Phorm - It's about invading our web-browsing privacy, not advertising.

In a brief article in The Guardian (Consumers will see benefits - The case for Phorm), Guy Phillipson and Nick Stringer the chief executive and head of regulatory affairs respectively at the Internet Advertising Bureau attempt to make the case for Phorm.  Of course, they are (in my opinion) slightly economical with the truth in that the objections of the "Privacy Pirates"* over at nodpi.org lies not with targeted advertising, but with the probably illegal interception of internet traffic via deep packet inspection.  The objections focus largely on privacy issues, on copyright issues (making copies of web pages without authorisation), and on legality (e.g. interception of communication).

It would seem that the EU share the objectors' concerns having repeatedly requested the UK Government to respond to their concerns about internet privacy.  Unfortunately HMG won't release their response to Commisioner Reding.  Messrs Phillipson and Stringer believe that Phorm have signed up to the AIB's principles of good practice.  But how sure can the consumer be where Phorm is concerned, given its past identity as 121media?

In the 36 hrs or so since the BT story broke and Carphone Warehouse followed suit, Phorm's share price has plummeted.  It may be that Phorm will need to refocus its work in non-EU states (such as Korea, where some sort of testing is said to be ongoing).  As long as they don't try it on here.  I left BT Broadband after many years over this fiasco, and don't intend to return, especially since the BT hierarchy still don't seem to "get it".

I am grateful to Alex Hanff and all his hard work in pushing this story, and keeping it topical.  His front page blog article at nodpi.org is really quite emotional.  let's hope this is the end...but I am pessimistic on that score.

*"Privacy Pirates" is the term that Phorm used to describe the privacy campaigners, over at their smear website.