Be Excellent To Each Other

I knew a guy a few years ago on an oil rig. Exact same description and proviso.

I can see why companies do this but it gets on my wick. Last time was when phoning to set up my Mum's TopUp TV account.

"I'm phoning on behalf of my mum as she's deaf and dumb.." etc
"As the account will be in her name, you'll need to put her on the phone so that she can say it's ok"
"But..."

So the account's in my name now...gits.

It's entirely not their fault. They probably don't fancy jail time.

I could phone up and say "I'm calling on behalf of devilman because he's deaf and dumb..."

I'd like to know how they think you passing them over to someone else who happens to have a woman's voice (as I have to do whenever I phone Virgin on my mum's behalf) somehow constitutes verification of identity.

I imagine it simply transfers the legal burden from them not following the DPA to you committing fraud if it's not the right person.

More likely that they simply haven't thought about it, and are only doing the minimum to make it look like they're going along with the DPA. We were meant to refuse to divulge anything at all when I was at the library - if someone called up to renew a spouse's books (common), the most I'd say was that if there were any books on that card, they would now be due on date x. I'd very rarely confirm or deny whether there were any - it sounds wanky, but I've known stranger things for people to be snooping and/or manipulating their spouses over. Kids are another matter, though - if they're under a certain age, their parents would have signed on their behalf anyway, so it's not technically their account.

Technically you're not even allowed to tell them they have a library card.

Would depend on whether that's considered 'sensitive personal information', and is arguable.

Yeah, like I said - I can see why they do it, but it's still frustrating. At least more stuff can be done online these days but this was a phone-only thing so Mum was stuffed either way.

I think the more relevant point is what exactly did they think was going to happen when DM passed over the phone?

Yeah he should have just held it up to the air for silence for a few seconds then said "See, she's fine with it"

They'd have to give a card number first anyway, natch. The cards have the name on too, so the question would be redundant.

Can I add that people who play Sadville obviously have money to burn, as they're able to afford PCs to run it and what is surely the world's least efficient game engine.

To her credit, Mum tried Typetalk first (a BT service where somewhere at BT's end speaks on behalf of your minicom) but that didn't work either.. probably for the same reason - if they won't let me sign up on her behalf, they're hardly likely to let anyone else.

As the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said last week, it's very irritating how many people entirely misunderstand and misuse the Data Protection Act. Companies seem to take a "no we can't tell anyone anything" approach rather than actually check what they can and can't do - often as a method of just saving time and money or to avoid giving out anything they don't want to.* They could often divulge a hell of a lot more than they say they can, but they either choose not to or are entirely fucking ignorant of what the law actually says. It will, for instance, allow M&S to deal with a toddler's mother in relation to a return of a product.

Christ, even the police misunderstand the DPA - I read an article about a Times journo who got beaten up, phoned the police to tell them who it was and the copper on the other end of the phone cautioned him that he would be committing an offence under the DPA if he (the chap who'd been beaten up) told him (the copper) the guy's name and address. "FFS" doesn't even cover it.


*Having advised companies on the DPA I've all too often come across this attitude.