Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
No they don't they say they are 'working on it'.
Zero credibility gap as no such claim was made just the usual 'we are aware and are working to resolve' waffle.
I'm waiting to see the actions of some major corporate websites over this to see how things pan out. No offence but neither your website nor broadband advice are high traffic material and sending bills to Talk Talk smacks of 'activist' more than anything else. If feeling is that strong simply block the server they are using, far less time consuming and far more effective.
|
TalkTalk can call it "testing" if they like, but it was actually a live deployment without consent. Just because it was covert, doesn't make it a test. Tests are done in labs, in internal closed networks, not live on the web with consumer traffic.
TT did a covert deployment - no consent from anyone. Then they got caught. In the real world. And they will have to face the real world civil and criminal consequences like a big grown up company.
I wonder what would happen if pharmecutical companies started doing covert clinical trials? Without either the patients or the doctor's consent? Changing the content of a given pill, but not telling anyone - just doing some record keeping to see if the new contents of the pill killed or cured at a different rate?
Sorry TT - but what TT did was not a test.
And I don't take kindly to other people either covertly crawling my website contrary to law or convention, or telling me what conditions I may or may not impose on visitors to my sites, or telling me how to respond to illegal use of my content. Blocking access may be the only way to stop rogue hackers. It shouldn't be necessary for a major UK ISP. Are a small site's rights any less than those of a large site? That's an interesting POV.
Personally I would have thought a major UK ISP would have responded to a clear communication from a website telling them to stop their crawling. But it seems that is asking too much from TalkTalk?
Undentified robots.
No customer or website consent.
Misrepresentation of identity.
Breaking functionality of sites.
Ignoring robots.txt.
Refusing to stop when requested.
Breaking clearly communicated website Terms and Conditions.
Refusing to face the consequences.
I think anyone who objects to that lot is being entirely reasonable. YMMV.
One thing I do agree on - it will be interesting seeing what large sites say about this. Amazon for example?