Quote:
Originally Posted by 80/20Thinking
You make some very interesting observations. If I can put my Privacy International hat on for a minute, those thoughts are foremost in our minds.
Imagine our position. We're the only truly global privacy watchdog and we deal at any one time with perhaps fifty major privacy issues affecting up to a hundred countries. After twenty years of fighting endless battles we've concluded that the only way through this planet-wide quagmire is to push across the spectrum for transparency and disclosure. That's why the Phorm case is so important.
Right at the moment, for example, we're in combat with an increasingly secret and unaccountable EU regime, an almost totally unaccountable and invisible US regime and an increasingly opaque Westminster regime. There are more covert agreements between governments than you could ever imagine, backed by IT deals that go to the heart of personal privacy at the deepest levels. Commercial secrecy has crippled any hope of public input.
After the Phorm process you now know the nature and extent of your target. That's a healthy start. For us, as privacy advocates, the real challenge is achieving that level of disclosure across the board - the banks, governments, security agencies, border services, data miners and identity providers.
What we learn through the Phorm process will be important to addressing that larger picture.
|
I have to disagree here Simon, Phorm are far from transparent. They don't answer any question directed at them (they just get the PR drones to go around pasting the same mindless BS on forums and blogs all over the web). As for legality pffft don't even get me started.
I used Privacy International data for years in my academic pursuits I have always seen them as a vanguard; but whether you like to admit it or not Simon, your association with Phorm through 80/20 Thinking is seriously damaging the image and reputation of Privacy International.
I defended you in several places when your draft PIA was published but I no longer can. The work you have done over the past 20 years is becoming rapidly undone by your association and seemingly supportive relationship with Phorm. People used to hear the name Simon Davies and think Privacy International, now they don't think that, they don't even think 80/20 Thinking; they think Phorm supporter.
Perhaps your PIA should take a look at the fact that despite the IC saying their system is ok under DPA, in fact it isn't. Given the current way in which the technology works as reported by Dr Richard Clayton (and verified by Phorm) requires operations to be carried out on the data by the Layer 7 technology in order to determine whether or not the consent cookie exists; then DPA is being breached and the IC can sing from the hilltops that it isn't for all I care, he is WRONG.
Perhaps your PIA should also pay closer attention to RIPA. Privacy of communications as you very well know, is a HUMAN RIGHT and therefore can never be, I repeat -never- be swept away with implied consent. All consent to wave the right to privacy -must- be explicit; so irrespective of the PR spin Kent and his team are coming out with to try and say they can get away with intercepting web requests based on implied consent from web site owners and a change in terms and conditions for browsers; they -are- breaking the law under RIPA. And just to add a bit of icing to the cake, changing the terms and conditions for BT/VM/TT customers in an attempt to circumvent the law WILL NOT WORK. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 s27 makes it very clear that any terms or modification of terms would be void.
You are no longer one of my idols Simon, you are one of my enemies. This is a conflict, a war to protect our fundamental rights and you have defected to the other side. I am deeply disappointed in you and I am sure I am not the only one.
Alexander Hanff