Oooh! Catchphrase in the title. Nice.
OK, you’ve read about the wannabe smear site and seen some of the reports covering it. If you haven’t yet then please do, there’s some very enlightening stuff there.
Did you know it’s somewhere where the “facts” change mysteriously?
Mark Thompson, the author of the petition which so drew the ire of Kent Ertugrul, has posted a challenge of his own to Kent on his blog. Stating the real facts (I missed out on one of the nicknames too Mark, but I’m happy to stick with Classic Rock Jamie, it’s one of my more polite nicknames), he rebuts Kent’s allegations and provides judgement of his own. Here’s a snip. Be assured that the rest of his posting is well worth reading.
That’s another interesting point. The people like Alexander Hanff, Mark Thompson, Chris Williams, John Oates and the rest who are writing about Phorm, presenting the reasons why it is illegal, why it threatens privacy and why Phorm have shown themselves to be completely undeserving of trust are doing so openly, honestly, with cogent argument and some style.
But in all seriousness, the actions of Phorm, to make this issue as personal as they have, is a disgrace. It does nothing but show how unprofessional the company is, how delusional the management are at the highest level and what little respect they have for ordinary people who happen to disagree with their technology.
[...]
This is about showing how if Phorm can get it so wrong about this particular point, then how can they be trusted on the other points they have raised on their ‘smear’ website.
I humbly request that Phorm remove this website and replace it with a public apology, especially to those individuals they have ‘named and shamed’. Of course if I was Phorm I’d have had an army of lawyers threatening legal action to remove the site, but my ‘Privacy Pirate’ booty must be running low and I couldn’t afford such luxuries.
You and me both, Mark. Arrr! Emu lad! and all that kind of thing.
Alexander Hanff has written an article called “Lessons To Be Learned“. You’d think there were a couple at least. Phorm have been given a Gene Hunt like kicking in a number of reports of this latest development and that can’t have done their reputation any good at all. Yet Phorm employ the services of Schillings who specialise in “Reputation Management”. Had I been employed to try and improve Phorm’s reputation I’d decline the mission. It seems more likely to me that Zimbabwe’s cricket team would beat Australia 5-0 than Phorm’s reputation can be salvaged from this mess.
One’s behaviour and how others perceive you is a massive ingredient of one’s reputation. If Phorm and Kent didn’t already know that then they do know.
Anyway, back to Lessons To Be Learned. First lesson is surely don’t put up a site containing inaccuracies and smears because the first thing the people you’re trying to smear will do is make sure they have copies of your original site. So then it doesn’t matter what changes you make thereafter because they will be exposed.
It has been a couple of days since Phorm launched their new anti-anti-Phorm web site and in the 40 or so hours the site has been online we have already seen the “facts” change as Phorm quickly made edits to the site.
What is most interesting about the site is the fact that Phorm (who have always claimed they have the greatest respect for privacy and are providing a “privacy revolution”) have done exactly what they said they would NOT do with their technology and it has not even been deployed yet
The emphasis is mine. I think it speaks volumes about Phorm. Are these the actions of a company worthy of trusting with your data? The rest of the article highlights the inaccuracies and baseless claims and that any changes to the smearsite will be logged, recorded and highlighted.
In the meantime there are formal submissions to complete for the All Party Committee on Communications inquiry. You know, the one Phorm were so keen to “make arrangements” for despite the requirements for submission being explicit and confirmed as applicable to all who want to respond. The Committee are aware of my concerns and replied simply and shortly.
Phorm gets its four pages just the same as I do. That’s four pages, Kent. Comes after three and before five.
Four. As in Four Feather Falls, the number of Tom Baker’s regeneration of the Doctor in Doctor Who, the number of seasons Blake’s 7 ran for, album titles by Blues Traveler and Foreigner, the number of people in country group The Highwaymen (Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash and Kris Kristoffersen in case anyone was wondering), the number of Horsemen of the Apocalypse and Kevin Pietersen’s position in the England batting order.
Four.
Four.
Four pages.
So, what does that tell us?
Phorm are scared. Phorm realise the NoDPI campaigners are a bigger threat to them than they ever thought possible. Phorm haven’t got a legal argument to rebut the arguments that have now been around for over a year. Phorm have few friends in the media (and fewer with every passing day the way things are going).
With all this happening would you want to be associated with Phorm?