A couple of years ago now I remember seeing a thread about the importance of putting 141 in front of numbers that have been put on here.  I have always done that but strangely enough when I called a number for matalan after putting 141 first (the number dialled is still on my phone) they said they would call me back with some information I had requested, surprise surprise they quoted the number I had called from :exclamation  This makes me wonder how many how businesses know this even though 141 is being dialled first.
davve

There are a number of companies that offer nuisance call programmes and they allow the recipient caller to make contact with callers even if the number is withheld. (Taxi companies often ring back and confirm bookings) This technology has been around for years, the emergency services have always had this facility. If this software is in use the 141 prefix does not make any difference.

Thanks for that info.

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 5:55pm:

There are a number of companies that offer nuisance call programmes and they allow the recipient caller to make contact with callers even if the number is withheld. (Taxi companies often ring back and confirm bookings) This technology has been around for years, the emergency services have always had this facility. If this software is in use the 141 prefix does not make any difference.

Use of the 141 prefix (or a standing request for CLI to be withheld) compels your telephone company to mark the call so that your CLI is not provided to the person you are calling. If your telephone company fails to do this, or the other telephone company reveals the CLI when marked in this way, other than to a proper authority (e.g. the emergency services), this is a serious breach of data protection regulations.

Having had some extensive involvement in the issue of nuisance calls, I have never heard of anything such as the facility described above. I suspect that there is some misunderstanding in here somewhere.

Many are unaware that the general area from which you are calling (not your actual number) is provided to the telephone company which terminates the call. Some use this information to channel calls, or detect that one is not calling from overseas. This information is not deemed to be personal and so it cannot be withheld.


My view is that one should offer CLI if happy for the person called to call back on the number being used. It should be withheld if this is not the case. If a business would rather you called back on a different number, then it  can use a "presentation number" as the CLI. I argue strongly that those who are unable or unwilling to accept a return call should withhold their CLI. Sadly, there are many people who do not treat CLI in this simple manner.

There are serious issues around the misuse of published telephone directory information and the integrity of the ex-directory arrangements. We are also aware of problems with the security of remotely accessible voicemail systems. These lead many to withhold their CLI in circumstances other than those described above. This is an absolute right, which is established in legislation, with which all telephone companies must comply. Errors may occur, but I am not aware of any telephone company that is known to be commonly in breach.

I appreciate that it is not within ofcom regulation but I am aware of software that will display the callers number even if the number is withheld.

The only way that a number cannot be identified is if the caller is "XXD" this will prevent this system picking up the number.

Members may think that they are X Directory but in may cases they are not.

If a caller requests XD the operator will not give out the number uless the caller has the name and address of the caller. Once the caller gives the operator the name and address the number will be given verbally.

I have spent many years within the telemarketing industry and I know this to be correct.

All members that are registered with TPS should check their status is XXD and not just XD

Just found out the other day that despite my mums landline being ex-directory and CLI automatically withheld, when she rings the local taxi company, she now gets an automated message telling her the taxi is on its way.  Then, obviously, the taxi then arrives.

There are two problems I see here:

1. The CLI withheld 'flag' is obviously being ignored.
2. They know my mums address from the landline number.

With regards to '2', I can imagine before they introduced this services, they had on record my mums number (presumably always been ignoring the 'withheld' flag) and presumably they linked that to her address when she asked for a taxi from home.

With regards to '1', I think there are privacy issues here.  What's the point in automatically withholding or even manually withholding your number, if they (company called) can choose to bypass this?

With the exception of the emergency services (as mentioned by SCV), I don't believe anyone else should have this facility without a good reason.

Has anyone experienced this when ringing a taxi firm (or any company for that matter)?

As I stated earlier this facility is available from a number of Telcoms. I don't fully understand the techy side of things but it is my understanding that taxis have this facility. Cordic is the industry leader and they provide the following services.

Call back to number called
Automated call checker
Taxi on way

If they are not able to confirm the number they will not send the taxi. I am nearly sure that this facility works even if the callers number is withheld.

Other members may have ordered a taxi and the taxi company in question has rang them back even when their number is not listed, or they may have received an automated text confirming the taxi is on its way.

The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld.

What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld. What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

I think I might put in a call to the Information commissioner tomorrow about this.. I pay a fee to have my number withheld in order to control the "circulation" of my number, If Im not getting that service then someone needs to refund me, and be a little clearer about the limits of "number withheld".

My number is my data and I reserve the right to control who has it. There is far too much pandering to big business at the expense of the rights and privacy of the citizen in this country.

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

But the facility is with the provider of the person you are calling.

The caller's provider merely passes on to the receiver's provider, the request not to divulge the number. Thus, if the number is given out regardless, it is the receiver's provider that has done so, ignoring the request by the caller's provider not to give it out.

warweezil wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 4:48pm: The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld. What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow? I think I might put in a call to the Information commissioner tomorrow about this.. I pay a fee to have my number withheld in order to control the "circulation" of my number, If Im not getting that service then someone needs to refund me, and be a little clearer about the limits of "number withheld".

When you speak with the Information Commissioner's Office you may want to point out that your telco is in breach of PECR regulation 10 (4) by charging you for having your number marked as being withheld.

I am awaiting call-backs from both the ICO and Ofcom after having drawn their attention to this alleged admitted breach by a call terminating company.

The circumstances under which withheld CLI may be revealed, and to whom, are clearly much more limited than is suggested by Numberstore. Alleged "Crime Prevention and Detection" is nothing like an adequate description of the very limited circumstances under which withheld CLI may be revealed. Registration with the ICO is wholly irrelevant and the Ofcom regulations do not affect a user, but the telephone service provider, who must not make withheld CLI available to the person called under any circumstances.


The important point to note from the comments above is that the call originating telco has to allow the facility of withholding CLI and that the call terminating telco must respect this request. There is nothing that a third party system provider to taxi firms can do, other than potentially take advantage of an illegal facility offered by the taxi firm's telco.

Dave wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

...The caller's provider merely passes on to the receiver's provider, the request not to divulge the number. Thus, if the number is given out regardless, it is the receiver's provider that has done so, ignoring the request by the caller's provider not to give it out.

I know but obviously there is a breakdown of privacy somewhere along the line - obviously the TCP is choosing to ignore any 'withheld' request and doing so without good reason IMHO.

Again we see the ICO asleep at the switch. Their view hinges on the question of whether this is data that can personally identify you. It seems that if you can show that has been used to persoanlly identify you - you then need to make a subject access request to the company using it...... yadda yadda.

It seems that while the telcos are selling a privacy feature to us, a shadow industry has grown up to circumvent that layer of privacy we have requested for (and paid for) ourselves.

This ludicrous situation cant be right and maybe it is time it was highlighted to the public. I intend to email my Mp about this when I have some time, and ask him why it is that we appear not to have the right to keep "uninvited businesses" off of our phone lines.

I maintain it is my data and Cordic and the like do not have my permission to forward it for the use of anyone who does not have my express permission to call me - which I grant by telling them my number MYSELF  >:(

A prime example of another parasitic company trying to make money off of the backs of an unwilling public. How empty and shabby UK commerce is becoming!

I also tried a call into OFCOM, the woman there was adamant that this cant happen and that if the number is being passed on to anyone it should be taken up with the Telco.

Is OFCOM unaware of developments in the industry over which it is supposed to regulate?  :o

I just checked Cordic up on the web, this is an American software package. Given that it has to have some connection with the telephone network to function is that use legal in the UK? ISTR BT being very stringent about what can be plugged in, surely this has to be able to interrogate the network to some extend to gain the "withheld" number". interesting...

Although being OFCOM that shouldn't surprise me...  ::)

According to UK code lookup, the taxi firm in question, use a BT line.  However, due to number portability, it may no longer be BT.

Problem is I can't find an email address for BT.  At least an email address of a department that could help or forward to the relevant department.  Normal customer services, I don't believe, would be of any help.

This webpage - http://www.numbergroup.com/products-services/ivr/cli - suggests that "a licensed telecommunications carrier supplying over 3000 businesses with telephone numbers" is ready to act in breach of its duties under the PECR.

(Follow the path from the home page through NUMBERS AND SERVICES>CALL FEATURES>CLI FRAUD PREVENTION.)

Numberstore claims
Quote:

Our service overrides the masking of their telephone number by removing the privacy setting allowing your systems to receive the telephone number of every caller, even if they withhold their number.

The suggested rules governing use of this data ("Legal Criteria") are fictitious. They do not exist for the simple reason that there is no provision which allows withheld CLI to be revealed, other than to designated public bodies investigating malicious or nuisance calls received on the line. (A similar provision applies to 999 calls.)

DIY "fraud prevention" is not a valid reason for the setting aside of an individual's right to privacy in this respect.

---

The relevant documents are as follows:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/policy/calling-line-id/caller-line-id/.
11.3 explains how PECR 13 applies to terminating operators.
8.3 covers the exemption

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/13/made
The regulation allegedly being breached by Numberstore.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/15/made
The provision wrongly being used to suggest that there is an exemption to cover "Call Centre Fraud".
(Both the ICO and Ofcom have previously ruled that the person called is not "a person with a legitimate interest".)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/22
This clarifies the position regarding how "communications data" may be used for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.

A potential victim is not a "designated person". They are defined (in §25(2))as being "the individuals holding such offices, ranks or positions with relevant public authorities as are prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State".

---

I have attempted to get Ofcom and the ICO interested in this matter, by telephone. In both cases representatives viewed the page referred to, expressed concern, but confirmed that despite them having seen this information they would do nothing about it.

In both cases when it comes to investigations and enforcement, they are reluctant to act in the public interest, as they are required to do. They find it more convenient (as it surely is) to operate as a "consumer complaints service", judging the public interest by the weight of complaints received on a particular matter, rather than by a balanced assessment of the issues.

For this sad reason, I must invite all those with concerns about this issue to raise them in written complaints (possibly by email or web-form) to the respective regulators.

I would be delighted if many draw attention to the extent to which public faith in the respective privacy regulations, and those charged with enforcing them, is undermined on reading information such as that quoted above. There is no reason to assume that anyone we call is not a customer of Numberstore, or indeed any other telco which offers the same facility.

It is important to understand that the only legal limitation on use of data revealed by Numberstore is that which may be contained in contracts between Numberstore and its customers. There are no statutory rules (that I am aware of) covering the use of withheld CLI data that has been revealed - for the simple reason that there should be no such data.

---

The ICO has enforcement powers in relation to the provisions of the PECR.
Ofcom is responsible for all general regulation of telecoms providers and has published the relevant Guidelines.

Because there is a high degree of cross-over between the two, they published this (undated) Letter of Understanding a few years ago. Although it was focussed on a slightly different area, I believe that the spirit of co-operation should apply equally to this matter also.

Please nobody ask me which of the two they should complain to - I hope the answer is obvious.

(My nickname may give a clue as to how I have to come to learn quite a bit about these matters.)

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2012 at 5:44pm:

According to UK code lookup, the taxi firm in question, use a BT line.  However, due to number portability, it may no longer be BT. Problem is I can't find an email address for BT.  At least an email address of a department that could help or forward to the relevant department.  Normal customer services, I don't believe, would be of any help.

Try the boss, Ian Livingston:-

ian.livingston@bt.com

There is no 'easy' contact into BT. If normal customer services can't/won't help you you can't do a lot other than raise a complaint over the phone, or in an email to BT.

Openreach/Wholesale/Global Service etc will *not* deal with you if your just a normal domestic customer.

As for the guts of whats being discussed here - SS7 is your friend (and in turn wiki/google is your friend)

141 sets a flag that says 'I'd like you to please ask the final endpoint not to display the CLI to the end user' either way the CLI is sent and its down to the recieving hardware to honour the flag.

With an SS7 connection to the phone network the world is your oyster - there is lots you can do/get - How do you think you can get 'invalid' CLI from some odd endpoints (Like calling card co's still sending 0171 etc)

I don't know anything about the commercial side of address data and phone numbers, but I know its not the same thing as the emergency services use to access subscriber data.