Mobile Phone Directory.

[Guest Tracker]

What do you all make of this?

 

 

 

Maybe you have heard about this but early next week all UK mobiles will be

on a directory which will mean that anyone will be able to access the

numbers. It is easy to unsubscribe but it must be done before the beginning

of next week to make sure that you are ex directory and you may want to

suggest it to all your friends and family who have UK mobiles or they could

be swamped by unsolicited messages and calls. Removal is recommended by the

BBC - see link below.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/8091621.stm

 

The Directory of Mobile Phone numbers goes live next week.

All numbers will be open to cold calling and the general telesales people.

 

To remove your number go here. (you need your mobile phone with you to do

this, they text you a code)

 

www.118800.co.uk select the ex-directory

hyperlink at the upper right corner of the page and follow the instructions,

or you could click on the link below:

 

http://www.118800.co.uk/removeme/remove-me.html

When on the site, click "Home" then "Ex-directory" this will remove you from

the directory.

 

NB THE WEBSITE IS DOWN AT PRESENT

[GJH]

I've seen this story in several places over the last few weeks.

 

One significant correction to what you've been told, Richard, is that it isn't all UK mobiles which will be listed, only about 40% of them.

 

The company involved has bought publicly available databases of people who have said that their numbers can be shared for marketing purposes. This includes people who have deliberately done so and those who haven't read the small print properly and have mistakenly allowed sharing.

 

There isn't a time limit on being removed either. So long as it is a personal number you can tell them to remove it whenever you like, even if you have given consent to its being shared in the past.

 

Graham

[J9withdogs]

Apparently you can text E to 118800 to remove your number from the directory.

[davenewellhome]

Personally I'm not bothered as my mobile is for business so having it listed in a directory is not a problem. Before I switched to a contract I didn't register my mobile with the service providers so it wouldn't be listed under my name anyway. I do think its a bit naughty that the phone owner has to make the effort to be de-registered for the directory though.

 

D.

[GJH]

davenewell@home - 2009-07-14 5:58 PM

 

Personally I'm not bothered as my mobile is for business so having it listed in a directory is not a problem. Before I switched to a contract I didn't register my mobile with the service providers so it wouldn't be listed under my name anyway. I do think its a bit naughty that the phone owner has to make the effort to be de-registered for the directory though.

 

D.

Good point regarding numbers used for business, Dave. They don't enjoy the same protection (Data Protection Act & associated legislation) which applies to personal numbers. As you say, you wouldn't want that anyway as you wish to attract business.

 

The reason why phone owners have to make an effort to have the number removed from the directory is that it was they who gave permission for the sharing which makes the directory possible in the first place - so it is they who have to rescind the permission.

 

Graham

[davenewellhome]

Fair comment Graham, I missed that point in the OP.

 

D.

[mom]

So, apparently now you can no longer opt out by phoning the company or by texting.  It must be done on the 118800 website, which has been deliberately closed down by the company.

 

A Manager of the company explained on radio yesterday that the closed website had nothing to do with the numbers of people attempting to opt out, as previously reported, rather it was "not providing the level of service they would like" and has been closed for a re-design, with no new opening date decided.

 

In my opinion, almost everything he said was a lie.  He knew all the words to use when hiding the truth, applying spin and telling it like it's not, and he didn't miss a beat.

 

Sure, the company may only be holding phone numbers from lists where the phone owners have given permission for use in marketing, and indeed there is a large element of panic by those who don't know if they're on the database or not.  But as previously noted, many people miss ticking the "not to be used box" through various means of web-site trickery or simple mistake, and I would say that the 118800 company has seriously under-estimated the will of people out there. 

 

One last thing, although the website might say that they will not on-sell the numbers, that is valid only for as long as the company remains as-is.  Mark my words, having endured numerous company takeovers and merges, company philosophy changes on a sixpense when you're owned by others!

 

[GJH]

mom - 2009-07-15 8:15 AMSo, apparently now you can no longer opt out by phoning the company or by texting.  It must be done on the 118800 website, which has been deliberately closed down by the company.

Having read this I just had a look at the company web site and I see that they have also suspended the mobile phone connection service.

A Manager of the company explained on radio yesterday that the closed website had nothing to do with the numbers of people attempting to opt out, as previously reported, rather it was "not providing the level of service they would like" and has been closed for a re-design, with no new opening date decided.

 

In my opinion, almost everything he said was a lie.  He knew all the words to use when hiding the truth, applying spin and telling it like it's not, and he didn't miss a beat.

 

Sure, the company may only be holding phone numbers from lists where the phone owners have given permission for use in marketing, and indeed there is a large element of panic by those who don't know if they're on the database or not.

Having not heard the interview I have no idea how much spin was applied but it has been obvious for several days that the company didn't anticipate the level of panic which would be induced in the general public by half baked utterings from media organisations which hate to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

But as previously noted, many people miss ticking the "not to be used box" through various means of web-site trickery or simple mistake, and I would say that the 118800 company has seriously under-estimated the will of people out there.

Being careful about reading the small print is nothing new. The company hasn't under-estimated the will of the people, it has under-estimated the number of people who are susceptible to being panicked by media scare stories.

One last thing, although the website might say that they will not on-sell the numbers, that is valid only for as long as the company remains as-is.  Mark my words, having endured numerous company takeovers and merges, company philosophy changes on a sixpense when you're owned by others!

Sure it's only valid for that long. We have to remember, though, that the databases used are not new - they have been in existence for some time and have already been sold on to anyone willing to pay the price.At the end of the day we all have to accept that we have to take responsibility for our own actions and seeking to blame anyone but ourselves when something that is our fault goes wrong is ridiculous.Graham

[mom]

G'day Graham!

 

Mmmm, a couple of interesting points, from my perspective, anyway.  I'm not sure who's trying to blame others and not take responsibility for their actions... if I understand correctly what you are saying, you may have missed the point.

 

The web is a daunting tool to those who are inexperienced or differently talented and/or the more trusting amongst us.  Just spend a short time one day examining TV and newspaper ads and stories... from an advertisement to sell, right through to a serious enquiry to a government agency, all have an expectation that you will now use the web to purchase things, make enquiries, bookings, renew a passport or policy etc etc etc.  I will never accept the argument "no one has to use the web", because although that may be technically true, life ain't like that for the majority, as increasing financial and time-wasting penalties are applied to non-web users, advertisements often only include a website address making it a fair effort to find other means of contact etc.  I'm not arguing against the technology, I'm a prolific user of it and never want to see it dimished.  But I do believe that in the massive drive by modern-day business to earn every possible penny, the web is too serious a cost-cutting exercise to not, let's say, "encourage it's use" by everyone.

 

The problem as I see it, though, is that there are no standard approaches to the collection of private information.  I have been caught before, ticking or unticking the phone number and/or email privacy boxes after twice reading the explanatory note that may default completely opposite to the page I was previously using, only to encounter an error later on in the page which, when prompting for more information unsets (only) the previously ticked boxes.  I have seen this "many" times, and fallen prey to it once.  My fault and responsibility?  Yep!  Is it reasonable behaviour?  In my opinion, no.  Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this way... not sure.  But there's no doubt that the javascript behind those boxes has been written to "trick" the user into missing the changed status.  Otherwise, all the other data should have been reset as well.

 

Phone number collection isn't that common on web pages, granted, but then similar techniques are sometimes used on printed applications, forms and the like.  Yes the small print is normally available.  But it isn't called small print for nothing!  The words "not" and "is" are so easily missed when under pressure.  No excuses, I know.  But why don't companies offer the small print in large bold print, at the top of the page?  Because they don't really want you to read and consider the content of the small print.  Yep, I know, it's just business and ultimately my fault if I don't read it.

 

But again, that's still not the real issue, for me anyway.  We live in an increasingly public world, all the while trying to maintain privacy.  We (the majority I mean) grab and use technology immediately it arrives, want the features and services provided, and then complain when our use of the technology is leveraged by others.  I understand that.  And people know that their numbers, email addresses, personal details etc lie in databases.  But the tipping point in any privacy argument, in my opinion, is the "aggregation" and "concentration" of data for unexpected means.  My phone number sitting in Amazon and even dozens of other subsiduaries and associate companies is low on my privacy scale because a) the dissemination is relatively small and b) it's a "push" service that I signed up to.  And usually (but not always) the agreement is that the private details might be on-sold to like-minded companies and institutions.  However, the bringing together of these databases into a single repository offering a universal "pull" service, whereby any person on the globe can now access my details almost immediately, is an entirely different matter.  This "change in use" of my data is the tipping point.  I know one can argue semantics and details, well into 2025, but this is effectively what has happened.

 

Just on the "susceptable to media stories" front, it's an interesting comment.  If it wasn't for the media, I would never have heard of the service, so I'm grateful to them for that.  And the minute I heard that the service existed, I'd made my mind up... I don't want Joe Public being able to find out my mobile phone number by a casual £1 enquiry.  I won't be told by the media how to think and what to do... I'm not "susceptable" because I ignore all media opinion.  And although I know you weren't necessarily saying I was, "all" of my friends made instant decisions to opt out immediately, all giving the same simple reason as mine.

 

When I said "the will of the people", lets just wait and see, shall we?  I don't think this is over by a long shot!

 

[GJH]

I accept that the web can be daunting to some people but to those I would say get in touch with their local council. Most have run free courses for several years now to enable people to overcome the "mysteries".Thinking back to my DPO days I would have to disagree that there are no standards to data collection. Any organisation collecting personal data legally has to abide by the provisions of the Data Protection Act. There is no allegation in connection with the databases bought by 118800 that the information has been obtained illegally so, to that extent, the data have been collected in a standard manner.There's nothing new about the techniques which some companies use really, same old "caveat emptor" principle. If we aren't comfortable with the approach taken by a given company we can always go to their competitors.It is really up to us to ensure we realise what might happen to our data so that what happens is not unexpected. Take the Warners privacy policy for instance:

When you supply any personal information to Warners Group Publications plc (e.g. for competitions or orders) there may be occasions when we wish to pass your information on to associated third parties, if you have requested that this is not to be done we will respect that wish and refrain from passing the details on. If you have requested that we do not contact you with promotional material from ourselves we will also respect that wish and refrain from sending you such information, however if there are any problems with an order that you have placed we will contact you.We will ensure that all personal information supplied is held securely in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

The first sentence is all about sharing data outside the organisation and, perfectly legally, it sets no limit whatsoever on such sharing for people who agree to it.I have to disagree when you say

However, the bringing together of these databases into a single repository offering a universal "pull" service, whereby any person on the globe can now access my details almost immediately, is an entirely different matter.  This "change in use" of my data is the tipping point.  I know one can argue semantics and details, well into 2025, but this is effectively what has happened.

that is one of the pieces of misinformation propagated by the media.118800 make a point of saying on their web site

We never give out anyone's mobile number. Not even to their closest friend.If someone wants to get in touch, and we have your number, we contact your mobile and tell you who they are. If you reject the call, they don't get through - and they don't have your number.But if you're happy to talk, they'll get through and you can choose whether or not to share your number.

so, even though people have said that their numbers can be shared with anyone (whether deliberately or by mistake) Joe Public can not find out those numbers by a casual £1 enquiry using the 118800 service.

When I said "the will of the people", lets just wait and see, shall we?  I don't think this is over by a long shot!

Yes, it will be interesting to see how it goes - I expect the story will die a death when the red tops have something else towrite about :-) Graham

[mom]

G'day again, Graham!

 

You are right about the client not actually getting to know my phone number (... at this stage anyway.  This could change tomorrow morning at 9:00 am if 118800 deemed it so, and there's nothing to stop other similar service companies starting up, that would give my number, and even combined number and email address)... but indeed they can attempt to make unsolicited contact with me.  I try very hard to give out my number only to family, very close friends and my work collegues.  And clearly to at least one company who has sold it on.  Possibly someone like some of the airlines who ask for it.  In practice, I am only contacted on my terms, and to date have only once ever been contacted by an unwelcome third party, by text.  I have little enough peace and quiet as it is, without 118800 trying to call me!

 

So, whatever the detail, specifics, facts... I don't want 118800 or any other unwelcome person contacting me by mobile phone.  I take my phone to the US and Australia all the time.  I'd be a happy chappy when 118800 called me at 02:30 Australia time asking if I'd like to talk to someone I don't want to talk to!  Not!  Thats another interesting issue, actually... how do they contact me?  If it's not by TXT, then I will have to pay for the hop from England to my overseas destination!  That'll go down well!  Not!

 

Totally agree again on the points you made around "caveat emptor".  But by the same token, if I believe that changing times are bringing unexpected (if only by me!) new uses of my data, I'm going to voice a strong opinion.  Privacy is a funny thing.  Until recent advances in technology (mobile phones, web etc), privacy of the masses was almost guaranteed by the physical nature of the research involved.  I say "relative" because I know that one can never be totally private or immune from investigation, identity theft etc.  But it used to be much harder, much more time consuming, much more expensive and hence much less common.  Even just a few years ago, when electronic commerce, mobile phones etc were getting up to speed, things on the privacy front weren't too bad.  But now that our personal details have become a commodity, and that technology and infrastructure enables things to be done on a truly global scale by absolutely anyone with an internet connection, we need to become more cynical and outspoken about things, and much more protective of the few freedoms we have left.  IMHO anyway.  Lest one day we wake to find George Orwell was right after all! 

 

So, what does that have to do with this 118800 discussion?  If I believed that what it says on the can is what will always be, then "not much".  But I do not believe that.  Having one's data spread around in disparate and uncommunicative systems and companies is one thing, but when data get's organised, that is "always" of concern.  It is "much" more useful in that form, as it can then, as a wholesome and consolidated database rather than bits and pieces, get sold on, lost, mis-used etc. with much greater impact.  I wonder, what else is, or will be, in my record at 118800?  Sounds a bit paranoid, I know!  But that's possibly a little more healthy in the long run to a good solid dose of naivity

 

Anyway, full points to 118800 in the early days for putting in place a level of phone number abstraction, and for offering an opt-out clause, and total reversal of points for closing down the ability to opt-out while continuing to trade.

 

[GJH]

Just to pick out one point.

 

mom - 2009-07-15 4:15 PM

But it used to be much harder, much more time consuming, much more expensive and hence much less common.  Even just a few years ago, when electronic commerce, mobile phones etc were getting up to speed, things on the privacy front weren't too bad.  But now that our personal details have become a commodity, and that technology and infrastructure enables things to be done on a truly global scale by absolutely anyone with an internet connection, we need to become more cynical and outspoken about things, and much more protective of the few freedoms we have left. 

It is actually some years since it was much harder, much more time consuming and much more expensive to create databases of our personal data. We are now much better protected than we used to be.

1) The original (1984) Data Protection Act applied only to data held on computer. The 1998 Act extended coverage to data in manual files as well.

2) The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 brought in measures to control cold calling.

3) The Representation of the People (England and Wales)(Amendment) Regulations 2002 brought in the Edited Electoral Register which allows us to opt out of having our details published to all and sundry. That was a direct response to challenges which resulted from the parctice of some companies making a fortune by buying registers very cheaply from local authorities and having them digitised for pennies by cheap Chinese labour.

 

Without those measures the situation would be much worse :-)

 

Graham

[mom]

Oh, absolutely!  Totally agree!

 

But then, why is it, that with all my increased data protection in place, my data is available to all and sundry?!  You see, my ideal world (I "know" I'm going to regret saying that!!) would not require a diligent approach to box ticking and small print reading when I give over a personal detail to a company with whom I am transacting.  Because in my ideal world, there'd be a certain level of respect, for ones' self and ones' privacy.  Tell me, please explain it to me, how something as precious, something as important, something as intimate as an official electoral register actually requires specific legislation to protect its contents?  How dare the contents be sold by the authorities!!  I would never have dreamed that could be possible, not in a country like this anyway.  Yet until someone shouted out loud and made government listen, my desire to vote in this country required me to give out my details to anyone willing to pay.  It's actually a disgrace.  And a perfect example of how we allow things to creep up on us, then find an unexpected technology or legal loophole or drop in moral standing (notwithstanding outright criminal misbehaviour or "losing a memory stick") makes a joke of the spirit or intent of the legislation.

 

I know!  We don't live in a real world!  And it's fast becoming the case that if we want to purchase anything, be it a product or service, or if we want interaction with government, if we want to have a phone, make use of essential services or anything that's considered a norm in modern life, the price you have to pay is loss of privacy.

 

I think I've said enough now!  I'm starting to work myself up!!!  Sorry!

 

Thanks for the discussion, Graham!

 

[GJH]

From its initial creation the electoral register was always a public document and the law required local authorities to sell copies to anyone who wanted them, basically at a price which just covered the expense of doing so.

 

Just like (landline) telephone directories, and the Kelly's type street directories which preceded them, it didn't matter that the information was widely available because companies in days gone by had that certain level of respect that you - and I - would like to see return.

 

It is that factor which has changed, the attitude of some companies that they have a right to disturb anyone they wish to whenever they like.

 

I totally agree with you regarding criminal misbehaviour and "losing a memory stick". In my days as a DPO I bounced all sorts of people when I identified such lapses.

 

For anyone interested there is plenty is sound advice on safeguarding personal data on The Information Commissioner's web site (use the For The Public link at top left).

 

If anyone is really interested I'm available (at an exorbitant rate) for consultancy :D :D

 

Graham