April 8, 2008
Phorm and Google: the yin and yang of online privacy
It has been a week of regulatory decisions on internet privacy issues.
The UK’s Office of the Information Commissioner has given the go-ahead for Phorm, the targeted advertising company to start trials with BT. While the ICO statement of this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the service, it doesn’t raise any insurmountable concerns. Phorm is still under close scrutiny, but for now, allowed to go ahead.
At the same time, the Article 29 Working Party has finally published its opinion on data protection issues related to search engines, going much further than some observers expected. Search engines are to be required to delete search logs after only six months compared with 18 currently for Google and 13 for Microsoft and Yahoo.
There is still much puzzling over the exact interpretation of the dense document, but under some of the strictest readings it suggests that even the search terms you type into a search engine are personal information and should not be used without your permission for other purposes. In other words, they shouldn’t be used to send you targeted ads, an interpretation that would entirely undermine Google’s business model.
It seems unlikely that the rules will be taken to this extreme, but it is clear there is a clash coming between Google and the European regulators on the recommendations. Google maintains it needs server logs for 18 months – some European regulators say even 6 months are too much. After a year and a half of talking, neither side has convinced the other. It doesn’t bode well for finding a compromise from here.
The Phorm and Google cases show that regulators have fallen out of sync with public opinion on these matters. For internet users, Phorm is the easier to hate, because noone really likes advertising. Google, on the other hand, provides a useful service and is forgiven for much.
The regulators, however, appear to see Google as the more problematic of the two. It is OK to target people with ads as long as it is done anonymously, without identifying people. What is not OK is having a lot of personal details sitting on company servers, however unobtrusively they may have been collected and used.
Tags: Article 29 Working Party, data protection, google, Phorm, privacy
The problems with Phorm are much worse than Google. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Google provides a service user to users. Phorm does not. Google can only track your Google searches, and your activity with Google services, Phorm can track your activity across the entire web. It is easy to stop being tracked by Google by deleting cookies and/or not using Google services, while opting out of Phorm is more problematic: at the moment, even if you opt-out (even though, legally, you should be required to opt-in), your data is still redirected and profiled by Phorm.
Phorm is run by the CEO of a company which created Spyware software. Google has not.
Phorm has consistently lied and mislead people about their spyware technology. BT ran secret and allegedly illegal trials of hundreds of thousands of BT Broadband users without their knowledge or consent. There are no such parallels with Google.
Phorm’s spyware system interferes with the normal traffic patterns of the internet, possibly causing browsing delays, and opening up new avenues for security breaches.
Nobody trusts form, and the reputation of ISPs who are planning to use Phorm has dropped like a ten-tonne weight.
I strongly suggest anyone who is using an ISP who intends to use Phorm’s spyware (BT, Virgin, TalkTalk) drop them immediately and go with a Phorm-free ISP.
For more information, see:
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/page.php?2
Posted by: phormwatch | May 24th, 2008 at 2:53 am | Report this comment