Data Retention of Calling Parties

[Ian Batten]

So the story appears to run that Sienna Miller's step-mother, finding that someone other than her was attempting to change the PIN on her voice mail, was able to get a court order forcing Vodafone to reveal the number of the calling party that attempted to make the change and, later, to connect that number with a name.  

So that implies that Voda are keeping records of the _calling_ party for long enough for a court order to be obtained, and that the information is liable to be released on the basis of an order in a civil court (ie, not terrorism or the four horsemen).  They're quite at liberty to do so, of course, but it's a new slant on matters: any attempt to find out who called the complainant's phone is inevitably ex parte the caller, because at that point neither the complainant nor the court know who they are, but one would naively have thought that they have some right to be represented in the process.

ian

[[ In passing, you have to admire the stupidity of a journalist trying to change the PIN: although in most mobile phone environments the victim wouldn't notice, because when you call from the linked mobile you aren't asked for a PIN, why change it?  It's an immediate alarm bell if the legitimate user _does_ try to access their voicemail from another line.  I wonder if it implies that phone hacking was so widespread in newspapers that he wanted to exclude the opposition from also listening in, but we shall see. ]]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20110127/29401e2d/attachment.htm>