Downing Street has palmed off responsibility for enforcing the law around its web monitoring and profiling technology to the Information Commissioner. The Prime Minister's response to a public petition today comes despite his Home Office having given a positive pre-launch legal opinion in private to Phorm and BT. The petition …
@BNP - UKIP and those meddling EU Commissioners
Well said Sir.
As much as many would complain, at least the EU are trying to protect us from certain interests that care so little about so much except their bottom lines.
Neelie Kroes FTW
I just re-read the 1.45 am response I wrote in apoplexy. Pleasantly surprised to see how sane it was. (Apart possibly from the beginning: "You lily-livered hand-wringing prats.") I do not anticipate a reply.
Out of curiosity has anyone here *ever* received a sensible response to one of these?
I reckon I've signed about 10 of these petitions and haven't seen one that didn't say something along the lines of "nothing to do with us, chum". I did notice that the website doesn't actually list any petitions that might be considered a success story (though I suppose our criterion for success may differ wildly).
So in two stories....
On the petition response, Government says: ICO is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to second guess its decisions. However, ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm's technology. They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers' rights are fully protected.
Then the Government says this in response to the Lords' surveillance criticism: The Government has refused to extend to the private sector the power of privacy regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to inspect public bodies' privacy and data protection systems. It would only say that it would "listen" to the arguments for extending that power.
I could be wrong, but that looks to me like they are saying the ICO is looking but can't do anything about it.
Re: BNP - UKIP and those meddling EU Commissioners
1) If you want to protest vote why would you vote for either a racist right-wing party, or a party that has made countless mistakes and has more disreputable MPs than the SSP had?
2) The Tories want to be less centrist in Europe, and pull out of several centrist coalitions. This means that they are having to form new coalitions, but the only more right coalitions are with minority parties (who are also pretty right-wing), if they continue along this path they will probably alienate the larger countries in the EU.
I don't defend Labour, except to say that the Tories are always going to be a lot worse. David Cameron has about 3 solid policies in his entire manifesto, and snubs everyone by saying "let's play it by ear". That is all.
That's a surprise.
A response to a number ten petition that says "Feck off plebs", who'd have thought it?
I'm thinking that amanfromMars should stand for Parliament. He makes more sense than *any* of the current incumbents.
Voting doesn't work, hasn't done for years - change requires civil disobedience... always. Even then it's not always enough. Think Poll Tax Riots as opposed to the Miners' Strikes.
If you're really pissed off about the current state of affairs - don't vote for any of the scum, you're just playing by their game if you do. Maybe, just maybe, if so few people vote that we end up with a hung parliament they might get the message that we've had enough of the BS from every single one of them.
Failing that - violence is maybe the only recourse; time for a bit of Starship Troopers psychology:
"Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. "
Well bugger me, another fuck up by the Brown one and his bent cronies. Up the revolution I say..................................now where the fuck did I put that semtex.
@ AC 12:18 UTC
Are you fucking kidding me? You're quoting a film which was basically a metaphor for what happened between 1939 and 1945 to make a point about a Government out of control.
Mine's the coat; the black leather one next to the jackboots.
Much more relevant film
What we have come to expect.
Typical of this "listening" government. At best, their attitude towards our private data is cavalier, at worst, it is avaricious. I tend to think they want to sell as much of our data as they can and, until or unless the tabloids get interested, nothing is likely to stop them. The opposition by the E.U. to what this government are doing will almost certainly help them with hack editors and, no doubt, be another nail in the coffin of our freedom and privacy.
I am another life-long Labour voter who cannot wait for this bunch of fascists to get thrown out, even if that means replacing them with the more venal and uncaring Torys.
Short and Sweet ... and Bitter in Denial.
With Government in the Doldrums, must the Systemic Fault be in their Directive Communications and Source Intelligence. Or is one to be expected to believe that Party Politicians playing National and International Politically Incorrect Games for the Enrichment of Instant Profit rather than Lasting Value are Leading anything Coherent and Worthy.
A New Model Delivering Transparency for Perfection of Services would be a Model which could be Copied by Any who would Value Honesty on a Par with Truth for Rock Solid Base Integrity/Business Intelligence.
So no surprise!
"Shut up proles you have no idea what you want or what you're talking about. Now hand over all your info and don't second guess us in future. We are in control and we know what you need!"
"They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers' rights are fully protected."
... but since (as we all know) there isn't really any way to opt out of phorm, it can't ever be lawful!
Once your ISP signs up to it then tough - you're getting a phorm cookie whether you want one or not and that cookie is all that stops them storing your data (they intercept it regardless).
Bastards. Illegal fucking spying bastards. The government should - oh wait a minute - they're all in facour of storing as much information about us as they can. Bastards the lot of them
Please read my post again. I was pointing out non-Phorm like advertisers DO NOT read the content of my pages by any means, not through snooping nor client side.
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE