I must say I share NGM's misgivings and scepticism about this

There seems to be something inherently perverse about objecting to one organisation potentially having some of one's personal details, and wondering how they might be used, then encouraging people to 'protest' by voluntarily signing up with another which seems to be doing the same thing but has no stated privacy policy at all.

The 118800 service seems rather odd to me anyway, in that it asks people to give their information to it in order to establish that it wasn't already on there.

On a separate matter, I asked a mobile network about what I viewed as false claims made by another organisation with respect to privacy policy, after I received an unsolicited text message, and the provider absolutely lied that it was working in conjunction with the mobile network. The mobile network confirmed that all of its customers' numbers are by default ex-directory, and they never give any such information to anyone.

So 118800 certainly does not obtain info direct from the networks.

My feeling is that it is trading on paranoia, that people are worried that their details may be available somewhere when they should not be.

But all other organisations have to obtain specific permission from people to be contacted in connection with their account or whatever it is.

Never give your details to people you don't want to have them, and never allow any company at all to pass on details to so-called carefully selected other companies etc ...

then neither 118800 or its inverse should have any leverage at all

Until halfway through writing this, I hadn't actually realised that the 118800 site has been delayed or taken down, perhaps as I was away some of the time

On http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/13/mobile-phone-directory-suspended there are adjacent remarks that make me burst out laughing

Quote:


This to me shows that the Information Commissioner's principles are somewhat in question at the moment.

I called them specifically to discuss a couple of points about 118800 some time ago, and was talked down to, treated as a timewaster, and cursorily dismissed by someone who absolutely refused to make notes on the points I made, which were specifically that for most such information systems people actively opt in and without having done so are by default are assumed out, whereas this site was inviting or seeming to require people to give their details in order to opt out, thus implying those who did not were vulnerable, and was this not intuitively a reversal of default conditions and a paradox that people must volunteer personal information in order to not have it recorded?

I wonder if perhaps that thought has arrived in the Information Commission's brain after all, albeit slowly.

When I tried to look myself up he 118800 site, it said it had loads of results for that name in that area, which sounds so authoritative it might tend to make people believe it was actually true, and thus make them worry. But when I zoomed the area in, it had none at all.

As for saynoto118800, it seems to be having some difficulty describing what it actually is, and it hasn't made a wise choice. There are plenty of commercial services offering 070 to various users, but I don't think there actually are many. Perhaps the most prominent are advertisers in freeads newspapers and conmen spammers forwarding the number to a Nigerian mobile and pretending to sell new iPhone and Nokia N999s on the internet. But actually in pragmatic terms the numbers are or should be almost defunct.

Hi, Barry here.

Obviously we looked at all the available number ranges.
The only one that permits attachment to a mobile number at no cost to the end-user is 07.
Unfortunately the use of 0844/5 would mean that the end user would have to pay for the diverted leg of the mobile call ! - obviously this is not a workable option NgNGhost.

It seems that your 'beef' appears to be that revenue is being generated and paid to the Service Provider of these numbers.
However, this happens with all call traffic on all networks, doesn't it ?

You seem to be missing the point that the www.saynoto118800.co.uk  'Safe numbers' are to be given to all Organisations and Businesses that are likely to pass over that information to 118800.
Whether they be Market research, debt collectors, utililty, business, the local council or whoever..
It is these organisations that would bear the cost of the call anyway - not the phone user.


With regard to the blimp, this is the largest you are legally allowed to fly in UK Airspace.
It is the largest commercially available which also has to have certification and a permit to fly by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority).

We approached the owner of that particular property as they are adjacent to the busy A1M Motorway which is an absolutely fantastic place to fly.



Kind regards,

Barry Issell

www.SayNoto118800.co.uk
66-68 St. Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 4:22pm:


You didn't look too hard.  The first site I checked, Flextel, one of the biggest supplier of personal numbers, allows their 0871 numbers to divert to the "big four" [sic] mobile networks.   At 10p/min to call, these will almost certainly be cheaper for the callers  than any 070 number you might be issuing.  And you can always give 070s to those unfortunate enough to use a different mobile network.

Incidentally, Flextel's approach to commission on 070 numbers is that numbers you register yourself earn you no commission.  However, introduce somebody else to use the service, and you DO earn commission, on any numbers that that person in turn registers.  If you would like an introduction, feel free to PM me for a link, and I'll happily collect the commission that you seem not to be interested in receiving.

andy9 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

I assume that the idea behind the Saynoto118800 070 "safe numbers" is that they are provided to companies and you continue giving your normal mobile number to friends and family.

andy9 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

I avoid giving my mobile number to any company. I did so to my local garage to notify me when my car was ready and they took it upon themselves to add it to a list that they send what they probably term "promotional" texts to me.

Hi, Barry here.

In response to 'irrelevant''s comment. As previously mentioned we thoroughly looked at alternative numbers including the 0871 number range that you suggest. Unfortunately, from the 1st August these numbers have been re-classified as 'premium rate'. Premium rate numbers have to have a pre-recorded message warning on connection.

If the '07' numbers were classified as premium rate this would mean that they also would have to have a warning which would mean that the numbers would be unworkable in many instances (eg. intruder alarm notification) and generally cause people many problems.

Thank you for offering to collect commission on these numbers, however we are not in a position to pay anything to anyone as we are a totally non-profit making organisation. You will find that you have to be registered as a Service provider to receive any kind of revenue - something we are not and have no intention of being.

In response to Dave and his problem with getting promotional text's from the garage - Please feel free to enter your number on www.saynoto118800.co.uk and the Safe number you receive back will not be able to receive any promotional texts - 100% Guaranteed !

We do not collect personal information Dave - not even your name is neccesary. There was a privacy policy on the site however we were informed that due to the limited information being gathered, it was unnessary - so we removed it. We may now replace it making clear that any mobile number entered will remain confidential - Not that you can really do much with just a mobile number and no accompanying personal information..

The purpose of the site is for any privacy minded individual to give out a 'Safe number' in the knowledge that they will NEVER receive an unsolicited text SMS message from 118800 (or the local garage) but can still be contacted by phone.
If the data 118800 obtains contain an 070 contact number, then our site has obviously done it's job.  

Keep those comments coming guys !

Kind regards,

Barry Issell
www.saynoto118800.co.uk

66-68 St.Loyes Street
Bedford MK40 1EZ

saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 4:22pm:


No revenue share doesn't happen at all on numbers that start 01, 02 or 03.

Quote:


All of which makes it abundantly clear that you do expect the numbers to be called and that the telecoms company terminating them is going to make a lot of money.  You must be pretty daft if you think 118800 won't easily be able to filter your bogus numbers out of their database as they are in a different number range from legitimate mobile numbers (i.e. 070 and not 075 to 079)

Quote:

So do tell us more about the career of Barry Issell and what has allowed you to become so financially fortunate that you no longer need to engage in conventional employment.   Since your surname is rather unusual it soon becomes apparent that there is not much sign of the former life and times of Barry Issell.

Dave wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 4:57pm:


I  avoided giving any mobile numbers to our dentist ... now they send texts to the house phone to advise of appointments instead.  Which cause us to get a telephone call to which we have to press 1 to have the text read out, or it tries again.  We were on holiday once when it tried.  25 messages on the answering machine before it gave up, and it doesn't even keep it past the next day, we found on our return when we tried to call it back. grr..


saynoto118800 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 5:38pm:

Only if you don't advise callers of the charge in advance..
(Personally, I think this is a dreadful sitution, where charges must be promoted for 10p/min numbers, but not for 50p/min 070 numbers!)

Quote:
You're quoting the PN industry almost verbatim there.  I've never known the charge advice notice on, say, calls via 18866, to cause any problems.

Quote:
Oh no, you'd not have to pay anything - you get the service you're already getting, and Flextel pay me directly. I'm quite happy to fill in any additional paperwork they require of me..  :-p