Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call (Read 31,921 times)
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #15 - Apr 18th, 2010 at 8:45pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 3:18pm:
Dave wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 2:57pm:
It is saddening to see that some members do not feel this way and choose to attack those who wish to be constructive.


I equally find it sad that the forum's management now seems to have chosen to deliberately alienate most of the forum's longest established members whilst never editing or amending the posts of one of its most unpopular, out of tune and disruptive members (SilentCallsVictim).

It would perhaps be helpful if you outline the correct "tune" that we should all be whistling to. As a member of the aforementioned forum management, you have never set out the website's "core values" to me, which all members must, according to you, subscribe to.

I note that you and a number of other members believe that certain things are not allowed to be talked about. I feel that introduction of prohibited discussion is the first step to a totalitarian regime and I would not wish for that.

I have made points on this thread in specific response to your posting which you do not wish to answer and instead choose to launch a personal attack. You believe that I should not have my say.

If you feel unable to resist resonding in such a way, then perhaps you should start up your own website where members will have to confirm or be cast out. You have, after all, often launched attacks on the website itself, the way it is run and even resigned once!

Perhaps now is the time for you to fulfil the promise you made previously and start your own website.


NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 3:18pm:
I find it hard to sustain much enthusiasm for a campaign where we are clearly not getting anywhere and where as soon as we make any progress the perpetrators are allowed to have the rules altered again in their favour by OfCON

I believe 13 police forces using 03 numbers is excellent work by the campaign.


NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 3:18pm:
The one thing that used to sustain me in the campaign was sharing almost exactly the same mindset as most other longstanding campaigners on this discussion forum but since the arrival of SCV, who pretends to support the campaign but has a whole plethora of conflicting agendas on his slate, most of my enthusiasm for participating in this discussion forum has been drained away.

Do share with us this "mindset", as judging by your attack on my response, you apparently do not share mine.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 18th, 2010 at 8:53pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #16 - Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:40pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 3:18pm:
The "true" originating line id, as well as the "presentation number" or request for no number to be presented does pass through the channel of telcos.

It is a legal requirement for this not to be presented to the person called, if so requested by the caller. This is part of privacy legislation. Unfortunately there is no great sense in having a law which demands that you are not allowed to request privacy if you are breaking some other law. (I once mockingly suggested that burglars should be required by law to always leave a card giving their name and address.)

Thanks for the insight into CLI. It is, not quite as simple as I suggested, although it still requires the originating telco to provide correct information. Is is the case that some don't provide the correct "true" originating line number, and perhaps a made-up number?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #17 - Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:53pm
 
Dave wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:40pm:
Thanks for the insight into CLI. It is, not quite as simple as I suggested, although it still requires the originating telco to provide correct information. Is is the case that some don't provide the correct "true" originating line number, and perhaps a made-up number?


I think the message we can take away from all this is that the ICO now has enough power to force disclosure of any hidden identity of the caller that may actually exist but that has not been disclosed to the called party, but only if they believe a sufficiently serious offence is being perpetrated against an individual to justify use of their powers in pursuit of such an investigation.  We can pretty much rule out any help from Ofcom on wthheld CLIs as they refuse to investigate silent call complaints from individual members of the public (even though we know they love to investigate individual complaints from their fee paying corporate telecoms members) and only use the reporting feature on their website to identify an unusually large number of calls from certain CLIs.  The TPS similarly only count total numbers of calls from each CLI and/or organisation and then provide a report to the ICO for any actual enforcement action.

The whole situation is essentially like the moderately incompetent motorist who lets their MOT, tax or car insurance go out of date always getting clobbered but those who deliberately drive round on cloned number plates getting away with everything (including speeding, dangerous driving etc too) except and until the Police actually try to stop them for an offence witnessed by Police patrol officers out on the road.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #18 - Apr 18th, 2010 at 11:34pm
 
Dave wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:40pm:
Is is the case that some don't provide the correct "true" originating line number, and perhaps a made-up number?

As I understand it, all UK telcos do provide the true line id, although this is not necessarily what is sent as the "CLI". Callers are able to demand suppression of this information or replacement by a "presentation" number.

I believe that this is perfectly proper in cases where the caller has no suitable number to offer for return calls, does not wish to solicit them or wishes to offer a suitable number for return calls that is different from the line from which the call is originated. There is also the rare possibility that callers may choose to present a well known number so that they may be identified.

Because there are some who promote the false idea that CLI tells you who it is that is calling, many people refuse to accept calls from those who do not wish to invite return calls. Furthermore those who acknowledge that they are breaking the law obviously do not wish to be easily identified. Providing a spoof CLI, or a number that simply connects to a recorded message, is an abuse of CLI that enables their calls to get through this possibly misguided measure of protection thereby causing problems and confusion for all.

In a voice telephone call the identity of the caller is established by what they say when the call is answered.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #19 - Apr 18th, 2010 at 11:43pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:53pm:
I think the message we can take away from all this ......

I agree - a good summation.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:53pm:
The whole situation is essentially like .....

A fair point is made, but the situation is different.

There have been a few cases where Ofcom has been disproportionate in taking action against "Silent Callers" for relatively minor offences, whilst ignoring more serious cases. In one case a penalty was imposed when the evidence presented was of no Silent Calls whatsoever. Disproportionate action is however not generally the problem here. I am not aware of any disproportionate action by the ICO.

The problem is that far too little action is being taken overall by both Ofcom and the ICO on these matters. This is because they are obsessed with only taking action in big cases in the hope that this will cause everyone to behave properly. Both organisations are structured to deal with situations where there is a much higher level of compliance with relevant standards and regulations than is actually the case. This is quite different from the situation with enforcement of motoring law, which is generally set up to occur on an enormous scale.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #20 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 12:48am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 11:43pm:
The problem is that far too little action is being taken overall by both Ofcom and the ICO on these matters. This is because they are obsessed with only taking action in big cases in the hope that this will cause everyone to behave properly. Both organisations are structured to deal with situations where there is a much higher level of compliance with relevant standards and regulations than is actually the case. This is quite different from the situation with enforcement of motoring law, which is generally set up to occur on an enormous scale.


Much of the ICO leaves me almost as underwhelmed as Ofcom.

For instance for ages they insisted they would only take complaints under the PECR rules in the post compared to the TPS always having a website mechanism (albeit that they wasted money by then not emailing confirmation of the online report and always sending out a letter in the post indicating the matter would be logged with the ICO etc - a practice they have now stopped in favour of also sending a confirming email after my suggestion that this would save them a lot of money).  Then eventually the ICO grudgingly developed a painful to complete Word complaint form that they expected to be uploaded on to their website  through a submission mechanism that never worked.  And then finally they then commissioned some incompetent firm of IT cowboys who obviously specialise in doing useless work for government departments to design a normal web form that would not then work because it had never been quality tested and so had various hopeless tripups in terms of how it expected the data to be entered (for instance it expected people to enter a website as http://www.ico.gov.uk as though we were back in about 1995) and then only errored these entry problems when the user tried to send off the whole form (at which point the user could not adequately see where the errors lay as more than half the form was off the screen and even if you could see the errored box the nature of the correction needed was not properly explained).  It is massively unimpressive that the ICO does not seem able to recruit adequate in house IT resources in the low cost part of the country it is based in order to do simple website form development.  But of course why bother when they lose no money out of their own budget by having no effective online submission mechanism for complaints and it also cuts down the amount of work they have to do when complainants give up.

However I have discovered there are several senior caseworkers in the PECR section who are intelligent people and who believe in what they do and they have explained to me by letter and on the phone that are only a few thousand direct complaints to the ICO from members of the public under the PECR rules each year (no doubt in part because of the extraordinary barriers to complaining) and all of them result in a company that has had no warning letter so far getting a warning letter explaining the consequence of continued non observance of the regulations.  However they only actually take action against the most frequent abusers and/or those causing the greatest distress or potential financial loss to those called through their actions.  This is a much better situation than Ofcom where no senior staff member will ever put their name or personal phone number on a letter to a pleb member of the public and their call centre has been instructed to pursue a bunker mentality where anyone who is forced to admit they are a member of the public are directed to speak to the low skilled labour in their contact centre.

In my view the whole situation would be greatly improved if the eventual fines imposed were far more severe for the larger operators (who have far less excuse for claiming that they did not know they had the need to have these systems in place or have their data constantly rescreened against the TPS masterlist) but were only imposed after a variety of more severe looking  correspondence from the ICO that gave the firms in question sufficient time to mend the error of their ways.

These call centres only do what they do to make money and if going on doing it illegally is going to end up costing them more money than they are making from the activity then pretty soon they are going to feel like giving up.  However Indian call centres remain an annoying persistently rump of unwanted makers silent calls calls to TPS registered homes and given the UK's extensive business links with India our regulators/government only needs to form a bilateral agreement with the Indian telecoms and/or legal authorities that they will make it easy to trace these calls internationally and that they will bring in rules equivalent to those in force in the UK for call centres in India who make calls to UK addresses despite the fact they are UK TPS registered.  There are no other country in the world from a which any very significant number of these unwelcome calls are being made so the amount of complex international negotiation on this subject that uk telecoms regulators need to do is therefore surely extremely limited.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #21 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 12:51am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 11:34pm:
Dave wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 9:40pm:
Is is the case that some don't provide the correct "true" originating line number, and perhaps a made-up number?

As I understand it, all UK telcos do provide the true line id, although this is not necessarily what is sent as the "CLI". Callers are able to demand suppression of this information or replacement by a "presentation" number.

When I wrote the question I was thinking of those false CLIs numbers such as 1111 and 00000000000. If they were international calls, then, from what you say, BT would have discarded the numbers in favour of presenting an "International" CLI. This would suggest that they could originate from within the UK.

So, could these be the presentation numbers you refer to with real (true) numbers sent to the terminating providers but not disclosed to their customers? Huh
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #22 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:05am
 
For what it is worth, the situation here is that any telemarketer (anyone using the telephone for solicitation purposes) is required to transmit its number, and if available, its name. This applies even if the recipient has not registered with the national do not call list. A summary of FCC requirements can be found here"

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html

As a 'typical consumer', I tend to receive very few silent type telemarketing calls, but, on occasion, these do happen. If they annoy me sufficiently over an extended period, then I usually report such calls to the FCC using its on-line complaint form. The calls then typically stop.

It is very rare for me to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls on my cellular phone. This would be of slightly greater concern as incoming calls are chargeable.

I am curious as to the process within the UK for reporting slient/abandoned call types. I am assuming that it is via the ICO and not Ofcom. Does the process generally work?
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #23 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:19am
 
idb wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:05am:
I am curious as to the process within the UK for reporting slient/abandoned call types. I am assuming that it is via the ICO and not Ofcom.


Sadly Ofcom is still charged with responsibility for Silent/abandoned calls.  I suspect this is because it recognised early on that this was a sufficiently non grey area that another regulator given powers might actually have leapt in to a program of taking firm and rigorous action.  Far better I am sure they reckoned to leave the job to good old Ofcom who would then use their usual tactics off fobbing off all attempts at direct complaint to them by the public back to the telecoms company or if deadlock was reached there to Otelo.  Ofcom do have a form on their website for complaints about Silent Calls so well hidden that you need to be especially determined to find it even though they seem content for you to read their FAQ on the subject.  But even if you do managed to log a number on it you are warned that no direct information on the consequences of individual complaints is ever provided.  I am sure this is because in the main Ofcom normally takes no action.

Quote:
Does the process generally work?


Silent Calls have reduced a lot because new software to eliminate it has been installed by the main call centres as in the long run it actually saves them money in calling costs.  But where they do still happen the number is mainly withheld and this leaves the called party in the position of not being able to make a complaint unless they get a seemingly linked manned sales call only a few minutes or an hour or two after the silent one.

And there are still plenty of UK based call centres who withhold their numbers which allows them to get away with any silent calls that they end up making.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:20am by NGMsGhost »  

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #24 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:44am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:19am:
Silent Calls have reduced a lot because new software to eliminate it has been installed by the main call centres as in the long run it actually saves them money in calling costs.  But where they do still happen the number is mainly withheld and this leaves the called party in the position of not being able to make a complaint unless they get a seemingly linked manned sales call only a few minutes or an hour or two after the silent one.

And there are still plenty of UK based call centres who withhold their numbers which allows them to get away with any silent calls that they end up making.
Thanks for the info. So, is there any movement to mandate the use of CLI for unsolicited calls, as is the requirement here? This, while not perfect, would at least assist the telephone consumer. Perhaps Ofcom is not in the business of assisting customers Smiley

There appears to be a big difference between CLI acceptance here and in the UK. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I cannot recall receiving any recent call from a business, agency, government or non-profit organization that had its number suppressed. From what I remember from the UK in 2004, around half of non-presonal calls would present unavailable or withheld.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #25 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 2:00pm
 
idb wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:44am:
… So, is there any movement to mandate the use of CLI for unsolicited calls, as is the requirement here? This, while not perfect, would at least assist the telephone consumer. Perhaps Ofcom is not in the business of assisting customers Smiley

I think that this is an excellent idea. Whilst there will always be those who flout this, it will provide the benefits of being able to report companies who make silent calls as well as ringing them back and removing oneself from the database.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #26 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 3:10pm
 
Dave wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 2:00pm:
I think that this is an excellent idea. Whilst there will always be those who flout this, it will provide the benefits of being able to report companies who make silent calls as well as ringing them back and removing oneself from the database.

Indeed; Ofcom is also a believer in the idea that burglars should be required to leave their name and address so that they may be more easily caught. It is not easy to object to the idea, however one must question the likelihood of it being effective. To continue the analogy, if it is known that the Police rarely use the information so that others can be protected then the cocky burglar may be happy to provide this information. If the burglar promises not to burgle the same house again, then this may be good news for the victim, but of little benefit to society in general.

Ofcom stipulates provision of CLI by dialler users, along with a requirement that it should not be used as a means of providing the general number on which one may contact the caller for a conversation.

I have long argued that if it is thought highly likely that the call would be unwelcome, then it should be prohibited in the first place. There is the TPS to cover all marketing calls, regardless of the technology used. One of the most common causes of Silent Calls is calls from debt collectors. They, like telemarketing companies, are supposedly required to provide an option to refuse further calls, but only if they use automated diallers.

In fact the so-called Ofcom rules about Silent Calls are not actually legally enforceable regulations at all. if the relevant EU Directive had been implemented properly in the UK, then Silent Calls by direct marketing companies would have been a breach of the PECR and therefore prohibited to all (regardless of TPS registration) under the same regulation that prohibits all recorded message calls.


If CLI did tell the recipient who was calling, then a lot of this would make more sense. In fact, it does not. If every incoming telephone call was accompanied by a short string of text, then the situation would be totally different. Every caller would announce themselves in advance of the call being answered, whether or not they wished to provide a number for a return call. I understand that we are a very long way away from such a situation.

The "True Call" device gets close to this, as unrecognised callers are required to offer a brief voice message saying who they are. If a message is provided then the call is offered, with the option to refuse to take it.

I fear that forcing callers to give out meaningless CLI does nothing more than generate lots of unnecessary and useless return calls and further undermines the usefulness of CLI. I am also concerned about the extent to which this is seen as a personal issue, rather than a matter for society as a whole. Hanging up in silence when a call is answered, or making unsolicited calls to those who have explicitly stated that they do not wish to receive them is an offence against us all, not just the individual vicitm. Whilst the vicitm is entitled to some appropriate remedy, that does not fully address the issue.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #27 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 3:30pm
 
idb wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 1:44am:
is there any movement to mandate the use of CLI for unsolicited calls, as is the requirement here? This, while not perfect, would at least assist the telephone consumer.

Further to my previous posting I will address this point directly.

The Direct Marketing Association mandates provision of meaningless CLI by its members. There is no structure of regulation to enforce such a requirement on a statutory basis. The obvious vehicle would be the PECR, however that is tied closely to a EU Directive which does not impose this requirement.

The only apparent benefit to the telephone consumer is enabling them to complain about nuisance which they should not be suffering in the first place. Whilst some may find this to be a satisfying experience, I do not believe that facilitating complaints against those who are too stupid to commit a second offence in order to disguise their primary offence (i.e. withholding or providing false CLI when making Silent Calls or breaching the TPS) is worthy of new regulations.

Whilst they are free to so, I do not believe that people should be encouraged to refuse calls without CLI. All this does is encourage the use of fake and meaningless CLI.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2010 at 3:35pm by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #28 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 6:49pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 3:30pm:
The only apparent benefit to the telephone consumer is enabling them to complain about nuisance which they should not be suffering in the first place.


This is indeed a most valuable and therapeutic element in the proceedings that someone with your "I never get cross" Mr Positivist mentality would of course never understand.  I see that you would seek to deny this basic human right to us though.

Personally without the righteous anger at receiving a call from someone pushy that one does not want to get on one's own home number I fail to see what else motivates anyone to spend hours of their private time pursuing this issue.  Any more rational approach involving writing long treatises would normally in my experience only appeal to those paid to do such a job on a professional basis.

Quote:
Whilst some may find this to be a satisfying experience, I do not believe that facilitating complaints against those who are too stupid to commit a second offence in order to disguise their primary offence (i.e. withholding or providing false CLI when making Silent Calls or breaching the TPS) is worthy of new regulations.


I am unclear which you consider to be the more serious offence here?  The withheld CLI or the unsolicited marketing call to someone who is registered on the TPS Do Not Call list?

Quote:
Whilst they are free to so, I do not believe that people should be encouraged to refuse calls without CLI. All this does is encourage the use of fake and meaningless CLI.


It wouldn't do so if there were large fines for faking or withholding a CLI for a UK originated call and the identity of anyone withholding or faking their CLI who was UK based could easily be traced.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Fake 028 CLI Used For TPS Rule Breaching Call
Reply #29 - Apr 19th, 2010 at 8:27pm
 
Apologies if these brief responses are inadequate.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 6:49pm:
This is indeed a most valuable and therapeutic element in the proceedings that someone with your "I never get cross" Mr Positivist mentality would of course never understand.  I see that you would seek to deny this basic human right to us though.

Personally without the righteous anger at receiving a call from someone pushy that one does not want to get on one's own home number I fail to see what else motivates anyone to spend hours of their private time pursuing this issue.  Any more rational approach involving writing long treatises would normally in my experience only appeal to those paid to do such a job on a professional basis.

I hope that I do understand the enormous of distress and wasted energy that is caused by telephone nuisance. I campaign for people to be spared from this, not for them to be helped to waste more energy by making a complaint. I do not acknowledge any right to be the victim of nuisance. If the state is deliberately failing to prevent a citizen from being a victim of nuisance so that they may have the satisfaction of complaining about it, then that would be a breach of human rights.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 6:49pm:
I am unclear which you consider to be the more serious offence here?  The withheld CLI or the unsolicited marketing call to someone who is registered on the TPS Do Not Call list?

I understand the proposal for the former to be only as a means of helping to address the latter, which is therefore the more serious. I can see no other useful purpose for it, unless every citizen is to be provided with a list of every telephone number and the name of the person using it.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 6:49pm:
It wouldn't do so if there were large fines for faking or withholding a CLI for a UK originated call and the identity of anyone withholding or faking their CLI who was UK based could easily be traced.

If measures to prevent the withholding of CLI were effective, there would be no need to refuse calls with withheld CLI. The point only applies whilst there is such a need.

The right to withhold CLI is currently held as an issue of privacy - a valuable right, when understood properly. It is proposed that this right is withdrawn from those who have not yet been found to have have broken the law, but are doing so (that indeed is the whole point of the proposal). I am keen to know which other technically innocent callers would also have to forgo this right. It is suggested that this should apply to all UK-originated calls, however many of us would regard such a proposal as an infringement of our right to privacy. It could certainly provide a nice earner for the telcos in the provision of outgoing-only lines (assuming that these were not also to be banned.)


To move on a little, many of the CLIs currently provided give access to a recorded message from a call centre (not any particular client) which says "you were called today by xxxx call centre, please leave your number if you wish it to be removed from our calling lists". This satisfies Ofcom, but to me represents a gross misuse of CLI. If anyone pays for such a call they deserve their money back.

BT does something similar, a message says that someone from BT called. That is however on a 0800 number. A total waste of time.

Provision of CLI is only part of the story, one then has to think what it gives access to. Telcos and others are quite happy for this to be a worthless call.


To struggle back to relevance for the forum. The enthusiasm for calling back to the CLI of a missed call provides an opportunity for scammers to give revenue sharing or PRS numbers as CLI in the hope that return callers will hang on listening to recorded messages long enough for them to earn some serious money.

I would always advise people never to call a number that they do not recognise, whatever type it is. The proponents of enforced CLI clearly take a different view.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM, Dave)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge