Does putting 141 in front of ANY number ALWAYS block caller id please?

YES !  ::)

Even when you ring the police/ambulance/fire on 999?

Regards

Bill

No.

141 tells the exchange you don't want it to display the CLIP to the far end - its upto the switches to obey the flag... There are a number of things you can do in order to get some or all of the CLIP from the calling party.

With special service numbers (087x 080x etc) part of your CLI may still be presented to the called party. Or at least an aera code, or the last 6 digits depending on the service.

With 999/112 101 (Type A service numbers) you can never hide your CLI. - Emergency services always get the full CLI of the calling party, also the billing address/name and if your a mobile we get location data from the network. If you call from a line thats only got 'soft' dial tone we still get records sent to us.

I'm not sure what we get if you call from a mobile with no SIM or an invalid SIM - we will still get location data, but I'm not sure what (if anything) else...

As an end user you can't really hide your CLI - only ask the telco to ask everyone else in the chain to not display it at the far end.

If you have VoIP, or an SS7 connection then you can do some fun things with CLI : )

Q wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 9:38pm:

No. 141 tells the exchange you don't want it to display the CLIP to the far end - its upto the switches to obey the flag... There are a number of things you can do in order to get some or all of the CLIP from the calling party. With special service numbers (087x 080x etc) part of your CLI may still be presented to the called party. Or at least an aera code, or the last 6 digits depending on the service. With 999/112 101 (Type A service numbers) you can never hide your CLI. - Emergency services always get the full CLI of the calling party, also the billing address/name and if your a mobile we get location data from the network. If you call from a line thats only got 'soft' dial tone we still get records sent to us. I'm not sure what we get if you call from a mobile with no SIM or an invalid SIM - we will still get location data, but I'm not sure what (if anything) else... As an end user you can't really hide your CLI - only ask the telco to ask everyone else in the chain to not display it at the far end. If you have VoIP, or an SS7 connection then you can do some fun things with CLI : )

Out of curiosity, who are we/us ?

Q wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 9:38pm:

As an end user you can't really hide your CLI - only ask the telco to ask everyone else in the chain to not display it at the far end.

.... and (with the exception of "appropriate" persons) there is a legal obligation a) for the opportunity to make such a request to be provided, and b) for the request to be respected through the chain and complied with.

I am not sure if the same principle applies in any way to the cell location of a mobile call. Does anyone know the legal and regulatory position of this item of (is it "personal data")?

Quote:

Out of curiosity, who are we/us ?

We are the borg...

Q wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

Quote: Out of curiosity, who are we/us ? We are the borg...

If you don't want to say, then don't, no need for the stupid reply!

DaveM wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:33pm:

YES !  ::)

No it doesn't.

Try calling <REMOVED> and prefixing 141 or #31# from a mobile, it will read back your caller id.  

EDIT:
The number supplied was to prove that CLI is not "always" protected by 141 as DaveM so exclaimed.

In reference to my above post.

These services are called "ANI READBACK" with hundreds of them, in hundreds of different area codes, any business connected to the SS#7 network via a TDM can view the CLI information regardless of the privacy flag.

Only BT is obliged to "honour" the privacy flag (141) and not display the Caller ID, any other call provider, Mobile, Cable, CPS, VoIP is under to obligation from any one to not delivery the CLI. B.T. Themselves state that no guarantee is offered when using the 141 service, people has just become accustomed to the incorrect belief that the Telecom Act 2003 or the Wireless & Telegraphy acts 1947 says that CLI is to be kept private.

Think about it, Caller ID wasn't even about when the Wireless & Telegraphy act was introduced. and none of the Telecommunication Acts (as amended in 1979, 1984, 1997, 2003, 2005) mentions any about Caller ID other than that it *SHOULD* be made available to the NOAS via the 999/112 system.

Never assume 141 will hide your identity when calling companies.  ;)

Although most companies don't have the own SS#7 TDM connections, but those that do... well you've been warned.

But surely if I opt do 'hide id' on my mobile, it does just that? :o

sherbert wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

But surely if I opt do 'hide id' on my mobile, it does just that? :o

On your mobile telephone if you select "HIDE CALLER ID" or similar from the call menu, it will only prefix the call with #31# which is the GSM standards code to instruct the mobile switch that the CLI was requested to be withheld (ie add a privacy flag to the call like using 141). No one other than B.T. must honour that privacy flag.

Lets just be clear about this, no company has to protect the Caller ID, it is considered "best practise" not release the CLI. The company I work for receives CLI on all inbound calls regardless of the privacy flag. The staff who answer the phones are informed it is withheld CLI as the number is prefixed to indicate the privacy. The staff are told not to tell the caller the CLI is displayed as it causes problems, people complaining and such that 141 didn't work.

The easiest way to receive withheld CLI yourself is to rent a 0800 number from some company 0800 numbers nearly always provide full CLI, since your paying for the call you have a right to know who is calling you. The caller id may not be presented at the time of the call, but is usually supplied at a later date in call detail records.

Blimey, this all very extraordinary and confusing. :question

sherbert wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 2:06pm:

Blimey, this all very extraordinary and confusing. :question

Sherbert, don't confuse yourself over it. I was just pointing out to DaveM (a global moderator) the he was in fact wrong, and therefore giving inaccurate information out to other members. - No disrespect intended to DaveM, but people would look to him as a global mod and assume his answers to be correct.

In simple terms.

Never assume that just because your using 141 or #31# your number is safe when calling companies. Even if you call from a corporate PBX that has multiple lines (usually ISDN PRI's) and the CLI is "UNAVAILABLE" which means it was not withheld, but no CLI was set. The main line CLI is sent as ANI as ANI is also used as the billing reference. To make matters even more confusing CLI and ANI are not the same system. ANI is often referred to as a "SUPER CLI" and that is what is sent to the NOAS on 999/112 calls.

Sherbert try this.... Withhold your CLI on your mobile, and call one of these 118 cowboy outfits, they'll still text the number to your phone, now how can that happen? - The only true way to ensure no one gets your number (other than those you permit to have it) is to a) not phone them;  b) use a payphone; c) a disposable PAYG SIM card.

sherbert wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 2:06pm:

Blimey, this all very extraordinary and confusing. :question

I'll explain what's happening using example telephone companies. I hope this will get the principle across of why it is not a simple case of saying 141 does withhold your number.

Take someone calling from a mobile whose telephone provider is Vodafone. They call someone on a Virgin Media landline.

What Hobbie is saying is that even if the mobile user dials the Virgin Media number with 141 before it, Vodafone will pass their telephone number (CLI) to Virgin Media. Vodafone will, however, tell Virgin Media that the caller wishes to withhold their number (as indicated by the Privacy flag). It is therefore reliant on Virgin Media not disclosing the caller's number to its customer. However, the caller has no contractual relationship with Virgin Media.

In this example, the caller's telephone company and receiver's telephone company can be any telephone companies.

Thanks Dave & Hobbie :)

May I draw attention to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.

Regulation #10 enables the regulatory enforcement of the right to privacy in respect of one's own provider.
Regulation #13 enables that provider to ensure that it is respected by others, so that it may comply with regulation #10.

Regulation #14 covers the ability to provide anonymous location information.

Regulation #16 covers calls to emergency services.

To my mind, any provider who has not ensured compliance with blocking of caller id by all those to whom calls are connected is failing to comply with regulation 10.

---

Comments

Fans of the European Union may be interested to note that these regulations are the UK implementation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications - 2002/58/EC passed by the European Parliament and the Council on 12 July 2002.

The legally minded may wish to note that Ofcom's General Condition 16 requires that provision of Calling Line Identification Facilities is made "in accordance with the requirements of Relevant Data Protection Legislation." (The latest version of the General Conditions is found here)
An alleged breach could therefore be investigated by Ofcom, or by the ICO, which enforces the PECR. As the regulation applies to telcos, this would fall most naturally to Ofcom.

(As an aside from the matter under discussion, if one reads regulation 15 (3) in passing, it may be of interest to note that until November 2003 Oftel / Ofcom was not regarded as a "person with a legitimate interest" by BT. That was changed, so that the necessary evidence to start taking action against Silent Callers could be supplied to Ofcom.)

SCV,

Can you cite the actual wording for the regulation that covers the use of Caller ID. Such as what part actually states that CLI should not be delivered, If I remember correctly it states "best efforts" should be made to ensure private CLI is not released.

Hobbie wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 7:50am:

SCV, Can you cite the actual wording for the regulation that covers the use of Caller ID. Such as what part actually states that CLI should not be delivered, If I remember correctly it states "best efforts" should be made to ensure private CLI is not released.

Regulation #10 reads as follows:


Quote:

The provider of a public electronic communications service shall provide users originating a call by means of that service with a simple means to prevent presentation of the identity of the calling line on the connected line as respects that call.

That seems clear enough to me.

To provide such a "means" the provider must be confident that the provider of the "connected line" will respect whatever method is used to fulfil this requirement. This is aided by regulation #13:


Quote:

For the purposes of regulations 10 and 11, a communications provider shall comply with any reasonable requests made by the provider of the public electronic communications service by means of which facilities for calling or connected line identification are provided.

The wording is somewhat tortuous because it is drafted so that it works in both directions, as the right not to know the identity of a caller (regulation 11) is seen as being as important. (I can only think of worrying about one's partner dialling 1471 to see who has been calling you as an example of where this could be useful.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 9:08am:

The wording is somewhat tortuous because it is drafted so that it works in both directions, as the right not to know the identity of a caller (regulation 11) is seen as being as important. (I can only think of worrying about one's partner dialling 1471 to see who has been calling you as an example of where this could be useful.)

I also used this option (requirement) on helplines where we needed to prove that incoming calls were anonymous and could not be identified. Your observation about partners led to the setting up of 1470 to anonymise (ugh) the last incoming call.

Tanllan wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:

Your observation about partners led to the setting up of 1470 to anonymise (ugh) the last incoming call.

I am pleased to say that I was unaware of 1470 as I have never needed to worry about it. (One suspects that this has been deemed necessary in order to comply with regulation 11 on a "per call" basis, although that is not specifically demanded). I do worry about making verbs out of nouns, making them out of adjectives is even more disturbing.

Perhaps Tanlan should be thanked for helping the telcos in their compliance with regulation 12.

I subscribe to Skype Out and can make anonymous calls with impunity! I am pretty certain that since there is no 'number' associated with what is a 'outwards calling system' only, there cannot be a valid caller ID transmitted? I've tried calling myself on other phones and it always shows 'number unknown' or something like 123456789. I always use Skype when I want to withhold my number.

I also record all such calls so I have a record of what is said and by whom - but that's another issue.......! ;)

mikeinnc wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 5:09am:

I also record all such calls so I have a record of what is said and by whom - but that's another issue.......! ;)

Am I right in saying, that if you record a telephone call it is illeagal to do so with out telling the person on the other end first? :-/

sherbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 7:09am:

mikeinnc wrote on Jun 16th, 2009 at 5:09am: I also record all such calls so I have a record of what is said and by whom - but that's another issue.......! ;) Am I right in saying, that if you record a telephone call it is illeagal to do so with out telling the person on the other end first? :-/

Not if it is only for your own benefit.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-uk.htm
The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, i.e. someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication.

According to Oftel, you do not have to let people know that you intend to record their telephone conversations, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

Also see; - http://www.retellrecorders.co.uk/legal/home.htm

derrick wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:15am:

/ Not if it is only for your own benefit.

But I believe you can only use the transcript in a court of law if you have  said that the call is being recorded. I guess this is why it is always stated on the recording you get when you get (and if!!) you get through to an institiution

We crossed post there Derrick.....thanks for the info. :)

sherbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:21am:

derrick wrote on Jun 16th, 2009 at 11:15am: / Not if it is only for your own benefit. But I believe you can only use the transcript in a court of law if you have  said that the call is being recorded. I guess this is why it is always stated on the recording you get when you get (and if!!) you get through to an institiution

Did you see my second link above? ; - http://www.retellrecorders.co.uk/legal/home.htm

Do businesses have to tell me if they are going to record or monitor my phone calls or e-mails?

No. as long as the recording or monitoring is done for one of the above purposes the only obligation on businesses is to inform their own employees. If businesses want to record for any other purpose, such as market research, they will have to obtain your consent.

Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone?

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

derrick wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Did you see my second link above? ; .

Yes I did thanks, as I said in my reply #25 we 'crossed post'

Thanks again for all that. :)