Privacy International Still Claimed By Phorm To Be Backing Phorm

[Ian Batten]

The Phorm front page (www.phorm.com) has a set of quotes on the bottom  
left hand corner that cycle around.  Wait for a few minutes and you'll  
get

> In our view, Phorm has implemented privacy as a key design component  
> in the development of its system.  In particular, Phorm has quite  
> consciously avoided the processing of personally identifiable  
> information.
>
> Simon Davies, Director, Privacy International;
> MD, 80/20 Thinking.

[[ I have a screen grab; the size limits on ukcrypto preclude sending  
it, but anyone who needs it should just shout. ]

The implication is that Simon Davies is speaking with both hats; the  
ordering and line-breaks implies PI is the main affiliation.   No-one  
could come away from from seeing that without thinking that Simon  
Davies is speaking at least partially for and on behalf of PI.

Since we've already had this discussion with Simon, and he presumably  
in turn with Phorm, I can't believe this is accidental: either Phorm  
are deliberately trying to imply that PI stand behind Phorm --- in  
which case PI should speak to some lawyers --- or PI actually _are_  
standing behind Phorm.  I've done this sort of vendor quote work  
myself, and you always get final approval of wording and attribution,  
so either something has gone horribly wrong or Simon's statement that  
PI have nothing to do with his work for Phorm is being ignored by Phorm.

I have some sympathy with 80/20's position: academics aren't  
necessarily the best people to swim in shark tanks, and tend to assume  
that other peoples' bona fides are as unquestioned as their own.     
Clearly 80/20 are able to trade more effectively with the PI link in  
Simon and Gus's CVs than if they traded as Dave and Pete from  
Peckham.   But it doesn't require a strategic genius to realise that  
cuts both ways: 80/20 garner more business with the link to PI than  
without, because for a company like Phorm the imprimatur of PI is  
worth a great deal more than that of 80/20 (of whom, frankly, few had  
heard until the last few weeks).

At the moment, I think the worst that can be said is that Simon and  
Gus have acted naively.  But I think that they should speak to their  
client and make it crystal clear just whom Phorm employed, and ensure  
that the attributions are sorted out.  Someone on the BT suport forums  
reports that the CEO's office is making the same claim in mail to  
concerned customers, too.

ian