Can invasive services survive Britain's privacy backlash?

• 
• 

 1 of 2

Gallery

By Barry Collins

Posted on 19 Oct 2009 at 11:26

And let’s not forget this is the same company behind the deplorably punned www.stopphoulplay.com: “the website that hits back at the privacy pirates’ smear campaign against Phorm”.

Alexander Hanff, now of Privacy International and the man described as “the angry activist” on StopPhoulPlay, says there’s been a “shift in the public attitude” to personal privacy. “It’s always been a struggle to fight for privacy in the UK because, as a nation, we had the attitude that if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide,” he told PC Pro. “People [now] find it a little bit more concerning.”

He says companies such as Phorm and 118800.com that suddenly appear out of the blue with potentially invasive services face a much rougher ride than well-established brands such as Google and Microsoft. “If you get an unknown company coming into the fray, it’s going to find it more difficult [to succeed],” he said.

What about ICO?

So what of the Information Commissioner? Is Britain’s personal information watchdog ready to reflect the public mood and take a more aggressive stance on infringements of privacy? Outgoing Information Commissioner Richard Thomas called for his office to be given far greater powers before leaving office this year.

The ICO was also unusually outspoken about 118800’s harvesting of mobile numbers, telling The Guardian that: “we made it absolutely clear to Connectivity [118800’s owners] that it should not use numbers where there is any doubt about whether the consumer is happy for their information to be used.”

And what of 192.com? Is the ICO worried about a site selling the kind of personal details that the Government-backed Get Safe Online advises people not to put on the web? “We encourage consumers only to put personal data in the public domain that they’re happy with,” an ICO spokesman told PC Pro, pointing out that people can opt out of having their information published on the electoral roll and in phone directories.

As ever, it seems that if we want to retain our privacy, we’re going to have to lead the fight ourselves.