Michael Cross writes about the new mobile phone directory. In itself, I tend to agree with the point that as constructed, the service probably won’t be a big problem as they do not allow unsolicited calls to phone users. You receive a text with the potential caller’s details and you make the decision whether to accept or decline. So, on balance, I think they have probably got it about right. That said, Cross really does come out with some arse dribble.
…I find the decision to publish the first directory of mobile telephone numbers distinctly unworrying. The majority of phone numbers have never been secret, and thanks to technology – voicemail and caller ID – we’re now more protected than ever against unwanted attention. People who really need to protect their mobile numbers can change them by the simple step of buying a new phone – either an anonymous pay-as-you-go or a contract in the name of a friend named Smith or Patel.
Right, so if you get plagued by SPAM, you have to change your phone. Great. Wonderful. The point, surely is that we should not be plagued at all, not have to keep changing our numbers and the consequent updating of our contacts. And using someone else’s name? WTF? What a silly argument.
Junk sales calls are a menace, of course, and no doubt there will be a temporary blip in these while sleazy enterprises check out the market. No doubt anyone who has ever given out a mobile number in a sales context will be assumed to have “consented” to such calls. But surely the correct response is what we already do with such calls at home – or ask them to hold for a minute while we find a pencil and then leave the phone off the hook.
Again, the point is that it should not happen. Just because land lines get hounded by unwanted calls isn’t an argument for accepting the same with mobiles. Again, why should we have to take any action – it shouldn’t be up to us. A mobile number is private unless specifically stated otherwise by the holder.
Cross, however, is more than happy for our data to be publicly displayed for any old stalker to get their hands on:
What the mobile directory service will do is prompt individuals to take a hard look at what personal data about themselves is up for grabs on the web. While I generally find myself in the “more the better” camp (I’d like to see motor vehicle registrations and individual tax returns publicly posted, for a start),
However, being a raging hypocrite, as is expected of the Guardianista:
even I have limits – my daughter’s mobile number, for example.
Right, so it’s fine for our information to be publicly available to be used, misused and abused by any Tom Dick or Harry, but not for Michael Cross’ daughter. What a prize fuckwit. But, then, this is the Guardian, so we expect nothing less, do we? Ill-informed and ill-researched twaddle seems to be the order of the day; throw in a mix of rampant stupidity spiced with authoritarian fuckwittery, a soupçon of hypocrisy and logical fallacy and you have the perfect Guardianista pudding.
This freaks me. Is it happening? Will they list my phone number whether I want it or not? Bloody hell! As if we don’t have enough to contend with with Gordo.
.-= ´s last blog ..[via donal] dale interviews thatcher =-.
If you go to their website, you can do a search on yourself and find out if they have you on the system. You can opt out.
Brilliant!!!!!!!
He would, no doubt, be delighted to know that the entire U.K. Civil Aircraft Register is available online, listing current and previous owners names & addresses. There’s no choice in this matter for pilots…
“People who really need to protect their mobile numbers can change them by the simple step of buying a new phone – either an anonymous pay-as-you-go or a contract in the name of a friend named Smith or Patel”
Would obtaining a mobile phone under an assumed name even be legal?
At least the fatuous nincompoop comes out of his neo-postmodernist coma, or something, long enough to express the felt need to care for & protect his child…so there IS hope. Even these languid & really annoying faux-urbane characters & sonsofbitches are not /entirely/ out of touch with their instincts. Maybe someone should forward him LPUK and Joys-of-Gun-Ownership & USE info? These statists all have simply enormous thwarted shadows just crying out for real freedom. And so it is up to us to keep prying away at the superficial personality & credentials. Above all through persistent questioning over time we CAN bring out to them the truth about their own interior mental & moral needs!
What an incredible self-serving arsehole this fella is.
A universal mobile phone database means exactly that – the young and the vulnerable will have their phone numbers on there too.
Either you support freedom for everyone or you don’t, Mr. Cross. If you try to pick and choose who can have liberty and who can’t that makes you an authoritarian and as much a part of the problem as the Home Office and the people telling you what to eat.
At first reading I was relaxed about this, not least because my name wasn’t on it. I also thought the process and cost would deter anyone from spamming. Furthermore , if they got the data legally as they claim then any other company could get it anyway.
However all may not be as it seems:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/connectivity_legal_threats/
The company behind a controversial new directory of private mobile phone numbers threatened O2 with legal action when it refused to provide its customers’ personal details, The Register has learned.
…
A spokeswoman for O2 said: “Connectivity approached O2 some time ago to request customers’ details and we declined to participate, despite the threat of litigation.
“Our experience is that our customers treat their number personally and like to decide for themselves who they give it to.”
…
It’s also understood that Connectivity aggressively approched the other mobile operators, but was rebuffed. A spokeswoman for Orange said: “As we take the privacy rights of our customers very seriously we reached no agreement with them, and refused to hand over any of our customers’ information and data.”
.-= ´s last blog ..Tautology of the week: Global Pandemic =-.
I was aware of O2 refusing. I wasn’t aware of the legal threat. It’s good to see that the service providers have some balls and refused. I’d be inclined to call Connectivity’s bluff and let them sue – by what legal right do they presume that they should have unlimited access to other people’s data?