http://itsecurity.co.uk/2015/03/uk-court-of-appeal-issues-game-changing-judgment-in-google-safari-case/ The meaning of damage in section 13 of the DPA, in particular, whether there can be a claim for compensation without pecuniary loss The discussion and decision on this point of the case is without doubt some of the most significant interpretation of law with regards to data protection and privacy that we have ever seen in the UK. Google argued that under the Data Protection Act there was no support for damages as a result of distress (except for some very special circumstances explicitly mentioned in the Act) and that because the plaintiffs had suffered no material damage and did not meet the requirements of the special circumstances for distress that there was no merit in the case and therefore it should be dismissed. However, the Court of Appeal not only disagreed, but rewrote UK law on the grounds that the Data Protection Act was not compatible with the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EU): We cannot, therefore, interpret section 13(2) compatibly with article 23. They went on to explain that despite the fact that Parliament had made very explicit reasons for the types of damage that were covered – they had provided no reasoning for the exclusion of general distress or “moral damage” and as such the Court had no choice than to take the position that the DPA was not compatible and that a judgment must be made in line with Article 23 of Directive 95/46/EC with support from Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The significance of this decision can not be overstated. As a privacy advocate, one of the biggest hurdles I have been faced with when filing complaints with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK has been that of damage. In every single case I have filed with the relevant authorities in the UK the decision to take no action has always hinged on the argument that there was no damage. In cases I have filed with ICO (Google’s WiFi scandal, Phorm and many others) they have always used this argument of damage – the same with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over a criminal complaint I filed against Phorm for criminal breaches of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) – again the CPS argued it would not be in the public interest to pursue a prosecution because there was no “damage”. With this decision from the Court of Appeal, we now have a precedent that states simply that a misuse of private information is in and of itself a damage – and this is what I have been arguing for nearly a decade. The mere act of abuse of a fundamental right is a damage because whether or not there is any material loss fundamental rights are an essential foundation of our society and any attack on those rights, damages society at a core level.
16 Jan '15
analysis of latest update
so a bit of ananlysis adverts served per user per day H1 2014 = 0.38 Q3 2014 (from oct update) = 0.49 H2 2014 = 0.23 % adverts requested served H1 2014 = 3.57% Q3 2014 (from oct update) = 4.21% H2 2014 = 3.11% Revenue per advert served H1 2014 = 0.020 cents Q3 2014 (from oct update) = 0.014 cents H2 2014 = 0.017 cents Revenue per user per month H1 2014 = 0.023 cents Q3 2014 (from oct update) = 0.021 cents H2 2014 = 0.012 cents I can provide the calculations if people require them the figures speak for themselves, not good reading and it could explain why phorm did not release the revenue or adverts served / impressions figures in december question is do we now see an RNS monday about fund raising? if we don't see it by mid week i would have to wonder if it will appear
16 Jan '15
*** and **** highlighted for "needs clarification" Implications? Note: * Revenues are unaudited. The exchange rate used for H2 2014 is GBP0.614:USD1.000 ***and the above figure includes amounts yet to be invoiced.*** The Company is also undertaking a major cost reduction programme that will result in a prioritisation of those markets where commercial traction is being achieved. ***As a result, the Company will be scaling back its operations in Turkey significantly*** and ****moving towards a remote cookie based platform.**** No mention of China??
16 Jan '15
Yes Phorm can be a good day trading share and probably will go up 20% plus today. The only trouble is that the company is still some way off making a profit so the question is "how many more equity raisings will be required over the next 2-3 years before/if this happens?"
16 Jan '15
Reporting better than expected revenue from update in the 8th dec. new product and new market... Should give a nice profit for day traders in my opinion..today
29 Nov '14
my latest observations
so in the last week the mid has dropped steadilly from 10.75 to 9.75 about 9% drop still no sign of new cash or a share issue time is running short for phorm to raise cash or provide good news in the form of impressive revenue to try and get interest in any possible share issue moving the fact there has been no revenue figures and reportedly on another forum (though not proved and no evidence provided to back up the claim) lack of interest in a share issue is interesting, i would assume anyone who would be interest in or offered the option to partake would have to be appraised of certain information relevant information on which to make a decision to partake in a share issue if and i say IF a share issue has been offered around and no uptake has occurred it could be seen as an indication of how bad the prospects are for phorm and its finances but it is a long time after the predicted running out of cash based on the last cash burn and cash in the bank from phorm there are a number of possible answers 1:- phorm have generated more revenue than anticipated (if this was the case we would have heard about it by rns so i don't think it likely) 2:- cash burn has been reduced and cash has lasted longer than expected (possible but again i think unlikely) 3:- some independant injection of cash rather than a share issue (unlikely not sure if possible without some form of notification) 4:- the cash call / share issue has not yet taken place (possible but no evidence to confirm or deny) 5:- the cash call / share issue has been attempted and failed (possible but no evidence to confirm or deny) so most likey are the last two but no evidence to support either, as normal only time will tell. we have the rampers on the other forum who would have us believe option 4 is correct but they have a history of mis-information we also have a new poster on the same thread on the other forum who has made the unsubstantiated claims that phorm have attempted and failed to raise cash, they have no history for me to judge them for or against. the only information presented that could be verified has been that which is available to anyone with level 2 access so apart from the current SP slide there is no real evidence regarding a share issue but it is likely cash is at a criticle level based on the last figures provided by phorm, and up to now those predicitions based on phorms figures appear to have been accurate to a week or so so what information do we have still not granted patents, still not enough revenue in a year to cover a single months cash burn even the optimistic predictions of mr bigger show phorm will still need regular cash transfusions to keep it alive for 18-24 months before it "MAY" be possible to support its self but how much more cash is that going to take? £40m-£50m and that is a ball park figure based on current cash burn rates and a linear increase in revenue as per mr biggers pre
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.