Privacy Isn't Free

25/03/2008

Average Rating:

Comments: 7 readers have left a comment

So, a few nights ago, in an interesting lead-up to the long weekend, I received a nuisance phone call.

It was suitably pathetic, and I hung up as soon as I realised what it was, but it got me thinking about how a) having an unlisted phone number would be both awesome AND fantastic, and in fact, b) everyone should have a silent/unlisted number by default, and c) people should only have their phone number included in the White Pages if they requested it.

Sadly, I found this is not the case. Telstra charges you an extra fee (around $3 a month -- I know it's not much, but let's hold fast to our principles here) to keep your details private.

A man named Steven Atkins, who is now on my hero list next to Wolverine, MacGyver, and Sydney from Alias, was "so annoyed at having to pay for a silent line he complained to four regulators, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission."*

Surprisingly, they all dismissed his complaint.

The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) believed that Mr Atkins had a valid case, and that charging for unlisted numbers was in conflict with National Privacy Principle 8.

(To read the APF's findings on Mr Atkins's case, you can go to the APF web site and look for Charging for unlisted numbers (silent lines) under papers published in 2006, or click here to download and view the paper in a Rich Text Format. It will probably open in Word or your default text editor.)

The Consumers' Telecommunications Network also wrote to the federal Communications Minister saying that the silent number charge "penalised consumers who were unable to afford to protect their privacy."*

The reply was that "the matter was one for the phone companies and that no legislative changes were being considered."*

So much for principles.

* Reference: Telstra rings up $30m a year in silent number fees, Sydney Morning Herald, January 21, 2007.

Reader Comments

Geoffrey

26/03/2008 at 16:32

I've always paid for a silent number, but never come to terms with the fact that you have to pay not to have a service. Only Telstra could come up with that idea.

Genevieve

28/03/2008 at 00:54

I bet it costs money to get an unlisted number here as well. I don't have a home phone and I don't believe they list cell numbers so I'm good. :)
Though I do tend to get random calls in Spanish from time to time. That is rather annoying.
That's lame that the government won't help out. They must be profiting from it in one way or another. They CAN do something about it- it's a matter of WILL they.

Jaymez

29/03/2008 at 16:12

This is unbelievable. What if I decided to establish my own little scam? Say a list of contact details and publish them on the internet. But before I published, I contact the listed people and give them the opportunity to pay a monthly fee to not be on that list. Wouldn't that be blackmail?

juliness

01/04/2008 at 01:30

Ah, privacy! I also only have a cell phone for that very reason. I often wonder about local telephone services becoming obsolete given practices like this and the fact that nearly everyone has a cell phone.

Angie

02/04/2008 at 21:48

The only reason some of my friends have landlines is for broadband. But with naked DSL and mobile broadband getting cheaper, who knows? Soon we'll all just have mobiles!

crystal

03/04/2008 at 16:56

JAYMEZ...very interesting question, with the current privacy rules one must wonder why tlestra can get away with producing the book?

JB

07/04/2008 at 00:20

Well, it's a bit like cigarette sales isn't it. The Government advertises warnings that smoking will harm your baby and your health etc., and heavily subsidises tax payers when we are wheeled into hospital to have our lungs wrung out and bits chopped out of our bodies that weren't there before we got hooked; but ceasing tobacco sales would put a big dent in their coffers. Protecting John Citizen's health and privacy isn't important - making lots of money is.