For a little while it looked like things were looking up for Phorm, the internet advertising technology company. There had been a year of controversy about the company’s technology which monitors internet users web surfing behaviour at the ISP level – a technique known as “deep packet inspection”, which has raised accusations of spying with some privacy activists.
But at the beginning of the year, things went quiet. There were a few positive statements about targeted advertising from UK officials like Stephen Carter, and the company launched a trial with KT, the Korean broadband provider.
Now, suddenly, the controversy is raging again. The Home Office is now accused of “colluding” with Phorm after email exchanges between the company and Home Office staff came to light. In these Phorm was asking the Home Office for guidance and the Home Office was being quite accommodating. This is not necessarily unusual – businesses do confer with the Home Office.
“It is normal practice for businesses in whatever field they operate to engage with Government regarding their services,” said Phorm.
However, this was just after the EU said the UK’s privacy regime wasn’t up to scratch because of the way it handled the Phorm case. The mud is flying thick and fast now.
You can tell things have got bad because Phorm launched a website http://www.stopphoulplay.com/ , which tries to answer some of the accusations. Unfortunately, it may just serve to fan the flames. Mike Butcher of TechCrunch is now calling the death of Phorm, saying that it will be hard for the company to ever escape the stench of controversy.
Behind all of this are whispered accusations that this is a smear campaign orchestrated by commercial interests, rivals of Phorm. Meanwhile, anyone who has spoken in favour of Phorm - such as Simon Davies of Privacy International, the pressure group - is being accused of being in their pockets. Its become incredibly ugly and shrill.
The Phorm debate is an important one that goes to the heart of what the privacy rules should be on the internet. How we can collect data, how we can use it, what we can collect, how long can we keep it are all questions that need urgent answers. However, it is a shame the debate is circling so determinedly just around Phorm, and descending to the personal at times.
There are many other privacy issues we must not lose sight of, such as policies on cookies, retention of search data, UK government proposals to widen the range of internet traffic they monitor for national security reasons, and the fact that national data protection agencies seem powerless to enforce their own rules. This must be an opportunity to formulate a really comprehensive policy on privacy, not to just get rid of one company. Because if Phorm does die, it is certain that some other targeted advertising company will take its place. There is no going back now.
