|
|
翻譯：
             
保密性： 英國的政府拒绝調查Phorm
星期四， 2009年5月21日
由湯姆・ Espiner | 總理的辦公室拒绝了公開呼叫請求政府對Phorm進行調查，說獨立信息委員的Office負責對保證關於行為的廣告服務技術不違保密性法。 在星期二，第10由網絡服務提供戶出版了對要求Phorm的技術調查由政府的e請願的一個反應和對它的收養的一個禁令，如果它被發現破壞歐洲或英國的保密性法律。 Phorm截住用戶數據交易匿名描出人和為他們根據他們網瀏覽行為的廣告服務。 在它的反應，第說的10保密性立法由信息委員的Office (ICO)強制執行，補充說， ICO 「是一個獨立身體，并且猜疑[ICO]政府是不適當的決定」。 「ICO是對Phorm的技術的清楚它嚴密監測所有進展關於這個論點和特別是所有未來的用途」，陳述的總理的辦公室。 「他們保證任何如此未來的用途完成以合法，適當和透明方式，并且消費者』權利充分地被保護」。 在星期二然而， ICO告訴ZDNet英國，當它可能強制執行數據保護行動時，它沒有匯寄強制執行其他保密性法律，例如調查力量行動(Ripa)的章程。 「在Phorm附近提出了的[截住]問題不是一件事情為ICO」，輔助信息委員Jonathon Bamford告訴的ZDNet英國。 「我們沒有法律角色關於Ripa」。 各種各樣的組織，包括基礎為報告政策研究，斷言用戶交通的Phorm的攔截，在anonymising數據之前，違反Ripa。 監督Ripa的管理機關是監視(振盪器)委員辦公室。 然而，那個辦公室關於政府當局只監督Ripa例如警察和情報服務和不看可能的Ripa違反由私人公司。 然而， Bamford建議管理者例如振盪器應該也是監測私人部門。 「有空白那裡」， Bamford說。 「沒人關於Ripa執行作為ICO做以數據保護]的同一個角色[」。 通過大型裝配架的`』 Killock added that the legality of Phorm’s service under Ripa should be examined. “You shouldn’t be intercepting data traffic without the clear consent of all users involved,” said Killock. “If you intercept a communication, everyone involved should give clear, informed consent.” Privacy legal expert Vanessa Barnett, a partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that “ultimately only a judge can decide” the legality of Phorm’s service. “Under Ripa, interceptions are lawful if the interceptor has reasonable grounds for believing that consent has been given. That consent must be freely given, specific and informed,” said Barnett. “And that’s the rub: have the individuals been made sufficiently aware of what is being intercepted, and have nonetheless decided it’s OK to be monitored and profiled in this way?” However, Marc Burgess, senior vice president of technology at Phorm, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that Phorm’s interception of user traffic, prior to anonymisation, was legal. “[Phorm] is definitely legal under Ripa,” said Burgess. “Users must give their consent before they can use the service.” Burgess added that the definition of ‘intercept’ in Ripa means making the contents of a communication available to other people or organisations, but that Phorm’s intercept devices sat on service provider networks and performed filtering before making any data available for scrutiny. “This information is passing through [sealed] black boxes,” he said. “It’s a filtering and whitelisting process.” An inquiry into possible regulation of the ISP industry was launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (apComms) in April. The government committee is to examine issues including behavioural advertising and deep packet inspection. Have Your Say: Privacy: British Government Refuses To Investigate Phorm Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Woman Sprayed With Pesticide Can't Get List Of Chemicals Because They're Trade Secret Last post by Unregistered @ 03:03 AM
Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Battle of Britain 2009 - Taking the NAZI propaganda out head on! Last post by Unregistered @ 01:43 AM Our Economy Is Going to Keep Tanking Until We Stop Shoveling Billions to Rich People Last post by Unregistered @ 01:29 AM House passes bills to recognize seven tribes Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:10 AM Fossil Teeth Hint at Animal Adaptation to Global Warming Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:02 AM Online Behavioral Targeting Targeted by Feds, Critics Last post by Nostalgia @ 12:58 AM Bin Laden's Obama criticism a sign he is worried Last post by Nostalgia @ 12:49 AM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
