Virgin Media distances itself from Phorm 'adoption' claims | The Register

[David Hansen]

On 1 May 2008 at 17:01, Ian Batten wrote:

> There's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, but this all seems pretty  
> unambiguous.

I hope you are right and the companies who wished to get into bed with 
these slimeballs are deciding it is not worth the hassle.

However, that still leaves the criminal activities of one of them, 
criminal activities for which they have not been held to account. Of 
course they probably will never be held to account, as they are inside 
the tent.

Given their complete disregard for the privacy of their customers it is 
easy to see why these criminals were so keen on RIP.

It also shows how ineffective the Huttons are. All they have to say 
about these criminals is "well done chaps, keep up the good work", more 
recently even more nauseating words about how wonderful they and their 
staff are.

I would like to be proved wrong in my assessment of the Huttons. I can 
be proved wrong by the Huttons naming and shaming BT in general, and 
those involved in criminal activities in particular, in a special 
report and in their annual report. I have very little expectation that 
I will be proved wrong, but stranger things have happened.



-- 
  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