Phorm writes off critics as 'privacy pirates'

by James Quilter , Brand Republic 28-Apr-09, 09:55

LONDON - Phorm, the targeted online advertising company, has launched a website to counter claims from privacy campaigners, who it has labelled "privacy pirates'"and "agitators", about its controversial technology.

The site, stopphoulplay.com, was set up by Phorm chief executive Kent Ertugrul.

On it, the company claims it has been targeted by a smear campaign "orchestrated by a small, but dedicated band of 'privacy pirates' who appear determined to harm our company".

Phorm, which allows advertisers to track online behaviour and target consumers with relevant marketing, has been immersed in controversy. Partners include Google and Microsoft.

The European Commission is currently taking legal action against the UK government for allowing trials of the system on the BT network without consumer consent.

Additionally, Wikipedia and Amazon have announced they will block the system.

Phorm's site complains that privacy bloggers and letter-writing campaigns have targeted journalists, MPs and regulators to "distort the truth and misrepresent Phorm's technology".

The site has also published links to a number of stories that it claims have damaged Phorm's reputation. Among these are reports of the EC's legal action against the UK by the BBC and the Daily Telegraph.

Phorm said these stories incorrectly hinted its service was illegal under UK law.

Individuals named by Phorm as privacy pirates include campaigners Marcus Williamson and Alexander Hanff, whom Ertugrul described as a "serial agitator".

On hearing of the site's launch Williamson said Phorm had itself resorted to smears.

Comments

N Sheldon - 28/04/2009

Phorm can feck off

Michael Coxon - 28/04/2009

Don't you mean pheck off?

Rory Sutherland - 28/04/2009

I'm in favour of ISPs finding some way to make incremental money. Why should YouTube pocket all the revenue from online video when ISPs have to bear the cost of all the extra bandwidth? As to how you do it, bigger question. But the Internet is in danger of becoming unstable if all the value is created by one party, all the money is made by a second party, and all the costs fall to a third.

Jeremy Mason - 28/04/2009

What does this line in the article mean: "Partners include Google and Microsoft." I wasn't aware that either of these companies had partnered with Phorm?

James Singleton - 28/04/2009

What's a "Privacy Pirate"? It doesn't make sense; I do hope it doesn't take off as some cheap tag line on future Phorm articles.

Ed Stivala - 28/04/2009

I suppose they were always going to attract negative publicity as they are different to the "vogue" internet properties that are *so* loved by their users and yet have no idea how to monetize what they have. On the other hand here is a pure gold commercial business model. I can imagine that they will be very successful and I for one wish them well...

James Sandoval - 29/04/2009

Phorm represents much needed innovation in digital media/marketing/targeting. It would be a real shame, not to mention an industry set-back, if the EC's legal action significantly interfered with - or, worse even, killed - the Phorm business...especially after it already passed the UK government's privacy & data security litmus tests.

Ben Williams - 01/05/2009

Whether you agree with Phorm's business model or not, I feel that the sustained and ongoing negative PR surrounding the company has damaged the brand, and that the business will fail as a result.