Rights Groups Speak Out Against Phorm, UK Comm. Database

MJackson writes "The Open Rights Group (ORG) has issued a public letter to the Chief Privacy Officers (or the nearest equivalent) for seven of the world's largest website giants (including Microsoft and Google), asking them to boycott Phorm. The controversial Phorm system works with broadband ISPs to monitor what websites you visit for use in targeted advertising campaigns. Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has issued a new report slamming the UK government's plans for a Communications Database. This would be designed to intercept and log every UK ISP user's e-mail headers, website accesses and telephone history. The report warns that the public are often, 'neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.'"

Can we stop this use of "Controversial"?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If, for instance, your mommy says you are special; but nobody else does, your specialness isn't "controversial" in any useful sense, it's just a settled matter with a contrarian outlier. In this case, the only people who think Phorm is even remotely a good idea are A)Phorm and B)ISPs who Phorm has promised gobs of money. That isn't "controversy", it is a handful of money-grubbing special interests attempting to screw everybody else. To dignify Phorm as "controversial" is far more than it deserves.

Re:Can we stop this use of "Controversial"?

[Nursie]

It's more than that. It is controversial, I'm afraid.

There's the whole is it/is it not legal debate, the controversy over the police investigations, the government capitulation and potential EU investigation of the whole thing.

There's also the fact the Joe public has never heard of Phorm and wouldn't particularly care or work out the consequences if he did. So it's basically an argument between monied interests, the British police and government on one side and geeks. privacy advocates and the EU on the other.

I'd call that a bit of a controversy.

Privacy Schmivacy

[melissa replies]

I highly doubt that some of the largest website giants are going to provide active discourse to boycott all of this invasion of privacy of traffic logging and email snooping. Look at how these large internet conglomerates get their money: from ads specifically tracking where you click your mouse on their website.

But anyway. Gee, look at the time! 1984 all ready.

Re:Looks like Eastern Europe and Soviet Union won

[Shakrai]

Freedom won.

Well, one version of freedom won. The freedom that says you need the Government to "protect" you from every conceivable source of harm, ranging from fatty foods to cigarettes to automobile accidents to firearms. The sheep can't possibly be trusted to assume responsibility for their own actions/choices so we need to curtail those choices for the public good.

When will people realize that real freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, provided that it isn't harming your neighbor?

Asking Google to respect the users privacy?

[AnalPerfume]

Let me get back to you when my sides stop hurting from laughing.

Re:Privacy Schmivacy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The only real hope, from people like Google and their fellow analytics and ad mongers, is that they'll oppose Phorm because it represents a competitor to their existing line of business.

Clearly, anybody who sells ads and click data is not a warm and fuzzy friend of privacy; but I suspect that most, if not all, such really don't want a third party, in collusion with ISPs, to gain a superior position.

Re:I need to find a new country to live in.

[CmdrGravy]

It is interesting that the government seems to think that whilst the population should be monitored as closely as possible when it comes to their own activities they clearly take the exact opposite view and fight tooth and nail to keep their own details secret. They also appear to want to take this inbalance even further since according to a government minister defending the government from this report on the radio this morning...

"the benefit of these systems outweighs their illegality"

They appear to think they can also completely ignore the law if it suits the interests of Wacky Jacky and the rest of them.

Personally I can see the benefit of centralising government databases, done correctly it should save money and allow the government to work more efficiently which can only be a good thing. However, and it is a big however, I would only support the creation of these central databases based on the following ground rules being enforced:

1. I want to be able see every single piece of data the government is holding on me myself and I want an audit log showing me who has accessed this data and a reason as to why they had done so.

2. In tandem with the above I would want a swift and effective system to impartially consider any complaints I might have that my data was not being accessed for a good reason and the ability to correct any incorrect data I came across and I would require the impartial authority to actually be impartial and have the power to block access and effectively punish those responsible if they agree people have abused their priviledge of access to my data.

3. I would want the ability to remove my data completely from government systems should I choose to do so and not suffer any discriminatory restrictions to my access of government facilities if I chose to do so. Obviously I'd accept things may take them a bit longer to process without access to the electronic data but I wouldn't want to, for example, lose my driving licence.

4. I would have to trust the government and believe that they held themselves to the rule of law and did not undertake nefarious and underhand schemes to abuse my data and to be honest about their intentions.

Sadly I don't think the circumstances will ever be met which would allow the above to happen, particulary points 3 and 4 and especially not under the current morally bankrupt bunch of incompetents.

Re:this won't win me many friends....

[TheRaven64]

The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't

Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.

Historically, men had the right to rape their wives, now they don't.

Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.

Historically, fathers had the right to decide who their daughters married, now they don't.

Historically, rich men had the right to horsewhip peasants who were rude to them, now they don't.

We've given up all of these rights, but I don't see you many people claiming that society would be improved by getting them back. If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument than 'well, that's what it used to be, back before 1903 when society was basically rubbish for anyone below the upper middle class'.

Re:I need to find a new country to live in.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want every single piece of information about the primer minister, members of the government and the whole parliament,and their families and friends, the data shall include health records, monetary records, travel information, education records, letters, phone calls, email and internet records, DNA records, shopping and expending habits....

I want to be able to access that data when ever I want to be able to cross reference it, data mine it and share with whoever I consider pertinent without prior permission or particular reason
I want to be able to track their location activities, and detain then for an indefinite amount of time under the terrorist law for their own good and the protection of their freedoms.

Bottom line I want those in power and their closest to be treated like any other citizen is being treated in UK right now.