Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
141 (Read 24,485 times)
davve
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 7
141
Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:40pm
 
A couple of years ago now I remember seeing a thread about the importance of putting 141 in front of numbers that have been put on here.  I have always done that but strangely enough when I called a number for matalan after putting 141 first (the number dialled is still on my phone) they said they would call me back with some information I had requested, surprise surprise they quoted the number I had called from :exclamation  This makes me wonder how many how businesses know this even though 141 is being dialled first.
davve
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 580
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 141
Reply #1 - Jan 7th, 2012 at 5:55pm
 
There are a number of companies that offer nuisance call programmes and they allow the recipient caller to make contact with callers even if the number is withheld. (Taxi companies often ring back and confirm bookings) This technology has been around for years, the emergency services have always had this facility. If this software is in use the 141 prefix does not make any difference.
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
davve
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 7
Re: 141
Reply #2 - Jan 12th, 2012 at 10:15am
 
Thanks for that info.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,482
Re: 141
Reply #3 - Jan 17th, 2012 at 11:06am
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 7th, 2012 at 5:55pm:
There are a number of companies that offer nuisance call programmes and they allow the recipient caller to make contact with callers even if the number is withheld. (Taxi companies often ring back and confirm bookings) This technology has been around for years, the emergency services have always had this facility. If this software is in use the 141 prefix does not make any difference.

Use of the 141 prefix (or a standing request for CLI to be withheld) compels your telephone company to mark the call so that your CLI is not provided to the person you are calling. If your telephone company fails to do this, or the other telephone company reveals the CLI when marked in this way, other than to a proper authority (e.g. the emergency services), this is a serious breach of data protection regulations.

Having had some extensive involvement in the issue of nuisance calls, I have never heard of anything such as the facility described above. I suspect that there is some misunderstanding in here somewhere.

Many are unaware that the general area from which you are calling (not your actual number) is provided to the telephone company which terminates the call. Some use this information to channel calls, or detect that one is not calling from overseas. This information is not deemed to be personal and so it cannot be withheld.


My view is that one should offer CLI if happy for the person called to call back on the number being used. It should be withheld if this is not the case. If a business would rather you called back on a different number, then it  can use a "presentation number" as the CLI. I argue strongly that those who are unable or unwilling to accept a return call should withhold their CLI. Sadly, there are many people who do not treat CLI in this simple manner.

There are serious issues around the misuse of published telephone directory information and the integrity of the ex-directory arrangements. We are also aware of problems with the security of remotely accessible voicemail systems. These lead many to withhold their CLI in circumstances other than those described above. This is an absolute right, which is established in legislation, with which all telephone companies must comply. Errors may occur, but I am not aware of any telephone company that is known to be commonly in breach.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 17th, 2012 at 11:13am by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 580
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 141
Reply #4 - Jan 17th, 2012 at 2:11pm
 
I appreciate that it is not within ofcom regulation but I am aware of software that will display the callers number even if the number is withheld.

The only way that a number cannot be identified is if the caller is "XXD" this will prevent this system picking up the number.

Members may think that they are X Directory but in may cases they are not.

If a caller requests XD the operator will not give out the number uless the caller has the name and address of the caller. Once the caller gives the operator the name and address the number will be given verbally.

I have spent many years within the telemarketing industry and I know this to be correct.

All members that are registered with TPS should check their status is XXD and not just XD
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: 141
Reply #5 - Apr 21st, 2012 at 8:09pm
 
Just found out the other day that despite my mums landline being ex-directory and CLI automatically withheld, when she rings the local taxi company, she now gets an automated message telling her the taxi is on its way.  Then, obviously, the taxi then arrives.

There are two problems I see here:

1. The CLI withheld 'flag' is obviously being ignored.
2. They know my mums address from the landline number.

With regards to '2', I can imagine before they introduced this services, they had on record my mums number (presumably always been ignoring the 'withheld' flag) and presumably they linked that to her address when she asked for a taxi from home.

With regards to '1', I think there are privacy issues here.  What's the point in automatically withholding or even manually withholding your number, if they (company called) can choose to bypass this?

With the exception of the emergency services (as mentioned by SCV), I don't believe anyone else should have this facility without a good reason.

Has anyone experienced this when ringing a taxi firm (or any company for that matter)?



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 580
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 141
Reply #6 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 4:46am
 
As I stated earlier this facility is available from a number of Telcoms. I don't fully understand the techy side of things but it is my understanding that taxis have this facility. Cordic is the industry leader and they provide the following services.

Call back to number called
Automated call checker
Taxi on way

If they are not able to confirm the number they will not send the taxi. I am nearly sure that this facility works even if the callers number is withheld.

Other members may have ordered a taxi and the taxi company in question has rang them back even when their number is not listed, or they may have received an automated text confirming the taxi is on its way.
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: 141
Reply #7 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 5:48pm
 
The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld.

What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
warweezil
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 17
Re: 141
Reply #8 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 6:20pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 5:48pm:
The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld.

What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

I think I might put in a call to the Information commissioner tomorrow about this.. I pay a fee to have my number withheld in order to control the "circulation" of my number, If Im not getting that service then someone needs to refund me, and be a little clearer about the limits of "number withheld".

My number is my data and I reserve the right to control who has it. There is far too much pandering to big business at the expense of the rights and privacy of the citizen in this country.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,899
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: 141
Reply #9 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 7:06pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 5:48pm:
What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

But the facility is with the provider of the person you are calling.

The caller's provider merely passes on to the receiver's provider, the request not to divulge the number. Thus, if the number is given out regardless, it is the receiver's provider that has done so, ignoring the request by the caller's provider not to give it out.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,482
Re: 141
Reply #10 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 7:41pm
 
warweezil wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 6:20pm:
bbb_uk wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 5:48pm:
The bit I'm concerned with is with the fact that they have your number regardless of whether withheld.

What's the point of having the facility to withhold your number if anyone can just ignore it and receive it anyhow?

I think I might put in a call to the Information commissioner tomorrow about this.. I pay a fee to have my number withheld in order to control the "circulation" of my number, If Im not getting that service then someone needs to refund me, and be a little clearer about the limits of "number withheld".

When you speak with the Information Commissioner's Office you may want to point out that your telco is in breach of PECR regulation 10 (4) by charging you for having your number marked as being withheld.

I am awaiting call-backs from both the ICO and Ofcom after having drawn their attention to this alleged admitted breach by a call terminating company.

The circumstances under which withheld CLI may be revealed, and to whom, are clearly much more limited than is suggested by Numberstore. Alleged "Crime Prevention and Detection" is nothing like an adequate description of the very limited circumstances under which withheld CLI may be revealed. Registration with the ICO is wholly irrelevant and the Ofcom regulations do not affect a user, but the telephone service provider, who must not make withheld CLI available to the person called under any circumstances.


The important point to note from the comments above is that the call originating telco has to allow the facility of withholding CLI and that the call terminating telco must respect this request. There is nothing that a third party system provider to taxi firms can do, other than potentially take advantage of an illegal facility offered by the taxi firm's telco.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: 141
Reply #11 - Apr 24th, 2012 at 8:44pm
 
Dave wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 7:06pm:
...The caller's provider merely passes on to the receiver's provider, the request not to divulge the number. Thus, if the number is given out regardless, it is the receiver's provider that has done so, ignoring the request by the caller's provider not to give it out.
I know but obviously there is a breakdown of privacy somewhere along the line - obviously the TCP is choosing to ignore any 'withheld' request and doing so without good reason IMHO.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
warweezil
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 17
Re: 141
Reply #12 - Apr 25th, 2012 at 1:29pm
 
Again we see the ICO asleep at the switch. Their view hinges on the question of whether this is data that can personally identify you. It seems that if you can show that has been used to persoanlly identify you - you then need to make a subject access request to the company using it...... yadda yadda.

It seems that while the telcos are selling a privacy feature to us, a shadow industry has grown up to circumvent that layer of privacy we have requested for (and paid for) ourselves.

This ludicrous situation cant be right and maybe it is time it was highlighted to the public. I intend to email my Mp about this when I have some time, and ask him why it is that we appear not to have the right to keep "uninvited businesses" off of our phone lines.

I maintain it is my data and Cordic and the like do not have my permission to forward it for the use of anyone who does not have my express permission to call me - which I grant by telling them my number MYSELF  Angry

A prime example of another parasitic company trying to make money off of the backs of an unwilling public. How empty and shabby UK commerce is becoming!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
warweezil
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 17
Re: 141
Reply #13 - Apr 25th, 2012 at 1:53pm
 
I also tried a call into OFCOM, the woman there was adamant that this cant happen and that if the number is being passed on to anyone it should be taken up with the Telco.

Is OFCOM unaware of developments in the industry over which it is supposed to regulate?  Shocked

I just checked Cordic up on the web, this is an American software package. Given that it has to have some connection with the telephone network to function is that use legal in the UK? ISTR BT being very stringent about what can be plugged in, surely this has to be able to interrogate the network to some extend to gain the "withheld" number". interesting...

Although being OFCOM that shouldn't surprise me...  Roll Eyes
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 25th, 2012 at 2:04pm by warweezil »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: 141
Reply #14 - Apr 25th, 2012 at 6:44pm
 
According to UK code lookup, the taxi firm in question, use a BT line.  However, due to number portability, it may no longer be BT.

Problem is I can't find an email address for BT.  At least an email address of a department that could help or forward to the relevant department.  Normal customer services, I don't believe, would be of any help.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 25th, 2012 at 6:45pm by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2019 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 © 2000-2019. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge