Anyone know how long B.T. keep records of incoming calls to one's
phone(ie. the outgoing record of the caller)?.
May these records of incoming calls be given to the recipient of the
calls without some kind of Court/Police order?.
Thanks for any info.,
Hartly.

hartly wrote:
Potentially for years.

No.

Wireless Reader wrote:

Data Subject access request?

BTW: I'm sure BTopenzone really love you using their address in postings

"Wireless Reader" <openzone.support@bt.com> wrote in message
news:42691D47.1090504@bt.com...
Why, given that this information is available (albeit transiently) to the
recipient of the calls if he dials 1471.

I'd have thought that the sender and recipient of the calls would both be
entitled to see their outgoing/incoming call history since it relates to
them. I can understand a court order being needed for anyone other than
either of the call parties to see the list.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:14:56 +0100, Martyn Dewar
<martyn._nospam-remove_dewar@_nospam-remove_zen.co.uk> wrote:

Doesn't apply unless the caller is not identifiable (which would make
them rather pointless).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

<SNIP>

Surely for the purposes of obtaining a list of incoming calls it would
be applicable?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:26:05 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

Only if the caller does not withhold their number.

The DPA only allows access to data relating to you if it doesn't also
relate to any other identifiable individual who has not given their
permission for release of the data.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:46:11 +0100, [Alex Heney] said :-

Of course it applies Slick.

Unless the user has explicit reason to use the bt.com domain, the mail
servers of that domain has to handle any bounces or indeed mail
checks.

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7oui61h6on5tc3p207cp2fuo9kn82cl7fm@4ax.com...
However presumably a list of all calls with dates/times and with numbers
*where not withheld* would be permissible: if you don't withhold your number
you are implicitly permitting it to be revealed to the recipient in this
list in the same way as it is for 1471.

Does BT record the originating number even when it's withheld? I imagine it
must do in order to follow up any allegations of nuisance (spam or
offensive) phone calls. Or is the number even withheld from BT?

Martin Underwood wrote:
You're not, because this service is not available. Before 1471 was
introduced it received widespread publicity, so people who chose to
reveal their number have made that choice.

AFAIK BT do *not* store telephone call data indexed by called number -
it would be a massive data mining job to go through historic records. It
is much less work to flag certain called numbers, eg those receiving
malicious calls, so the call details are trapped as they pass through
the billing system.

Of course not, how else would BT bill the call? The calling line
identity travels with the call along with a flag indicating withheld
status; if CLI is withheld the destination exchange is supposed to strip
the CLI information before passing the call to the customer. Anyone with
telco-level access will see the number as it goes through the system,
but end users should not.

Owain

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:23:20 +0100, Martyn Dewar
<martyn._nospam-remove_dewar@_nospam-remove_zen.co.uk> wrote:

Why?

The law is quite explicit here. From the Act:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Where a data controller cannot comply with the request without
disclosing information relating to another individual who can be
identified from that information, he is not obliged to comply with the
request unless-


(a) the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the
information to the person making the request, or

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the
request without the consent of the other individual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the caller withheld their number at the time of the call, then it
is unlikely they would give consent to release of it later, and it
would not be "reasonable in all the circumstances" to release that
information.

Even if they released their number at the time, I don't think that
would be justification for assuming their permission to be granted.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:46:22 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:


Possibly, but I'm not convinced of that.

And I would be willing to bet that BT would withhold it under that
rule, and it would then be up to you to take them to court to get a
decision.


BT always know the number calling, if it is from within their systems.

If it is from outside their system, they may not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:45:55 +0100, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net>
wrote:

You are simply wrong. That is fact.

What does email have to do with it? We were talking about phone
records.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Owain" <owain47125@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:1114213436.16933.1@dyke.uk.clara.net...
How do you mean "the service isn't available"? 1471 is certainly available.
How does a list supplied after the event by BT differ from a list that a
recipent could make at the time by dialling 1471 every time they had a call?
Or are you saying that a caller is deemed to have permitted his number to be
available for 1471 but not for lists later on? It's high time that the law
was changed to make opting in the legal default with explicit opting out
required, as is proposed for organ donor cards. I'd also like to see all
companies required by law to present their number, to put an end to "you
have won a holiday" cold calls which have no way of contacting the caller to
say "stop doing this - I'm on the Telephone Preference Service list so you
shouldn't be calling me". Do the random phone number generators that some of
the these companies use check each number against the TPS list? I remenber
thinking when I first heard about random phone number generators that I was
surprised that they were legal.

Can BT trace (without revealing the details to you) the sender of
number-withheld calls if you report that you received a malicious call at a
specified time? I've heard of cases where people receive late-night fax or
modem calls from withheld numbers - presumably sent to the wrong number -
and BT have been unable and/or unwilling to trace the caller to ask them to
use the correct number.

Do other countries that use CLI information pass it across international
boundaries (eg from Bell in the US to BT in the UK). I've never yet received
an international call where the caller's number has been displayed.

On 23 Apr 2005 00:19, Owain <owain47125@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:

Although there would no doubt be some very busy numbers, the potential to
store the number pairs is surely there. Every customer gets a list of any
calls they make. That side is really very easy. The 'data mining' would
not necessarily be such a problem if there were fewer 'unavailable' calls
because just as 1471 extra stores several incoming numbers, it would be
relatively easy to collate all known numbers on incoming calls, whilst
the 'unavailable' calls might be stored from the originating exchange -
it only becomes a massive 'data mining' problem if only the sender end
exchange logs the numbers and then one attempts a search for all calls
to 020 7123 4567. If the exchange was logging all incoming calls and
was 'told' of the 'unavailable' ones by the originator's exchange, the
list could be far closer to 'complete' and with little additional data
being transferred.


The billing is *surely* done from where the call started, else the early
point about data mining loses its validity. The fact the number will be
received at the destination exchange in the majority of cases, but then
gets supressed before anything goes out on display or via someone using
1471, is just a feature of the way they handle withheld numbers, not a
part of the billing function, at a guess.

Also for debug purposes one needs to see the number(s) on the route, but
the only 'get out' I can see for not being able to get a list of incoming
calls is that of some privacy aspect (eg where someone midialled me)...

Why should I be allowed to get her number when the call was intended for
someone else. If she makes 50 calls, and causes a nuisance, then either
she has written a wrong number, or intends to make my life hell. I could
see it being perhaps far *too easy* to be able to get a list of all callers
to my number if logging were done in a fairly logical way. Perhaps for the
very reason that 'data mining' can be used as a great excuse *not* to be
able to provide lists of calls, did some group within BT set out the non-
logging of this potentially useful (or confidential) information! Peter


--
Plus.Net <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4>
I recommend them and save some cash.

With a guarantee allowing new users to migrate if they're unhappy!

On 23 Apr 2005 09:59, "Martin Underwood" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

No idea about whether they would ever divulge them but:

a) for choose to refuse one can enter a sequence for the 'last number that
called' to be blocked (that includes 'withheld' calls, because your
exchange still has that information, even if not passed to you), and

b) when someone is getting nuisance calls, then again using a sequence, a
record can be logged (at the local exchange - presumably to a printer)
so it can be followed up afterwards.


--
Try a commercial news service - from 50 MB/day (once-only fee of < $5 )
up to 1500 MB/day for 6 months $99.95, 600 GB over 6 months $149.75
with many options in between... <http://tinyurl.com/3rjw4>

Peter M wrote:
Yes, provided you know which customer's call records to look in - in
many cases of malicious calls this is known or can be suspected.

The 'unavailable' numbers will not usually be available, but 'withheld'
numbers will be available at the destination exchange, just not to the
subscriber. However 1471 only stores a few numbers for a short duration.

Exactly. It is difficult and expensive to do historically.

Yes, but that has to be set up for the destination number. AFAIK BT do
not log this information by default - it would be a massive amount of
duplication for little real value.

Owain

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:17:11 +0100, [Alex Heney] said :-

Sorry, I miss-read the fact that you had removed the bit that Martyn
had mentioned to the previous reply.

All messages transmitted over your phone line can be intercepted at
any time by MI5, MI6 or the CIA (the special relationship) without any
means of detection or your knowledge.

That's the beauty of the Internet. Or Big Brother.

You can, of course, try a secret code.

But codes can be broken.

Most security can be obtained with ordinary snail-mail and postage
stamps.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:45:06 +0100, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net>
wrote:

I didn't remove anything at all.