80/20 Thinking - Controversy

Controversy

From the start, 80/20 Thinking was subject to a degree of controversy in relation to its involvement with online marketing firm Phorm. Phorm commissioned 80/20 Thinking to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) prior to its UK public launch. The controversy related in particular to the involvement of Davies and Hosein as perception was widespread that Privacy International was endorsing Phorm. Davies later released a statement confirming that the work was solely an 80/20 Thinking Project and that Privacy International was not in the business of conducting PIA's for private ventures, much less promoting their services.

Some critics have expressed concern that Davies, who is sometimes described as the world's leading privacy advocate, has compromised his independence by undertaking commercial contracts.

This issue was extensively covered in online and offline media, perhaps most notably in the article written by Charles Arthur of The Guardian.

In response to the criticism, Davies said:

"Will people please read our report to Phorm. Read it in its brief entirety, once you'll do, you'll realise that there are no conflicts whatever. In that report we argue that the system should be opt-in, that there are unresolved questions, that the matter of legal compliance is irrelevant to the issue of intrusion."

On Tuesday April 15, 2008, 80/20 facilitated a Phorm "Town Hall" debate with open participation from public and media. The event overview can be found on the 80/20 Thinking website. Present as a panelist at the meeting was Dr. Richard Clayton of Cambridge University and FIPR