Phorm has today raised a £15m war chest by selling almost a fifth of itself to institutional investors at less than a quarter of its price last year. It'll use the cash to cover its operating costs while ISPs continue to mull its web monitoring and profiling system. The firm sold 3.3 million shares at £4.50 each. It has been …
'Bout time they called it a day, I reckon. Rats and sinking ship, anyone?
I'm thinking this.
Kent has naughty pictures of some in government.
Some how he got a contract from the government to secretly spy on people in the future.
Greatest hustler of all times.
Why does Phorm need the ISPs?
Is it because, although they claim in some way to 'anonymise' the data that they collect on your browsing habits such that it cannot be traced back to you they still need a way of tracing it back to you for their system [scheme] to function?
Would they therefore have to rely on the logs kept by the ISPs to make that link. I'm not talking about the IP history of sites that you visit, access to that, unless authorised under law would be illegal.
Rather the IP history of your connection as supplied by the ISP specific to the customer. E.g... at the moment I am on 78.194.141.xxx. Since it is a dynamic address in a couple of hours I might end up on 82.145.123.xxx and so on. If my ISP is, at a later date going to have to provide information to the authorities about what nefarious deeds I have been up to on line then they must log this to match it to the rest of the data they have.
That list of assigned IP addresses must uniquely identify me, presumably ultimately by means of some customer number. It might be illegal for my ISP to give Phorm full information about the logs that they keep. However would it be illegal for them to give Phorm the information about my assigned IP over time. If not then that would be the way that Phorm is able to uniquely identify me and why they 'need' co-operation from the ISPs.
Even so, if that is a method by which Phorm tracks me, and I'm hard pressed to work out another one unless I have specifically installed their software on my computer so they can do so, then the claim that the data they collect cannot be tracked back to me is false. It has to be false anyway since that has to happen so their system can work.
Scuse me..... just rambling.
A more effective deterrant is needed.
Something along the lines of live crucifixion of the CEO followed by evisceration (the video to be discretely circulated to suitable media outlets) to discourage future investors in such plans.
Just a thought.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market
- Analysis Uber, Lyft and cutting corners: The true face of the Sharing Economy