Reply to post: Re: Wrong tree

Brits conned out of nearly £24m in phone scams in one year


Re: Wrong tree

ACOur CPs can't force anyone in Mumbai to send an ID signal. So if there is no caller ID what are CPs to do? They can't arbitrarily block anonymous incoming international calls as that would be interfering with your service. Okay so perhaps they will allow you to 'opt out' of anonymous calls. But then what happens if your granny is on holiday in Mumbai and needs help and she just happens to be using a phone that doesn't transmit caller ID information?

Precisely that. If I use *227# to signal my unwillingness to receive anonymous calls, it should apply to all anonymous calls, whether wilfully or technically castrated of CID. Granny will just have to get in touch with the consulate, I'm afraid.

Which leads on to the second part of the problem which is that quite a few organisations that deal with sensitive personal information like to withhold their number. GP surgeries often do for example.

Good point, which is why this needs to be discussed properly. I'm not suggesting my rant above is a fully-arsed solution but it makes a much better starting point than the mess we have right now. It may be possible, just as an example, to allow certain government and healthcare departments to bypass anonymous call barring. I'm pretty sure the police are already able to do so if needed. This must not be extended to surveys, market research or political parties, however.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020