Antoine Ebejer writes:

Is the withholding of a source telephone number/subscriber name from appearing on a destination Caller ID phone considered to be directly or by implication a breach of any EU law or regulation? If not, can some pressure be made to legislate for such?

I consider all calls made without showing the number/subscriber name of the originating phone to be primarily of a potentially malicious or "spamming" nature. While threats and spam are hated so much within the internet domain, it seems people still need to react and realise that this same thing is happening all the time with phone calls.

I would like to opine that the regulators should oblige the operators to force the display of the originating phone, be it a landline or a mobile, overriding any source selectable option. This should be EU-wide.

At the end of the day, as a consumer I feel I have every right to decide whether to answer a phone or not in the same way that I may decide not to open obvious junk mail or obvious spam e-mail. The irony of the whole thing is that with phone calls the regulators and operators can control the situation if they want to, yet do not do so. To make matters worse, withholding a source ID is often sold off as a feature!

 

This query raises an interesting point.

As telephone subscribers - whether mobile or fixed-line telephone subscribers - normally we are given the option to decide whether our telephone number should be made known to persons receiving our calls.

Depending on our choice, persons getting a call from us would normally see our telephone number on their display or, alternatively, get a message to the effect that the number of the person who is making the call is a private one. This second option would obviously deny the recipient of the call the knowledge of the identity of the caller or the number from where the call has originated.

The reader suggests that the recipient of the call should also have the right to know the identity of the person making the call or the number from where the call originates.

While I appreciate the point raised, I do not think the present state of play is in breach of EU law. Nor do I think that the position needs to be changed. Let me explain why.

EU law covers the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. It also covers caller identification services.

Caller identification services apply on digital networks where technically possible and also, if they do not require a disproportionate economic effort, on analogue networks.

EU law states that the service provider is required to offer the calling user the possibility, using a simple means and free of charge, of preventing the presentation of the calling line identification on a per-call basis. It goes on to require service providers to provide the subscriber who is being called with the possibility not to be provided with the ID of incoming calls.

So this is an option that a subscriber can choose to use or refuse. In other words, a subscriber can choose not to show his number when making a call. Equally, a subscriber can choose not to see the caller ID of incoming calls.

In the same way as you can opt to have your number out of the telephone directory, you can also opt to keep your telephone number undisclosed when you are making a call.

There is no option giving the recipient the right to choose to know the number from where the call originates.

But this does not mean that the recipient is not protected.

First of all, a recipient who receives a call from a number that is not disclosed can always choose not to reply.

Secondly, and more importantly, there are exceptions to the right of excluding the origin of a call. In fact, EU law provides that the right may be restricted in order to trace malicious calls and also to help organisations dealing with emergency calls such as law enforcement agencies, ambulance services and fire brigades to trace the call.

In these cases, the bar of the ID caller would be temporarily lifted in order to reveal the origin of the call.

So, in this case, the reader should know that if he is a victim of malicious calls then he is still protected because he can report the matter to the authorities and the origin of the call will be traced. The law does not provide comfort for those who have malicious or criminal intentions.

Finally, a recently-enacted law on data retention will now also oblige the industry to retain the data of telephone and electronic communications on mandatory basis for a certain period of time. This law was enacted to assist enforcement agencies in their difficult work to detect and prevent organised crime and, in particular, terrorist attacks.

Readers wishing to raise issues or ask a question to Dr Busuttil are invited to send an e-mail, referring to this column, to contact@simonbusuttil.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.