See FIPR Papers & Privacy, DPA Fraud Concerns!

The Ability to gather UID’s & therefore link this data to Personal E-mail Names etc , by any unscrupulous HTTP–>HTTPS Website makes this System Highly Suspect from a Privacy & Data Protection Perspective!

This is irrespective of the illegal mirroring of data, THIS REQUIRES THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES & OR A PROPER LEGAL JUDGEMENT TO DO SO!

Hey, fella, choose to use another fcking ISP then !One that in future will not be subsidised by advertising. Pay over the odds for an inferior service and be happy in your smug little world.

“Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/26/guardian_phorm_uturn/

you said “Phorm was rejected by The Guardian newspaper because it “didn’t fit with the values of the business”. You can’t get any more polite yet severe a condemnation as this. Phorm has been rejected because The Guardian does not trust it and does not like what it stands for. It knows Phorm’s previous history and it knows that its readership holds it to account for its decisions.”

And you know this how? You are on The Guardians board? or maybe just part of the decision making process? Complete and utter bollocks. Go back to your phorm-rival funded smear campaign…

You seem not to understand a few basic facts.

I dont want you anywhere near my traffic. I dont want my traffic allowed anywhere near any equipment you may have access to.

Just because I look at a topic on a particular site it doesnt mean I will welcome advertising about the topic.

The opt in/out situation shouldnt arise – the system should only require a positive opt in. This is something you are putting in the way of people

Fortunately My ISP charges me a realistic rate for my connection and has no need to bolsetr its income to support an unrealistically low price level

Adware… hmm wasnt there some involvment with “People on page”I seem to recall that being picked up as malware. Just because you put an EULA on a piece of malware/spyware that doesnt make it worthwhile, or desirable.

I know you guys have a living to make, but its a shame that you cant find something worthwhile to hawk instead of trying to legitimise this unwelcome and unwanted spyware

To clarify the inaccuracies above — which you seem to be posting repeatedly across the boards:

1) 121Media was involved, fully transparently, in adware. Each programme had an EULA a user had to sign in order to use the programme. This is not a feature of spyware, as you must know.

2) We do not modify webpages as you describe by inserting adverts. Firstly, OIX ads only go into existing slots on websites we partner with. To make this plain: websites who decide to partner with us show OIX ads. We cannot show ads on pages that are not our partners. The reason websites would chose to do this is that they set a price for that slot which we then guarantee to beat — thus earning the website more money. In addition, we do not serve pop ups or pop unders.

3) As we have said previously the system is designed to offer either opt in or opt out. There is no default as you suggest. Each ISP will decide which option is best for their customers. Either way, it will always be easy for customers to opt in or opt out. It’s always a choice.

4) The system does not store URLs. Full stop. What we store is: a product category, a random number and a timestamp.

5) I fail to understand your logic here.

6) I disagree — if you truly care about your privacy you should lobby for an industry standard of no storage of personal data, which is in fact what our system represents and delivers. Please see the following flash demo for more information: http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/slideshow.php

Best wishes,

Radha

http://www.whatpc.co.uk/itweek/comment/2213127/enemies-privacy-3907973

My brain is quite capable of shifting from Shoes to Autos and back again and I’ll guess yours is too.. Often in seconds or split seconds. Sure context is helpful to advertising effectiveness, but never a requirement. Advertising itself often operates at the low involvement level and research shows that consumers are not about to introspect into their own reactions.

One way to understand this situation is to look at two ends of the spectrum in performance oriented online advertising. One is the standard banner ad click through performance, which is probably less than 1%, maybe even less than .5% click through. The other end is the Google.com search ad performance which according to sources I have seen suggests an average click through of 22% on those text listings. What your argument suggests is that given a better understanding of the consumer, we couldn’t improve on the .5% or 1% click rate, even in the light of the better consumer insight driven 22% of search. Performance is not binary, it’s a continuum.

One issue for advertising is that it is often considered negatively by consumers for the fact that it is not relevant to the consumer. Having better insight to consumer’s interests and needs can greatly improve the value of advertising for consumers, certainly for the advertiser and even the media company. Net, everyone wins.

The challenge is how do we collect and manage a better level of consumer insight.

Greg Stuart Co-Author What Sticks, Why Advertising Fails and How to Guarantee Yours Succeeds

• Blue Lithium has a white paper on this.

If Phorm is so wonderful, so transparent and so trustworthy why are so many people protesting against it? Why is the UK government asking questions now?