 | | heh, that analyst is going to be rich as heck BRIBED!! | |
|
| | It's still about trust See the thing is you have to trust them to deploy the code they actually open up for inspection... | |
|
 |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Re: It's still about trust Exactly! It's the same problem as with voting machines. Even if the companies provided perfectly innocent source code, and it was well-designed for election integrity, there's no practical way to verify what's actually used.
But this "opening source code" stunt is a diversion. The violation of privacy occurs as soon as the ISP delivers the subscriber's data to the 3rd party machine. Promises from the data-mining company that they won't be too evil once they have the data cannot reduce the sellout that's already occurred at that point. | |
|
| |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | Re: It's still about trust said by swhx7:Promises from the data-mining company that they won't be too evil once they have the data cannot reduce the sellout that's already occurred at that point. Kinda like Google, but you know you've swallowed that kool-aid. Have another sip.
The only way to get around that is to script your 24/7 connection to go *everywhere*. Flood the system. | |
|
|
|  Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | Re: Privacy is dead -- get over it. My rig is locked down tighter than a frog's ass is watertight. Or, as best as I can. 
Screw 'em. WE have the power. | |
|
| | | "Get over it" is the wrong response...
Work to restore as best as possible or even better, work to foil invasive systems, is a much better response than simply throwing one's arms up and saying, "Ahh, f**k it!" | |
|
| | couple of points Hi,
I'm from Phorm and would like to clarify the following points:
Richard Clayton is not an analyst. He is a security researcher at the University of Cambridge and Open Rights Group advisory council member. He will not be paid to inspect the code.
Phorm does not pay ISPs to install kit in their networks. To better understand the revenue flows please see the flash video on the Phorm site: »www.phorm.com/
Phorm does not have a pretty shady history in spyware: it has a transparent history in adware (all of our programmes had an EULA users had to agree to, a feature of adware, not of spyware as I think any fule kno)
Phorm is open and transparent about it's product, stressing its anti phishing feature and fewer irrelevant ads feature . No attempt to bury the ads part at all. Please see »www.webwise.com/features/index.html
Just wondering about Nebuad's battle to gain trust: they have no signed agreements in the UK so not much battling to do!
Best wishes,
Phorm Comms team | |
|
| BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: couple of points Point 1: What are you talking about? An analyst is one who analyzes (or, if you prefer, analyses). I would expect Mr. Clayton is perfectly capable of analyzing your code.
Point 2: You do realize how transparent you're being, right? Understand revenue flows?? The ISPs will make money if they use your product, and so will you, and they do not need to invest. How is that NOT paying them?
Point 3: Baloney. In the US at least, the terms spyware and adware are used interchangeably (for better or worse, and precisely because they are both sleazy and there is NO clear delineation between the two).
Point 4. Open and transparent? Not burying the ad part? You're kidding. Your verbiage on that site makes it sound as if you're reducing ads, not introducing them. What bull, positioning yourselves as if you provide a benefit to average citizens rather than an invasive pox upon them.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | =========
said by phorm comms :
Phorm does not have a pretty shady history in spyware
=========
So you're saying F-Secure were wrong when they called your products spyware? To quote;
"Apropos uses highly sophisticated stealth techniques to avoid detection. The spyware collects users browsing habits and system information and sends it back to the ContextPlus servers. Targeted pop-up advertisements are displayed while browsing the web"
=========
said by phorm comms :
Phorm is open and transparent about it's product
=========
For the umpteenth time of asking... Explain why this 'wonderful' idea can't be opt-in, publish your white list of user agents, publish your black list of private sites, publish the specification for your UID cookies, explain how you exclude requests from Microsoft Office applications (because they are identical to IE7), and explain in detail how you manage to remove all user identifiers of all kinds in all languages from the profile you create, explain how you respect the explicit denial of consent by web site creators (even if implied consent were possible), and when you've finished tell us what connection (if any) exists to JSC Hosting Telesystems in Moscow.
You could also publish your source code. Particularly any GPL code that you have created (given you appear to be using open source technology to implement your solution). | |
|
| | | said by phorm comms :
Richard Clayton is not an analyst. He is a security researcher at the University of Cambridge and Open Rights Group advisory council member. He will not be paid to inspect the code.
etc etc
Phorm are correct. My name was used in 'The Register' article (»www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19···8020_pi/) by Simon Davies as an example of the sort of person that he thought might be appropriate to review the code. Leaving my software development credentials to one side; I have never been asked to make such an inspection, and in my view it is unlikely that that such an inspection would be quite as useful as Simon clearly believes it could be. It is far more appropriate to review the high-level design of the system. This is quite sufficient to come to firm conclusions about its desirability, intrusiveness and legality. | |
|
| | | | Re: couple of points said by Richard Clayton :
Phorm are correct. My name was used...
erk! thought this would appear signed, but the preview somewhat misleads!
This comment was of course written by me, Richard Clayton: »www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ | |
|
|
|
·