Having made contributions to the
original thread covering 118800, I feel as though I should throw in my two ha'peth here.
As a campaigner on the issues (as distinct from those who campaign against other people and organisations) my focus is on the role of the ICO in this matter.
The ICO originally agreed with Connectivity that the service must be subject to the proper regulatory requirements - i.e. that a personal notification was issued to everybody to be listed in the directory, offering the opportunity to opt-out, before that entry could be used. Connectivity later advised that this would not now be possible, as it would have made the service financially unviable. To my knowledge, the ICO has neither confirmed that this is acceptable, nor taken action because of a breach of regulations. My latest advice is that it is leaning towards the former.
Despite clearly breaching the terms of the regulations, there is little danger of any serious breach of meaningful privacy occurring if the 118800 service is operated in the manner that is advised.
The problem is that the alleged protections against abuse cannot possibly be adequate. There can be no absolute assurance that a service based on an essentially invalid directory of names and numbers will not fall into the wrong hands, or that the nature of the hands currently holding it may not change. The present situation relies on the fact that retrospective notification of inclusion in a directory, with the opportunity to opt-out **, and the failure to provide numbers to enquirers, will continue for all time and under all circumstances. Should this change, the ICO will not even become aware of the fact, and then be able to take action after the necessary lengthy delay, until far too late.
(** the pressured circumstances under which such notifications are provided probably cause them to be inadequate anyway)
It is the possibility of the abuse of data, rather than the intentions and capabilities of the present owners, that must be the subject of the most serious concern in all such situations. If that limits worthwhile business activity, or even the security of the state (as in the case of the national identity database), then this is a price we have to pay for our liberties.
It is vital that the ICO takes a principled stand, demanding that the regulations be applied in all cases, refusing to accept that measures can be put in place to offset the ills that the regulations as drafted are seen to be seeking to prevent. This approach must apply even when, as in this case, those measures appear to be generally sufficient. It is for Connectivity to seek for a change to the regulations if it believes that alternative means of opting out are appropriate for its particular service.
Turning to campaigns and the promotion of services under the “Privacy” banner, I am reminded of the launch of “BT Privacy at Home”. This came about during the height of publicly expressed concern about Silent Calls some years ago. The notion, promoted on TV by a renowned libertarian, was that "privacy" was achieved by registration with the Telephone Preference Service and the ability to see the number presented by a caller (if any) before answering a telephone call.
This campaign was very successful in achieving its underlying intention of protecting BT’s business, by preventing its competitors from persuading customers to transfer to them through the cheap and effective technique of telemarketing.
We may each entertain odd ideas about what is meant by “privacy”, and the vital human right that the word describes. I see that as unfortunate, but inevitable and tolerable. When promoters of particular causes and services adopt the word as if it may fairly be used to describe what they are promoting, I have severe concerns.
Whatever the true purpose of SayNoTo118800 may be, its intended and declared objective (expressed by its very name) is to have a commercial impact. Any commercial enterprise must be fundamentally amoral and should be judged accordingly. Let the argument about practical advantages for consumers continue, but let us not allow this to be confused with discussion on matters of principle.
Pages: 
SayNoTo118800.co.uk (Read 89,806 times)
