The EU has requested a response from the UK government to clarify if Phorm breaches European data laws.

Of course the answer in Phorm’s current opt-out structure is yes. I certainly don’t understand why this seems to be so difficult to sort out. An opt-in system would work fine and actually if marketed correctly could be quite popular but the current system is tantamount to spying on web users. I’ve even said myself I’d be happy to opt-in but take exception to ISPs just making the decision for me - where will they draw the line in the future?

I’ve posted several times about this just because I think a system with a lot of potential has just been greedy and followed a route that is only going to antagonise people.

I encourage everyone to sign the online petition to stop ISPs breaching customers’ privacy on the Downing Street website.

I’ve never been entirely happy with some of the data protection laws floating about - some just don’t seem to contain any common sense at all. However if this system is allowed to slip through the net then clearly the whole issue of data protection is a farce.

So the Wispa is going back into production thanks to campaigns on various social media sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

The really big question for me is how did Cadbury’s come to the conclusion to discontinue the Wispa in the first place? Everyone I know loves them!

I’m all for advances in technology to protect users but why do some companies seem to handle things so clumsily and just not think how it is going to affect the end users? Sometimes these actions can actually be damaging to other trading companies.

I have two examples of just this happening today.

Firstly with regard to Mozilla rolling out a new policy when it comes to SSL certificates (this will be within Firefox 3). Essentially if you self certify or get an unapproved provider to sign the certificate any users of Firefox 3 will get a massive scary message - the kind that most people have a little panic and push the back button.

Mozilla are trying to do the right thing but in too bullish a way. If a certificate is actually invalid this of course should be displayed but if it is simply by an unapproved provider an alternative message should be provided.

In the case of SSL certificates they are provided for two reasons.

1. To encrypt data sent to and from the server.
2. To authenticate the website is what it says it is.

The second point can only be trusted when a third party reputable provider issues the certificate and this is what Firefox is trying to protect against. Why not have a bit more user friendly message that explains that? If a self certified certificate is being used simply to ensure secure transfer of data strictly speaking the certificate is not invalid so why say it is?

My second annoyance is with McAfee and their SiteAdvisor system they have in their security software. Every McAfee’s users’ search engine results pages have icons put next to each result to signify if McAfee has tested if the site as safe or not.

Sounds like a good idea yes? Certainly gives piece of mind for the average user however if as a company you are unlucky enough still to be in McAfee queue for testing websites it’s not such good news.

If a user is confronted with a red cross next to a search result (failed McAfee’s tests) you’d understand people avoiding it like the plague but how about if they have a yellow exclamation mark next to them?

Well for the average users they too would avoid this like the plague - why take the risk?

So when a company I’ve been working with had this very problem (and notably their competitor’s have already been awarded the magic green tick) I contacted McAfee to see if they could move things along. A brick wall is about the best description - wait your turn. Hardly the response you want when an action by another company could actively be turning away paying customers.

I’m not saying that McAfee shouldn’t have come up with this solution just the implementation is lacking. Surely a more carefully categorised queuing system could have ensured no uneven roll-out through competitors? Or maybe if such a thing was to happen there could be conditions when a website could be fast tracked?

So the new iPhone 3G is out and there seems to be talk about how much it costs to own. It’s about time too I never understood the first version being released without 3G access - it wasn’t exactly a new technology.

Lets face it the iPhone is mainly a fashion statement, a bit of a status symbol for people to show off. It’s the prettiest phone you can get (although it will be covered in scratches and fingerprints within seconds of leaving the box). You can get other phones that do the same functions but maybe not in such a well rounded package.

The iPhone is a designer item which people are willing to pay a premium for. Whether everyone will be put off this premium phone due to Apple pushing the limits as much as they can with changing interfaces with every new model:

Stef Lewandowski: “I got an iPhone 3G and now wish I hadn’t - it’s slow and glitchy, and I have to replace all of my charging devices including my bedside clock radio because they have subtly changed the interface it uses. “Free”? Sure.”

There are certainly features in the iPhone that are great and will push the entire mobile market forward to provide much more useful mobile devices (not just phones) which certainly isn’t a bad thing.

The mobile phone market is very cut throat and Apple again have carved their own high-end niche which is their to lose rather than others to gain. I’m interested to see a real iPhone contender stepping up and see where that makes new innovations to lead.