Privacy International: we're not hypocrites over Phorm

 

Gallery

By Barry Collins

Posted on 1 May 2009 at 13:28

Privacy International director Simon Davies has denied allegations of hypocrisy over his relationship with controversial web advertising service, Phorm.

Privacy International last week branded the use of deep-packet inspection (DPI) for online advertising as "dangerous" and "potentially unlawful".

Last year, however, Davies' consultancy firm 80/20 Thinking was paid to undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment of Phorm's DPI service. The report concluded that "Phorm's technology offers a high standard of privacy and data protection." Phorm still cites the report as an example of its "world-leading privacy" to this day.

80/20 Thinking announced last month that it would no longer undertake advisory work for private firms because of a "perception of conflict of interest".

Yet, in an exclusive interview with PC Pro, Davies denies that his public backing of Phorm has dented Privacy International's credibility. "This is why we've closed down 80/20, and I'm none too happy about it, because it's starving developing countries of their privacy funding," he said.

"But the reality is a lot of people were angry and confused, and couldn't separate out the consulting arrangements from the campaigning hat that I wear. And that's perhaps understandable.

"There's clear sky now on Privacy International. There's no question of conflict."

Indeed, Davies is running the risk of antagonising his former client by appointing renowned Phorm critic Alexander Hanff to lead Privacy International's "campaign against the use of Deep Packet Inspection for behavioural advertising models in the UK".

Hanff was only this week characterised by Phorm's newly-created StopPhoulPlay website as "the angry activist".

Opt-in or out?

Davies says he stands by 80/20's verdict that "Phorm has gone to unprecedented lengths to expunge personal data". However, he argues that that the service should be operated on a strictly opt-in basis.

"The closest we can get... is continuous and unavoidable notice [where a screen asks if you wish to participate in the service], which is what Phorm has put together, but that's still not good enough," he said.

"Privacy International has said from the outset that for the system to be ethical, it has to be opt-in."

Davies said he failed to persuade Phorm to make its service opt-in, and suggests that feedback from other advertising shows that anything other than opt-out isn't commercially viable for the advertising companies.

"We've spoken to about 20 major companies, and the number of people who drop out [when faced with a choice on whether to participate] is huge," Davies claimed. "Something like 50% of people just close down the browser because they don't want to deal with it. People don't want to be confronted by choice."

"When they get to a screen, they've got to understand it, they've got to read through it. Most people won't bother. So where are you then - opt-in or opt-out?" he argued.

Worse to come

Davies claims Phorm has become a victim of its own honesty. "I will continue to give Phorm credit for its engagement," he said. "The company has brought a load of trouble [on itself] because of its openness. It was engaging, and it's been felled for it."

And he warns that there are companies with shadier records on privacy than Phorm that are willing to step into the breach should Phorm fail. "Phorm's less than savoury competitors will fill any vacuum after Phorm's potential departure," he cautioned.