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?
