Phorm hits back against "privacy pirates"

[Zadock]

Anyone seen this?

http://www.stopphoulplay.com/

Its Phorm's response to the "Bad Phorm" website, more or less. Saw it on the Guardian Website just now.

This label they have created "privacy pirates", just what exactly is illegal about wanting to protect your privacy, made me laugh. I think this is a big mistake on Phorm's part if they were looking to drum up support with this quite frankly poor website (you'd expect something better from a web company really?)

[nichomach]

I had a quick gander and rapidly arrived at the conclusion that there is truly no limit to the phail of Ertegrul...

[Agent]

It's written like something out of Brasseye.

[mycarsavw]

I was going to laugh it off as a prank but the domain is actually owned and registered by Phorm, Inc.

[peterb]

Article about it in today's Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...agitators.html

Actually I'm delighted they have done thgis - the more publicity they genewrate, the more people wilrealise how their privacy is threatened - and how they will be targeted by advertising.

[nichomach]

I love the Reg sub-heading on this story; "Ertugrul shouts at the bins"... You can just see it, can't you?

[chuckskull]

Don't make me post Picard.

[aidanjt]

"Privacy Pirates" LOL, that's rich.

[MadduckUK]

Don't make me post Picard.

[Lourdes]

This debacle still going on?

[alsenior]

In the argument that Phorm makes on the site there are a few deficiency’s in the argument that the Ad company makes in the article title “Phorm Has Colluded With The Government To Make Its Service ‘Legal’”.
The company overstretches the point that “it is normal practice for businesses in whatever field they operate to engage with Government regarding their services.” It is my understanding that there is no need for a company to interact with the government on such a high level unless there is something large that needs addressing most if not all company’s need to work with local councils on a regular basis but the need to work with central government is a special case, they seam to have dumbed down the separation of local and central government.
Also the accuse groups such as Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) and The Open Rights group (ORG) of using sensationalist writing and yet turn around and use words like “smear” to attempt to discredit the groups
Also near the end they beg the question by attempting to draw a comparison with Google’s Gmail service but there are 2 faults with this comparison. Firstly they are in 2 different markets. Firstly they with gmail there is no click steam to analyse with g-mail and with Gmail you get the benefit of e-mail. The trade-off is simple enough even for a lay-person to understand. With Phorm you get all your internet traffic scanned (this could and probably will include smaller web-mail providers) but the only thing you get in return is the promise of better Ad’s this is not a fair trade-off for the consumer. secondly the g-mail system is opt-in, you opt in to having you e-mail scanned by registering and using the service this is the trade-off you make. With Phorm the system is opt-out i.e you have to go to a site and get a cookie to mark you as a non Phorm user. This is a poor technical solution (cookies are easily deleted and are open to abuse).
In addition they try to belittle there critics and try to reduce their point 4 point list
“
1. Make a sensational claim (Phorm “colludes” with Home Office)
2. Induce someone with some stature into associating themselves with it (in this case Baroness Miller to whom we re-extend our invitation to explain how the system actually works, since we are best qualified to explain our own technology)
3. Take every opportuniy to criticise Phorm when the media (the BBC) cover the story.
4. Move on to the next claim once this claim, like all others, is discredited.”
But in this article they have done the exact same thing

1. Make a sensational claim(The Smear)
2. Induce someone with some stature into associating themselves with it(This is a matter of record as far as the EU and UK authorities (BERR) are concerned)
3. Take every opportunity to criticise privacy Advocates (The background to the headline is that the “legal experts” at FIPR/ORG , Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), which is linked to another smear)
4. Move on to the next claim once this claim, like all others, is discredited.( a bit early in the day for this one but I’m sure we will have an example real soon)

[Zadock]

Sorry I sort of posted this and abandoned it... been busy with field work.

Anyway, Alsenior... spot on with your post that is pretty much what the writer for the guardian said but they even went as far as to say that creating that site was more or less the final nail in the coffin for Phorm. I'm not sure it will be but I can see that this site could irritate new people, people who perhaps before weren't that bothered. What annoyed me was this "privacy pirates" label, almost seems like they are treating what should be a basic human right as a joke or something we shouldn't be entitled to... I think the site will only make the opposition more fierce.

[BobF64]

Next they will be seeking an injunction to stop people "slandering their good name and trying to force them out of business".