p2pnet news view P2P | Advertising:- Deep Privacy Invasion pirate Kent Ertugrul is trying to take the high ground with a new site designed to out-anti Alex Hanff’s NoDPI and the BadPhorm sites.

This is somewhat like George W. Bush trying to claim he had absolutely nothing to do with the world-wide recession.

Ertugrul runs Phorm, a company whose Web Wise technology lifts people’s personal and private data for resale to advertisers for use in ‘behavioural targeting’ and other kinds of  unfriendly persuasion.

He’s made personal attacks on Hanff  and on his new site, called StopPhoulPlay (No! Really!), says »»»

Over the last year Phorm has been the subject of a smear campaign orchestrated by a small but dedicated band of online “privacy pirates” who appear very determined to harm our company. Their energetic blogging and letter-writing campaigns, targeted at journalists, MPs, EU officials and regulators, distort the truth and misrepresent Phorm’s technology. We have decided to expose the smears and set out the true story, so that you cthough itan judge the facts for yourself.

StopPhoulPlay looks “incredibly unprofessional,” says The Guardian, going on:

It’s, “also referenced Privacy International head Simon Davis in its introduction, which is a whole other can of worms.”

“Unless I’m sorely mistaken, something here smells rotten,” says Ertugrul on the site.

He isn’t, and it does.

Phorm is, “under scrutiny after a Freedom of Information requests revealed that the [British] Home Office  apparently offered ‘informal guidance’ to the company on the legality of its ad-targeting service,” says The Guardian, continuing »»»

Correspondence back to August 2007 shows Phorm asked the Home Office for guidance and asking several times if it had “no objection to the marketing and operation of the Phorm product in the UK”.

The Home Office has previously denied providing any advice to Phorm over any possible criminal liability for the service, but the exchange revealed by the FOI request shows the ministry asking for Phorm’s opinion on its targeted advertising guidance and how it related to Phorm.

A Home Office official said in an email in August 2007: “My personal view accords with yours, that even if it is ‘interception’, which I am doubtful of, it is lawfully authorised under section 3 by virtue of the user’s consent obtained in signing up to the ISPs terms and conditions.”

Another, in January 2008, shows an official attaching guidance notes and asking Phorm for its opinion. The official later thanked Phorm for suggesting comments and deletions to the Home Office’s notes.

“If we agree this,” wrote the official, “and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted.”

Don’t buy shares in Phorm and if you already have, sell them immediately for whatever you can get.

Meanwhile, stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

April, 2009

personal attacks – Phorm boss Ertugrul attacks Alex Hanff, April 28, 2009