A good read here and towards the bottom are some comments

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1433346/118800-knocked

tadg wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 3:04pm:

Sorry to be picky as we are essentially on the same side, however my nickname gives away some experience in dealing with this very specific matter.

It was indeed widely thought that a warrant was necessary, until I drew the attention of BT and Ofcom to the provisions of regulation 15, which qualifies regulation 10 (there is no "full stop"). This specifies that "a person with a legitimate interest" may see withheld CLI, not only someone holding a warrant. It had been assumed that the only way of establishing such an interest was by obtaining a specific warrant, or being a warranted Police Officer.

In late 2003, I persuaded BT to confirm to Ofcom (early in 2004) the source of traced Silent Calls to me. Clearly Ofcom has a legitimate interest relating to nuisance calls where it is seeking to use its statutory powers under section 128 of the Communications Act. The BT Nuisance Calls Bureau accepted this as a point of principle and adjusted its standing procedures so that traced call data can be passed to Ofcom and the ICO, as well as the Police and Officers of a court, on request. Other NCB could follow the same procedure.

This has no relevance to the position of 118800, however I was troubled on reading the "full stop" with reference to other situations. Nuisance callers who are not committing a criminal act (e.g. Silent Callers not yet subject to an injunction) cannot hide their identity by withholding their CLI.

I am genuinely sorry to find myself being such an anorak on these topics; I hope that this information is helpful.

---

Dave wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 11:58pm:

It seems that different determinations on this point have been made by different bodies.

Clearly it has passed the self-defined criteria of Ofcom and PhonePay Plus to qualify as a directory enquiry service, however, as indicated in my earlier posting, the ICO has apparently not yet seen fit to make a similar determination.

Whilst Ofcom and PhonePay Plus need only consider the rules that they have determined for themselves, the Information Commissioner must have regard to the specific statutory regulations (PECR), which do not permit any exercise of discretion.


I fear, or rather I fear that the ICO fears, that this point may need to be tested in the courts.

The determinations of Ofcom and PhonePay Plus, as well as the self-definition of the service would undoubtedly have a bearing on any proceedings, however they cannot be assumed to compel the result. To make matters worse, it must be remembered that the PECR 2003 is only the UK implementation of the EU Directive 2002/58/EC. The possibility of the matter being decided by the ECJ therefore cannot be dismissed.

Fellow anoraks may wish to refer to article 12 and recitals 38-40 of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications, as they consider the relevant components as implemented in the Privacy and Electronic (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

---

Dave wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 11:58pm:

This is easy - you cannot, unless that data can only have come from one source.

I understand that interested parties do keep an eye on these things by deliberately placing fictitious or inaccurate details onto particular lists. When those details are used by someone other than the person to whom it was given then the source is revealed.

Very many years ago, I learned that the BT Phone Book contains some credible but utterly spurious entries, so that illegitimate copying of the published version can be identified.

Thinking of this, I considered always adding a distinct spurious extra initial, flat number or house name to my details, choosing a different one for each occasion. This could assist in ensuring that the source of any mailings would be obvious to me. As my details are published (accurately) in the telephone directory however, this would only be of interest, rather than having any true benefit. Those who seek to protect themselves from all unsolicited communications may wish to consider this.

meant to say the CEO of Connectivity will be on BBC2 working lunch at 12.30 today!!!

Watched the [url=]Working lunch interview[/url]on the web, and also the [url=]linked report[/url]. What drivel.

There are some very big underlying issues here about the type of society we are becoming. Properly applied, the provisions of the DPA and PECR could help to protect some lasting values, however we are too keen to rush forward into some Brave New World, losing our sense of values.

Perhaps the hiatus in the Connectivity web service (although apparently the telephone service carries on), will give the ICO an opportunity to finish its deliberations and determine that compliance with regulation 15 is required (notwithstanding proper decisions by Ofcom). Writing to everybody in the database to invite them to opt-in will give Connectivity a valuable opportunity to verify the accuracy of its data and ensure that the contacts it is able to make are likely to be welcome, for the sake of its customers.

The simple point for Connectivity in the light of the present publicity is to ask who would wish to pay a pound to use a service that is likely to create annoyance and resentment on the part of those who they are trying to contact.

If Connectivity were smart, it would invite people to register their number for its service and at the same time register the number with the TPS.

Notwithstanding the degree of non-compliance with the TPS, which is significant, but not as great as some may think, I cannot see why most people should not be happy to register with 118800, on the off-chance that someone may have a need to contact them. At the cost of a pound few calls are likely to be frivolous!

(N.B. please let nobody see my recognition of the value of the 118800 service as any endorsement of its present failure to properly comply with the priniples of the PECR.)

I concur.

It is however only since the banks starting practicising identity theft, by ascribing one's identity to anyone who knew a name address and telephone number and other non-confidential information, that a listing in a telephone directory has become a matter of privacy for the vast majority of the population. What is especially galling about the bamks is their offering a chargeable service for one to to be able to perhaps find out when they have done it.

I would agree with your concerns, it would seem that none of the issues raised has been addressed.   I am particularly concerned about the prospect of receiving unwanted, costly texts while abroad and the fact that it seems the only way to find out if one's number is in their database requires one to reveal the number so if they didn't have it before, they'd have it once you'd checked!   I really do wonder what is the point of rules if those supposed to enforce them just take th e line of least resistance!   (Am having a bad morning with public sector not doing its job & letting people get away with murder!!)

However, if you want to go ex directory, I think it is different