(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.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
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
"andy" <andy.ggrps@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5614715-be95-4862-97ba-4bc92a52ab52@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
The BT phone book does list numbers from other operators - I have two
entries in my local phone book one for my BT line and another for my Virgin
Media line.
Peter Andrews was thinking very hard :
> "andy" <andy.ggrps@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c5614715-be95-4862-97ba-4bc92a52ab52@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> 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
>>
>
> The BT phone book does list numbers from other operators - I have two entries
> in my local phone book one for my BT line and another for my Virgin Media
> line.
>
> Peter
Indeed; I have my mobile number listed.
Whatever happened to 192.com - I bought a CD from them that contained
the entire directory for the country and included a reverse lookup,
postcode lookup and the usual name lookup
> Whatever happened to 192.com - I bought a CD from them that contained the
> entire directory for the country and included a reverse lookup, postcode
> lookup and the usual name lookup
You taking the mickey , still there and likely always will be in your
lifetime http://www.192.com/ , the CD purchase is about £800
Information laid this down on his screen :
>> Whatever happened to 192.com - I bought a CD from them that contained the
>> entire directory for the country and included a reverse lookup, postcode
>> lookup and the usual name lookup
>
>
> You taking the mickey , still there and likely always will be in your
> lifetime
> http://www.192.com/ , the CD purchase is about £800
No. The CD doesn't do reverse lookup any more, afaik.
(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.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
Op 9-10-2010 19:30, Bodincus schreef:
> (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.
For these 800 quid you should also read the instructions that comes with
this cd.
> Whatever happened to 192.com - I bought a CD from them that contained
From what I've heard, their data is rather unreliable. It's obviously
been pieced together from lots of sources, and I believe many entries
are years out of date.
> 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
The phone book is subject to a database copyright in the UK, and like
most publications subject to such copyrights (e.g maps) will contain
bogus entries to detect attempts to make unauthorised derivative works.
You can compile a reverse directory legally, you must do it from other
sources.
"Bodincus" <nobody@this.address> wrote in message news:NE1so.17$rp3.10@newsfe25.ams2...
(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.
At least I use my real first name on Usenet, you appear to prefer not to reveal
any handle to your identity here, and I respect that.
So why do you feel that telephone subscribers shouldn't manage what they make public
in any way as they feel fit.
Your comment about ex D people being deemed dodgy is duly noted, but be aware
politicians and police officers are often paranoid about putting their own personal details
in the public domain.
> From what I've heard, their data is rather unreliable. It's
> obviously been pieced together from lots of sources, and I believe
> many entries are years out of date.
Indeed, 192 gathered a lot of electoral roll and company information to
create it's database, and rarely updates it.
My company is listed in 192 at a registered address we never traded from or
published, and ceased using 20 years ago when the accountants moved.
No-one with any sense will rely on 192 information.
(10/10/10 01:25), Graham.:
> At least I use my real first name on Usenet, you appear to prefer not to reveal
> any handle to your identity here, and I respect that.
> So why do you feel that telephone subscribers shouldn't manage what they make public
> in any way as they feel fit.
>
> Your comment about ex D people being deemed dodgy is duly noted, but be aware
> politicians and police officers are often paranoid about putting their own personal details
> in the public domain.
>
If you Google my NG handle you'll find my real name, so it's not about
hiding myself. I'm using this same nickname throughout many other forums
and websites.
Not using real names and email addresses on Usenet is just a protection
against email harvester bots, and nothing else.
Politicians are afraid to be targeted for their (obvious) political
views, a subject that is protected under the DPA and other privacy law,
so they're entitled to a certain degree of privacy about their public
details.
Same rule applies for members of the Forces, and for anybody that in
force of its public figure can be subject to discrimination because of
its position / religion / sexual tendencies / political position.
These are protected by the DPA and the Privacy Act, and special
provisions are in place.
But your neighbour, officially - say - an accountant employed by a local
company, doesn't have any obvious reasons to be ex directory, so this is
flagged down, as it's also flagged not to be in the edited electoral
register.
Both statuses are noted on your files at Credit Rating Agencies
(Equifax, Experian, CallCredit, etc) and severely affect your credit rating.
At least you give grounds to people to think you *might* be slightly
paranoid, misinformed or - simply - dodgy.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
(09/10/10 21:16), David Woolley:
> Bodincus wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> The phone book is subject to a database copyright in the UK, and like
> most publications subject to such copyrights (e.g maps) will contain
> bogus entries to detect attempts to make unauthorised derivative works.
>
> You can compile a reverse directory legally, you must do it from other
> sources.
Nothing stops me to create a website where I collect names, addresses
and phone numbers of people and companies that voluntarily subscribe or
register, and to offer a reverse search.
It's not Privacy, it's not Data Protection. It's Database rights, and
applies ONLY to the specific database instance and format used by the
company that manages it (BT, Yellow pages, Thomson, etc...).
They might apply for copyright protection for the *format* they are
publishing the information in, be it the Phone Book or the online database.
But the data itself (names, addresses and phone numbers) is NOT
automatically covered by copyright because it is published in a work
protected by database rights. They *might* have copyrights individually
because of different status (a brand name, or a trademark).
If you google a number, you might get a search result for the business
or individual that had its number published on its website, Facebook or
My Space page, and indexed by the crawler. Google is not violating any
law offering you a "reverse search".
Again, debunking this myth that a reverse phone search is illegal
because of Privacy or Data Protection is fairly easy... if you know the Law.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Bodincus chose
the tried and tested strategy of:
> 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.
Really? Care to cite any references for this?
> 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.
I think you do get it - it's for the same reason that you have an email
address and don't use it on Usenet.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
14:20:43 up 4 days, 18:52, 6 users, load average: 0.00, 0.14, 0.08
"I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
-- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010
> You are referring to this:
>
> http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/copyright...2.html#Topic54
>
> Nothing stops me to create a website where I collect names, addresses
> and phone numbers of people and companies that voluntarily subscribe or
> register, and to offer a reverse search.
True.
>
> They might apply for copyright protection for the *format* they are
> publishing the information in, be it the Phone Book or the online database.
They have database copyright, which means you cannot use them as a
source for your hypothetical directory. As it is a copyright, you can
independently create such a work. The restriction goes beyond the
presentation of the data, it includes the data itself, but only to the
extent that it is taken from that source.
Database copyrights don't require creativity, only that some work went
into the compilation.
>
> But the data itself (names, addresses and phone numbers) is NOT
> automatically covered by copyright because it is published in a work
> protected by database rights. They *might* have copyrights individually
> because of different status (a brand name, or a trademark).
The data isn't, provided it is obtained independently. The problem is
that there is a massive amount of work involved in doing that and
keeping it up to date.
>
> Again, debunking this myth that a reverse phone search is illegal
> because of Privacy or Data Protection is fairly easy... if you know the
> Law.
Data protection comes in if the data wasn't provided for the purpose of
a public directory and Google do sail very close to the wind in many
intellectual property and privacy areas. Generally people who put phone
numbers on web pages do so because they are businesses and want them
disseminated. If, for example, Google were to construct such a
directory from the signatures of gmail messages, that would be an
invalid use.
The basic problem is that you cannot produce a reverse directory that is
useful for arbitrary home numbers without violating data protection
legislation, because not enough people will give informed consent to get
adequate coverage.
In message <OBfso.19597$c9.12402@newsfe24.ams2>, Bodincus
<nobody@this.address> writes
>But your neighbour, officially - say - an accountant employed by a
>local company, doesn't have any obvious reasons to be ex directory, so
>this is flagged down, as it's also flagged not to be in the edited
>electoral register.
>
>Both statuses are noted on your files at Credit Rating Agencies
>(Equifax, Experian, CallCredit, etc) and severely affect your credit
>rating.
>
You've scared me! I'm on the electoral roll as a registered voter but
have opted not to be included in the commercial version which is sold to
marketing companies. Why the f........ should opting out of receiving
marketing stuff affect my credit rating? Has registration with the TPS
also had an affect? Where does this crap end?
--
Malcolm
Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Malcolm Loades
chose the tried and tested strategy of:
> You've scared me! I'm on the electoral roll as a registered voter but
> have opted not to be included in the commercial version which is sold to
> marketing companies. Why the f........ should opting out of receiving
> marketing stuff affect my credit rating?
I doubt it does. If appearing on the edited register and the phone book had
a positive impact on your credit score, it would be mentioned here:
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
17:46:22 up 4 days, 22:18, 5 users, load average: 0.19, 0.06, 0.02
"I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
-- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010
(10/10/10 19:06), alexd:
> Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Malcolm Loades
> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> You've scared me! I'm on the electoral roll as a registered voter but
>> have opted not to be included in the commercial version which is sold to
>> marketing companies. Why the f........ should opting out of receiving
>> marketing stuff affect my credit rating?
>
> I doubt it does. If appearing on the edited register and the phone book had
> a positive impact on your credit score, it would be mentioned here:
>
> http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loa...g-credit-score
>
Have you *ever* cared to request your statutory credit file? If you did,
you would have seen by yourself that these information are reported on it.
Why do you think the credit rating agencies take the effort to keep the
information other than to let lenders know - and therefore decide your
creditworthiness?
Lenders pay the credit rating agencies good money to access your file,
and the agencies show them what they want to know.
Being on a public register does not necessarily have a positive impact
on your credit score, *not* being definitively impacts negatively.
Take your head out of the sand, in this day and age to feed the culture
of suspicion not being honestly open and transparent seriously affects
your daily life.
And I already said why I'm not using my name and email on Usenet.
First, it's tradition - I'm a seriously old dog of the 'net, and I still
have respect for this stupid little thing.
Secondly, it's well known that posting your true email address on a
newsgroup is bad practice - not for privacy or security, but to avoid
your email address being harvested by spambots. They're fully automated,
and in minutes your mailbox is filling up to the limit with junk. It's
called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
Get a grip with reality. It's out there, if you dare to look for it.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
So what? My name appears on it too, but that doesn't mean being called Barry
rather than Alex makes any difference to my creditworthiness.
> Being on a public register does not necessarily have a positive impact
> on your credit score, *not* being definitively impacts negatively.
If you've got anything factual to back your deranged rantings up with then
I'm all ears. I'm going to be trusting what MSE says rather than you, when
it comes to issues around finance.
> Secondly, it's well known that posting your true email address on a
> newsgroup is bad practice - not for privacy or security, but to avoid
> your email address being harvested by spambots. They're fully automated,
> and in minutes your mailbox is filling up to the limit with junk.
Not a problem I've experienced. My Hotmail addresses gets slightly fewer
than 2 emails a day. Perhaps you need to use a spam filter?
> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
emailing myself?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
19:07:25 up 5 days, 23:39, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.03
"I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
-- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010
(11/10/10 19:23), alexd:
> Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Bodincus chose
> the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> (10/10/10 19:06), alexd:
>
>>> http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loa...g-credit-score
>>>
>> Have you *ever* cared to request your statutory credit file? If you did,
>> you would have seen by yourself that these information are reported on it.
>
> So what? My name appears on it too, but that doesn't mean being called Barry
> rather than Alex makes any difference to my creditworthiness.
>
>> Being on a public register does not necessarily have a positive impact
>> on your credit score, *not* being definitively impacts negatively.
>
> If you've got anything factual to back your deranged rantings up with then
> I'm all ears. I'm going to be trusting what MSE says rather than you, when
> it comes to issues around finance.
>
>> Secondly, it's well known that posting your true email address on a
>> newsgroup is bad practice - not for privacy or security, but to avoid
>> your email address being harvested by spambots. They're fully automated,
>> and in minutes your mailbox is filling up to the limit with junk.
>
> Not a problem I've experienced. My Hotmail addresses gets slightly fewer
> than 2 emails a day. Perhaps you need to use a spam filter?
>
>> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
>
> Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
> emailing myself?
>
PLONK
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:12:35 +0100, Bodincus wrote:
>>> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
>>
>> Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
>> emailing myself?
>>
> PLONK
(11/10/10 21:41), Bob Eager:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:12:35 +0100, Bodincus wrote:
>
>>>> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
>>>
>>> Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
>>> emailing myself?
>>>
>> PLONK
>
> I see you've lost the argument, then.
>
PLONK
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
(11/10/10 21:41), Bob Eager:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:12:35 +0100, Bodincus wrote:
>
>>>> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
>>>
>>> Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
>>> emailing myself?
>>>
>> PLONK
>
> I see you've lost the argument, then.
>
TROLL ALERT - Don't feed the troll
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
"Bodincus" <nobody@this.address> wrote in message
news:ASLso.17302$c5.1802@newsfe23.ams2...
> (11/10/10 21:41), Bob Eager:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:12:35 +0100, Bodincus wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's called self-mailbombing. It's stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Groan, more nonsense. Surely it would only be self-mailbombing if I was
>>>> emailing myself?
>>>>
>>> PLONK
>>
>> I see you've lost the argument, then.
>>
> PLONK
>
>
Can you 'PLONK' me as well, I also think you are posting misleading and
inaccurate information.
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
domain
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,
wouldn't she?
Errrmmm ...
"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
Act. "
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.
On 10 Oct, 10:56, Bodincus <nob...@this.address> wrote:
>
> Again, debunking this myth that a reverse phone search is illegal
> because of Privacy or Data Protection is fairly easy... if you know the Law.
> --
Your process of re-educating people might also target the Information
Commissioner's Office:
Where the data of an individual subscriber has been included in a
directory, that subscriber can verify, correct or withdraw that data
free of charge at any time. Amendments made as a result of a
withdrawal or correction request will apply only to editions of a
directory produced after the producer of the directory has received
that request.
Reverse searching
Directory information should only be made available in line with the
wishes and expectations of subscribers. Generating a name or address
(or both) from a phone or fax number (reverse searching) has not
traditionally been offered in the UK and as is outside the general
expectations of subscribers. The Regulations therefore prohibit
reverse searching unless the subscriber has given their prior informed
consent. This requirement was originally set out in the 1998 Code of
Practice on Telecommunications Directory Information Covering the Fair
Processing of Personal Data.
The concept of the term 'reverse search' may not be fully and
generally understood. For this reason an additional specific consent
must be obtained from subscribers agreeing to allow their information
to be made available on this basis. It will not be enough for this
consent to be bundled up with a variety of other terms and conditions
to which an individual might agree without a full appreciation of the
consequences.
_____________
Read that last bit again.
How many telecom companies do you know which have specifically
obtained that consent from their subscribers?
Re: Number-to-name lookup for UK phone numbers? 
Linear Mode
