edgarlob
06-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Has anyone experience of similar?
Strange Goings On Iside O2!
We operate a driving school in the North West of England. Three years ago we dismissed one of our drivers for misconduct.
Recently we discovered that our driving school?s mobile phone calls were being diverted to a competitor- this ex employee!
The call divert had been setup only to be active when the original phone is busy. That way it was virtually impossible to detect, as some calls were still being received.
O2 alleged that there was only three ways that the calls divert could have been instigated:
1. By ourselves.
2. By the recipient of the calls; pretending to be ourselves
3. By someone inside O2
The first two options were definitively eliminated, leaving O2 with just option 3.
O2 then claimed that they could not say when the phone divert had been put on, when it had been taken off or what initiated the phone divert to be activated. O2 investigated and eventually admitted they believed that this situation could have been in place for three years.
It appears that the method used to implement this system of divert is invisible to O2.
O2 were unprepared to investigate further in relation to an employee being concerned and our only option was to report the matter to Lancashire Police. This was done on the 6th October 2006.
Lancashire Constabulary was given written authorization to contact O2 on our behalf and obtain all records relating to our account. They intimated that this could take up to six weeks.
On Thursday the 4th January 2007 Lancashire Constabulary was contacted in an effort to obtain an update on the situation. They claimed that O2 had failed to respond to their enquiries but that they could do nothing about this and that it was common for O2 to act in this manner. They maintained that unless O2 responded Lancashire Constabulary could not class our complaint as one relating to a crime. However they refused to expand as to how they could progress the matter further.
This was despite our previously supplying copied documentation which clearly indicated unauthorized diversions from our mobile phone, having been received by the ex-employee.
However, the police would neither confirm nor deny that an enquiry on our behalf had been issued to O2. They were unable to supply the manner of their application, the department applied to in O2, or what the alternatives were to obtain the required information from O2. They claimed that records did not exist of this information.
A separate issue has been highlighted in relation to our findings is the presentation of telephone billings as court evidence:
All the diverted calls are shown on the recipient?s bill as direct calls made from our telephone to the ex-employee?s mobile. No indication is given on the billing as it being a diverted call from any other source. In effect we could be shown as making harassing phone calls to the ex-employee. This therefore clearly shows the billing information as incorrect, inaccurate, misleading, and could be held responsible as to misleading the court into reaching an unjust verdict. We believe this is clearly unacceptable as definitive and accurate legal evidence in any court action. Especially as O2 are unable to supply any information as to the method or timescale of the phone divert. It appears that this information is not recorded.
A further use for this way of redirecting calls is to obtain a database of telephone numbers in order to ring back potential customers. By not immediately answering, the calls would not show on the recipient?s phone bill and therefore would be untraceable but would be available to the receiving mobile and could immediately be called back or recorded.
In our particular case the ex-employee never answered a call (except once, see below- possibly by accident) made from our company mobile number, (which he knew), but always answered when the company?s withheld number office phone was redirected to his mobile. On one occasion the principal driving instructor of our school actually dialed himself and was answered by the ex-employee on his mobile!
This method of obtaining telephone numbers being made to a certain number, together with times & dates, without the need of a court order, would I believe, be of interest to many branches of the intelligence services; especially as, it is now being clamed, no crime is being committed in obtaining information in this manner!
It would also be in their interest that this system was not in the public domain!
This is the position to date. After our insistence, Lancashire Constabulary now claims that they have re-applied to O2 for the required information.
Strange Goings On Iside O2!
We operate a driving school in the North West of England. Three years ago we dismissed one of our drivers for misconduct.
Recently we discovered that our driving school?s mobile phone calls were being diverted to a competitor- this ex employee!
The call divert had been setup only to be active when the original phone is busy. That way it was virtually impossible to detect, as some calls were still being received.
O2 alleged that there was only three ways that the calls divert could have been instigated:
1. By ourselves.
2. By the recipient of the calls; pretending to be ourselves
3. By someone inside O2
The first two options were definitively eliminated, leaving O2 with just option 3.
O2 then claimed that they could not say when the phone divert had been put on, when it had been taken off or what initiated the phone divert to be activated. O2 investigated and eventually admitted they believed that this situation could have been in place for three years.
It appears that the method used to implement this system of divert is invisible to O2.
O2 were unprepared to investigate further in relation to an employee being concerned and our only option was to report the matter to Lancashire Police. This was done on the 6th October 2006.
Lancashire Constabulary was given written authorization to contact O2 on our behalf and obtain all records relating to our account. They intimated that this could take up to six weeks.
On Thursday the 4th January 2007 Lancashire Constabulary was contacted in an effort to obtain an update on the situation. They claimed that O2 had failed to respond to their enquiries but that they could do nothing about this and that it was common for O2 to act in this manner. They maintained that unless O2 responded Lancashire Constabulary could not class our complaint as one relating to a crime. However they refused to expand as to how they could progress the matter further.
This was despite our previously supplying copied documentation which clearly indicated unauthorized diversions from our mobile phone, having been received by the ex-employee.
However, the police would neither confirm nor deny that an enquiry on our behalf had been issued to O2. They were unable to supply the manner of their application, the department applied to in O2, or what the alternatives were to obtain the required information from O2. They claimed that records did not exist of this information.
A separate issue has been highlighted in relation to our findings is the presentation of telephone billings as court evidence:
All the diverted calls are shown on the recipient?s bill as direct calls made from our telephone to the ex-employee?s mobile. No indication is given on the billing as it being a diverted call from any other source. In effect we could be shown as making harassing phone calls to the ex-employee. This therefore clearly shows the billing information as incorrect, inaccurate, misleading, and could be held responsible as to misleading the court into reaching an unjust verdict. We believe this is clearly unacceptable as definitive and accurate legal evidence in any court action. Especially as O2 are unable to supply any information as to the method or timescale of the phone divert. It appears that this information is not recorded.
A further use for this way of redirecting calls is to obtain a database of telephone numbers in order to ring back potential customers. By not immediately answering, the calls would not show on the recipient?s phone bill and therefore would be untraceable but would be available to the receiving mobile and could immediately be called back or recorded.
In our particular case the ex-employee never answered a call (except once, see below- possibly by accident) made from our company mobile number, (which he knew), but always answered when the company?s withheld number office phone was redirected to his mobile. On one occasion the principal driving instructor of our school actually dialed himself and was answered by the ex-employee on his mobile!
This method of obtaining telephone numbers being made to a certain number, together with times & dates, without the need of a court order, would I believe, be of interest to many branches of the intelligence services; especially as, it is now being clamed, no crime is being committed in obtaining information in this manner!
It would also be in their interest that this system was not in the public domain!
This is the position to date. After our insistence, Lancashire Constabulary now claims that they have re-applied to O2 for the required information.