no individual will be responsible anyway.   
And since the Labour Party is the friend of business, they'll favour  
money making over individual rights any time.  Anyone who trusts the  
legal system to keep this honest is even now having a lengthly  
conversation with the pixies at the bottom of their garden.

ian