| | Re: Number-to-name lookup for UK phone numbers?
On 9 Oct, 18:30, Bodincus <nob...@this.address> wrote:
> (09/10/10 13:48), andy:
> > On 9 Oct, 11:38, Bodincus<nob...@this.address> *wrote:
> >> (09/10/10 11:13), Roger Burton West:> *As stated in the subject, really: does anyone have a pointer to a
> >>> (preferably free) number-to-name web site that has UK phone book
> >>> information? (Real time, because I want to apply this to incoming calls
> >>> with a fairly short timeout.)
> >>> R
> >> I'm afraid that for some BS "Privacy" gobbledygook this service is not
> >> available in the UK, unlike many other civilized first-world countries..
> >> And please don't get me started.
> > Data Protection Act
> > it's said that about 40% of BT landline numbers are ex-directory; the
> > phone book people receive only includes BT and not other landline
> > customers; most mobile networks barely have or certainly don't promote
> > directory services,
> > so your opinion that it is ******** might put you in a minority, as
> > most people don't have or don't want their details available
> Do me a favour, don't add BS to the BS. Just - don't.
> The DPA doesn't say it's illegal to publish a reverse phone search.
> Your address and phone number are public domain, published in the Phone
> Book and other umpteen services online, so there's NOTHING interested by
> the DPA. You can't be covered by the DPA for data that's widely
> available to the public and YOU specifically *agreed* to be published.
> The DPA legislates about what the Data Controllers obligations are when
> the information they hold / collect / manage are other people's personal
> sensitive data.
> If you find ANY sections of the DPA that even simply inherit that a
> reverse phone search is covered by the same, I'll pay you a beer.
> But if you are wrong, you owe me 100'000 quid.
> I had this discussion with a high ranking police officer and an expert
> lawyer, and they had to agree that there's NO legal reason at all why
> there's no reverse search available.
> In fact, if you buy a CD from 192.com, at the cheap price of £800 a pop,
> you can do all the reverse searches you want.
> And for those that don't want their phone number published, I hope they
> are aware that this puts them in the "most likely to be dodgy" police,
> HMRC and Home office lists.
> A telephone is a way to get contacted, WHY do people get a phone line
> and ACTIVELY try stop other people contacting them?
> I don't get it. Truly, I don't.
It looks like you adding ********
As I suggested, perhaps only about half the numbers are in the public
You and your friends can rant about it all they like, with whatever
bigotted reasons and veiled threats they'd like to imagine, or but use
of such services should not even be possible with respect to ex-
directory phone numbers as they could perhaps also be used in reverse
to obtain those numbers, against the wishes of those people not to
publish their numbers.
If there is so much demand for this, why is it difficult to find any
suppliers in this country?
That woman's phone number, the one you met last night, you want to
find out where she lives and hang around outside to find out what she
gets up to, did that other bloke go home with her?
Well, if her number is in the BT Phone Book, she'd be fair game,
"Why can't I find an address from a telephone number?
BT does not provide any product that is capable of performing a
reverse search facility. This would contravene the Data Protection
I suggest you get your friends, such as that expert lawyer, to ask BT
why it has chosen to publish that comment on its website.