Orange Turn Phorm Blue

Orange might not be the first ISP to denounce the behavioural advertising service of Phorm (take a look at the 'Proud to be Phorm free! ISP) but they're certainly the largest.Paul-François Fournier, senior vice-president of Orange’s online advertising division, told the FT that there was “huge potential” for telecommunication companies to use customer data to target advertising but managing customers’ privacy was “critical”.“Privacy is in our DNA, so we need to be honest and clear about what we are doing,” Mr Fournier said. “We have decided not to be in Phorm because of that ... The way it was proposed, the privacy issue was too strong.”However, he didn't go quite so far as to say they'd never use it or a company in the same space such as NebuAd or FrontPorch.Currently Orange appear to be the consumer champions and perhaps this is something that BT should have thought about before unleashing the service on 10,000 unsuspecting customers back in 2006 and 2007. Although it would seem that it's not a case of once bitten twice shy as BT has gone for round two with Phorm.

A Dog is for Life, Not Just for the Battery Lifespan

On one hand, the Nintendogs virtual pets are great for those fad loving kids who are easily bored and will lose interest in a real life pet once the novelty wears off. So in that sense they are effective in fulfilling that initial short-lived desire for a pet.On the other hand, they mislead the owners of these gadgets into believing that owning a pet is less involved and a lot simpler than it really is. Although you have to clean up the pooch’s poops on the console, it fails to include pet care, vet visits, medication costs, and general taming; therefore failing to provide an accurate experience of owning a pet dog. What about the true cost and chores of owning a pet?If having a pet dog was as simple as the Nintendog suggests then we would all have a cute little odourless puppy in our home that rolls over when we tickle its collar and wags its tails permanently with joy. But this joyful experience of owning a pet dog is vastly different from the reality which involves a muddy, smelly pooch running around on a mission of destruction.It therefore projects an unrealistic or rose-tinted view of owning a dog that can lead to people upgrading to real life pets without being fully prepared or informed about what this will entail.In a society where 26 page documents are released informing pet owners on how to entertain and mentally stimulate your pets so ensure their mental stability, it seems ludicrous to simultaneously be “dumbing down” the reality of owning a pet. Surely we are being sent contradictory messages.If the Nintendogs are meant to be an accurate depiction of a live pet dog then surely the same animal welfare rules should apply and owners should make every effort to ensure and monitor a mentally stable pet, but the software just does not accommodate for the mental support for pets. So, for a hassle free, clean and tidy alternative for a real life pet, Nintendogs offers a simple virtual imitation. But do not be fooled into thinking that owning a real life pet will be quite as simple.

Doubting Thomas?

We’re big fans of Richard Thomas here at data grub.Mr Thomas, as any fule kno, is the UK’s Information Commissioner and head of the Information Commissioner’s Office. They’re the independent regulatory office dealing with all sorts of privacy legislation like the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act and many others too numerable and mind-numbing to mention.Put succinctly, Mr Thomas and his team are there to prevent the creeping threat of a Big Brother state, and also to stop any attempt by private companies to read our emails, share our data or plant transponders in our brains that constantly remind us that Sud-U-Like Washes Even Whiter.It’s a pretty thankless task, but one that he and his team have been doing pretty bloody well, at least in my opinion. They’re not afraid to stand up for citizens’ privacy when it’s genuinely threatened by big business or big government, while at the same time ever-ready to slap down spurious, misinformed petitions from bleating, single issue, self-important “privacy experts”. (I think you’ll know whom I’m referring to, Alex…)So even though the latest utterance to pass the Commissioner’s lips could have come from the Department of The Bleeding Obvious, at least it’s being said by someone whose words carry weight.In a speech yesterday Mr Thomas warned that the proliferation of ever larger centralised databases is increasing the risk of people’s personal data being lost or abused.He also drew attention to bears’ predilection for sylvan defecation and raised questions about the Pope’s dedication to Islam.But sometimes you do need to state the obvious, loudly and often. This is one such time.Because on Tuesday, Jacqui Smith was forced to admit that the Government will soon begin technical work on its giant database of all email, text, phone and web traffic – even though the legislation has yet to be passed by Parliament.Of course, the present Government is completely contemptuous of Parliament and will go ahead with its plans whatever Richard Thomas, or anyone else, says.Which is a shame, because much of Mr Thomas’ speech was given over to a report on how reported data losses have soared in the past year. The number of data breaches - including lost laptops and memory sticks containing sensitive personal records - reported to him has risen to 277 since the loss of 25 million child benefit records was disclosed nearly a year ago.The new figures show that the information commissioner has recently launched investigations into 30 of the most serious cases. The 277 breaches include 80 reported by the private sector, 75 within the NHS and other health bodies, 28 reported by central government, 26 by local authorities and 47 by the rest of the public sector.Mr Thomas pointed out that as new technology is harnessed to collect vast amounts of personal information, the risks of it being abused increase: “It is time for the penny to drop,” he said. “The more databases that are set up and the more information exchanged from one place to another, the greater the risk of something going wrong.”“The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made.”It is not difficult to grasp this concept, Jacqui. It is a simple, elegantly expressed and indisputable fact. But why listen to boring old Richard Thomas?Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecution (DPP), speaking after Smith’s admission, weighed in to warn that the government was in danger of “breaking the back of freedom” with the relentless pressure of a security state.But I think Richard Thomas’ point is the stronger – if we can’t trust the government with our private data now, how the hell are we supposed to trust it when it holds details of all electronic communications in the UK?By the way, have a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/29/data-security-breach-civil-liberty for Thomas’ table on this year’s data breaches.Ta ta for now, data chums!

We’re big fans of Richard Thomas here at data grub.

Mr Thomas, as any fule kno, is the UK’s Information Commissioner and head of the Information Commissioner’s Office. They’re the independent regulatory office dealing with all sorts of privacy legislation like the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act and many others too numerable and mind-numbing to mention.Put succinctly, Mr Thomas and his team are there to prevent the creeping threat of a Big Brother state, and also to stop any attempt by private companies to read our emails, share our data or plant transponders in our brains constantly reminding us that Sud-U-Like Washes Even Whiter.It’s a pretty thankless task, but one that he and his team have been doing pretty bloody well, at least in my opinion. They’re not afraid to stand up for citizens’ privacy when it’s genuinely threatened by big business or big government, while at the same time ever-ready to slap down spurious, misinformed petitions from bleating, single issue, self-important “privacy experts”. (I think you’ll know whom I’m referring to, Alex...)So even though the latest utterance to pass the Commissioner’s lips could have come from the Department of Bleeding Obvious, at least it’s being said by someone whose words carry weight.In a speech yesterday Mr Thomas warned that the proliferation of ever larger centralised databases is increasing the risk of people’s personal data being lost or abused.He also drew attention to bears’ predilection for sylvan defecation and raised questions about the Pope’s commitment to Islam.But sometimes you do need to state the obvious, loudly and often. This is one such time.Because on Tuesday, Jacqui Smith was forced to admit that the Government will soon begin technical work on its giant database of all email, text, phone and web traffic – even though the legislation has yet to be passed by Parliament.Of course, the present Government is completely contemptuous of Parliament and will go ahead with its plans whatever Richard Thomas, or anyone else, says.Which is a shame, because much of Mr Thomas’ speech was given over to a report on how reported data losses have soared in the past year. The number of data breaches - including lost laptops and memory sticks containing sensitive personal records - reported to him has risen to 277 since the loss of 25 million child benefit records was disclosed nearly a year ago.The new figures show that the information commissioner has recently launched investigations into 30 of the most serious cases. The 277 breaches include 80 reported by the private sector, 75 within the NHS and other health bodies, 28 reported by central government, 26 by local authorities and 47 by the rest of the public sector.Mr Thomas pointed out that as new technology is harnessed to collect vast amounts of personal information, the risks of it being abused increase: "It is time for the penny to drop,” he said. “The more databases that are set up and the more information exchanged from one place to another, the greater the risk of something going wrong.”"The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made."It is not difficult to grasp this concept, Jacqui. It is a simple, elegantly expressed and indisputable fact. But why listen to boring old Richard Thomas?Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecution (DPP), speaking after Smith’s admission, weighted in to warn that the government was in danger of “breaking the back of freedom” with the relentless pressure of a security state.But I think Richard Thomas’ point is the stronger – if we can’t trust the government with our private data now, how the hell are we supposed to trust it when it holds details of all electronic communications in the UK?

A guest editor writes…

I’m delighted to announce that this week we have a guest editor, a Ms H.W. from somewhere in the South East. You’ll immediately notice the balance, reasoned argument and tolerance of other nationalities that has, until now, been so clearly absent from this blog. So, without further ado, I give you Ms H.W.:A German Court has given permission for website operators to store internet protocol (IP) addresses of their visitors, claiming it does not violate data protection legislation. Surely not? I hear you cry. Yet they say that without additional information IP addresses can’t be classified as personal data because they cannot be easily obtained and used to determine a person’s identity. Note they said data cannot be easily attained therefore it is in fact still possible. The court in Munich did present a good case by ruling that ISPs could not present information to third parties regarding who had been using a certain IP address at a particular time without a court order.The German court ruling is in fact consistent with the advice issued by the UK’s Information Commissioner last year. However, this did point out that IP addresses could constitute personally identifiable information (PII). This has resulted in people including The Article 29 Working Party (a reference to the 29th article of the European Directive concerning the protection of EU citizens’ personal data) to argue that if it could become personal data it should be treated this way regardless.As a nation we put a certain amount of our trust in online actors including behavioural targeting firms, internet service providers and search engines, to use our data correctly and appropriately. The big question is: does using this data breach our privacy laws? The German court obviously thinks not.I wonder if Pythias Brown, 48, from New Jersey agrees. He used to be a baggage screener at an airport and in charge of people’s property. He admitted to stealing regularly from his workplace and selling the stolen items on eBay using the handle “alirla”. Brown was found by investigators who tracked down this alirla account using Brown’s IP address for his home computer. This case provides a great argument against the claim that IP addresses cannot be counted and used as personal data. It would appear privacy here has most certainly been invaded.

What’s Your Pet Peeve?

In a new code of practice facing pet owners, cat and dog owners are advised as to the ways in which they should care for their pets. The new code contains obvious and excessive instructions that are to be imposed on pet owners when caring for their pets. The obvious being the well made observation that pet owners should feed their pet’s everyday; the excessive being the need for the provision of "entertainment" and "mental stimulation" for their pets under new government advice.The article tells owners that suitable toys and "entertainment" should be provided for their cats and that they should “ensure that your cat has enough mental stimulation from you and from its environment to avoid boredom and frustration.” According to various sources, a lack in mental stimulation, even when coupled with sufficient physical stimulation, can result in a mental imbalance for pets. Maybe this revelation is all a PR stunt to trigger a rise in the number of pet psychiatrists; or maybe it is just another step towards the ever more present Nanny State.Whatever the reason for these revelations, it strikes me as ever so slightly excessive. When was the last time your vet told you to hold regular entertainment activities for your pet? Ok cats and dogs are suitable for keeping as pets due to their tame nature and adaptability to the home environment, but that doesn’t mean they need mollycoddling 24/7 like a child. Cats especially can amuse themselves outside without having their owner set up a puppet show for them in order to stimulate their mind.Providing a decent shelter, taking them to the vet when they are sick, and generally providing care should be sufficient. Without doubt, stories of animal cruelty are disturbing and unacceptable and need to be stopped, but there is no need to go to the extreme and treat them like a child.Legislation should be targeted at the ignorant abusers who are incapable of providing care to animals. It just isn’t necessary to tell already caring pet owners how to further pamper their animals. Instead they should be inflicting greater punishments for those who abuse animals, and raising more money for saving those animals found deserted or mistreated.

Camden RIPA-off

Camden Town Council has more than quadrupled its surveillance of local residents since the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).While the Act allows for the interception of communications and the use of covert human intelligence sources to prevent crime, including terrorism, it appears that Camden Council are using this legislation to spy on low-level offences, such as dog fouling, littering and checking whether or not a child lives in a certain catchment area.Admittedly, Camden is the haunt of some of the most loathsome Untermensch that inhabit this fair city, from strutting, skinny-jeaned new media types to coin-eyed rip-off merchants selling “legal highs”.But while I personally would be glad to sweep this whole swathe of faux-bohemia into the Regent’s Canal, I grudgingly have to admit that, owing to a loophole in the law, these people have the right to exist without being persecuted by the local council.Of course, if the police and security services have reasonable grounds to suspect someone of planning a terrorist operation, that’d be a great time to start tapping the phones. But if you think that someone is mis-using a disabled parking badge, I would suggest that surveillance is both disproportionate and a fatuous waste of time and money.