ICO get worse

One of the first times I encountered the ICO was over ten years ago when the The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 first came in to force on 11th Dec 2003.

The reason was that telcos have to offer Anonymous Call Rejection (for which they may charge) and the mobile operators were not offering it.

I complained to OFCOM and the ICO and got nowhere. Basically, the end of the line was the ICO admitting they were not following the rules (i.e. they were breaking the law) but saying they would do nothing about it!

Sadly over 10 years on the story has not changed, with one of my customers just getting an answer from the ICO on the matter.

Their excuse (like they need one) is: "we are aware that automatic network-level call rejection is currently not feasible on all categories of service (e.g. on mobile services)."

Since when has "not feasible" been an excuse for not following the law. The mobile operators have had over 10 years to make it feasible and still done nothing. This is an EU wide requirement.

Think about that - 10 years was enough time to build the large hadron collider! The entire GSM mobile network was devised, specified and deployed in well under 10 years.

Obviously it is not only feasible but incredibly simple to add ACR as a service. Andrews & Arnold Ltd offer services on mobiles with ACR even, and this is being pointed out to the ICO to refute their bogus argument.

This is just another example of the ICO treating these laws as a total joke.

1 comment:

  1. "Not feasible" sounds pretty wishy-washy to me - as far as I know, the call routing infrastructure of a mobile network is pretty much identical to a wired telephone network, so if it's feasible for a wired network I can't see a reason for it not being feasible for a mobile network.

    That said, if it's really "not feasible" then that would imply a failure from the law-makers and the law needs to be revised rather than simply ignored.

    If this is an EU-wide requirement, do any mobile operators offer this service elsewhere in the EU (and have any EU member states taken action to enforce this directive?) If its already being done elsewhere then that kinda puts a nail in the "not feasible" coffin.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

TOTSCO moving goal posts, again!

One of the big issues I had in initial coding was the use of correlationID on messages. The test cases showed it being used the same on a se...