Showing posts with label O2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label O2. Show all posts

Monday, 24 February 2014

Censorship, censorship everywhere and not a chance to think...



You think you can say what you like? Think again. This blog has been routinely blocked by O2 and EE using stupid internet filters that treat adult consumers like children. O2 regularly makes Barry Butler, a freelance ESOL teacher from the Midlands, jump through absurd hoops every time he tries to read this blog and finds it has been blocked. 

EE has also been guilty of preventing adult customers from accessing this blog - this is especially ridiculous given that EE sponsored the BAFTA awards the other week. Let me see if I understand. We have a phone company that has prevented adults from accessing the internet in its entirety putting its name to a celebration of the British film industry. That would be an industry which over the years has given the world some of the most brilliant, subversive and controversial contributions to the cultural landscape. 

Corporations are already doing the work of the government whose plans for internet filtering are anti-free speech in the extreme. There is an alarming dearth of opposition to these plans in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. If that doesn't strike you as the start of an ominous future of restricted speech and expression, we need to sit down and have a little chat.

And then we have the mob mentality which seeks to silence anything offensive. Personally, I think Katie Hopkins is an attention-seeking professional troll. I don't tune in when she is on TV, I don't follow her on Twitter, I simply cannot be bothered with her nonsense. But she has every right to spout whatever it is that she says. The same goes for lads' mags, Frankie Boyle, Seth McFarlane, Sarah Silverman and anyone or anything else that people have sought to ban.

Campaigning website change.org wasted bandwidth with an e-petition to remove Katie Hopkins from ITV and Channel 5 after she she tweeted something tasteless after the helicopter crash in Scotland late last year. And, by jingo, it worked! Hopkins was indeed dropped from ITV's This Morning programme. Seriously, it is far saner to just not watch her if you don't like her. Frankly, I'd be happy if Keith Lemon, Citizen Khan, Mrs Brown's Boys or Chris Lilley never appeared on TV again because they're all about as funny as burning orphans but starting up an e-petition is childish and misses the point. 

Once you seek to ban something just because you don't like it, there is no reason why something you do like cannot be banned too.

We also have problematic discussions when it comes to banning hate speech. The thing is we don't actually need any more laws on hate speech. The UK already has laws against verbal abuse as well as physical abuse. If you yell something awful at someone and it causes distress or upset, you have broken the law and the judge will have to consider the hate speech aspect of it when sentencing. Similarly, if someone is beaten up for whatever reason, this is against the law and the judge again has to take into account whether there is any hateful motivation, such as racism or homophobia, when passing sentence. The impact of such abuse should be pretty obvious - I don't want to live in a society where it is acceptable to beat someone up for any reason - and in the case of assaults, either verbal or physical, that are motivated by hate, education is just as important as harsh sentences.

But this does not mean someone should not be allowed to speak out against issues such as same sex marriage or further immigration. I may find the views of someone opposed to marriage equality or immigration from certain nations absurd, illogical, unconstructive, unpleasant or just plain moronic - but if their views are silenced as "hate speech" there is nothing to stop other opinions also being shut down. If you start cutting down the right to express opinions, even ones with which you violently disagree, you automatically restrict your right to refute it.

And then there are more insidious ways that we are censored. 

The "gagging law" passed through Parliament, albeit with a few minor amendments and there was no mass outrage because, basically, people didn't take the time to understand it or think about how it might affect them. It imposes ridiculous requirements on lobbying groups (but not corporations...) in the run-up to elections and is essentially aimed at silencing groups such as trade unions and the implications go beyond silencing some rowdy unionists. Hint: If a law is opposed by various groups across the political spectrum, groups who typically disagree with each other, it's probably a bad law. The bureaucracy that will be involved in monitoring the membership lists and campaign spending of lobby groups flies in the face of government claims that they are all about spending less public money and being a libertarian party of small government. 

And just today I was tweeting in my other guise at the @Save_St_Helier account, whereby I am part of a campaign to try and retain vital services at my local hospital, such as A&E, maternity, renal and kids' intensive care. A few of us asked faceless bureaucrats in the Twitterverse for some transparency in relation to a process which has so far cost taxpayers £8.2 million. How the hell was a review of local healthcare services costing us so much money? 

We finally found out that £1.874 million of our money was paid to 2020 Delivery, one of those vague consultancies whereby a peruse of their website leaves you none the wiser about what they actually do. All we were told by the bureaucrats was that the £1.874 million was spent on "finance and activity monitoring and travel and transport analysis". But we can't really find out a whole lot more because Freedom of Information legislation does not apply to private companies, only public bodies. It's just another way to stop the free flow of information, to drive people who are using their freedom to publicly ask questions into a brick wall and to keep us passive and quiet.

I'm exhausted. I apologise for this blog post rambling all over the place but once you start looking at the ways in which we are censored, the ways in which the flow of information is restricted, the ways in which we seek to ban that which we dislike without thinking through the consequences, you soon discover a multi-headed hydra of anti-freedom bullshit has grown before your very eyes. Now, who wants to help me slay the hydra? It's a big job but it's one of the most important jobs we will ever do.   





Image: "Resurrection de la Censure", JJ Grandville

Monday, 11 March 2013

Updates on O2 and Hilary Mantel's excellent refusal to repent or recant



In the last couple of weeks, two of my blog posts have attracted a bit of attention. One was on my friend Briony's ongoing battles with the O2 phone company and another was on the misguided, ignorance-fuelled outrage over Hilary Mantel's 5,000-word essay on the bodies of royal women, including that of the Duchess of Cambridge (in case you didn't notice, she's having a baby...). Since then, there have been some developments.

Briony received unwanted marketing calls from O2 even though her preferences were set to "email contact only", she was baffled as to why personal details were required by unsolicited callers before she could be told about any special offers and, as a bonus, she discovered this very website was blocked by O2 as part of their nanny state-style filter for adult content, even on the phones of actual adults.

Now that Briony is in email and telephone contact with O2, she has still to hear about the amazing offers and can't seem to get an answer out of anyone as to what these were because it apparently changes on "what she wants to include in the scheme".  

She has received a number of spoken apologies and emails starting "We are really sorry" and "O2 takes these complaints seriously" and "we are speaking with the Social Media team about their lack of response/terminology" and "we are in contact with the customer service teams.."  But nothing really has changed.


Briony is now in contact with with Tracy and Carol from the "Escalation Team" - which makes me visualise women talking on the phone as they go up an escalator - and while both are "really very nice", Briony says neither "clearly can provide me with any answers as to why I was contacted/pestered when clearly I shouldn't have been." It would also appear that not much can be done to trace or find out why Briony received unwanted phonecalls in the first place.


On the upside, when Briony broached the subject of recompense for this two-week debacle, O2 asked her what she felt was a suitable remuneration for the day lost to O2 and Twitter, half a day lost to calls with the O2 Customer Service and half a day lost on emails/phone calls to the O2 Escalation Team.  Her response free upgrade and phone - after all, surely O2 were calling her about her upgrade in the first place, no?


So, she has received a couple of different offers, including O2 paying to end her current contract and not charge her for ending the contract early - but she'll have to pay for a new phone. The other offer includes more download capacity (but she'd better be careful not to try and download anything from any of the websites O2 blocks, even though she is an adult...) and no £6 monthly charge.


But for any recompense, Briony has to go into a shop, discuss the options, and tie herself into another O2 contract, when what she has really asked for is a 100% guarantee that her phone number will not be used in any further O2 marketing drives.  Alas, this could not be given, nor could a 95% guarantee, nor could an 80% or 70% guarantee be given... Briony gave up asking what kind of guarantee she could be assured at this time. What is the point of opting for email contact only if that isn't going to be respected by O2?

In conclusion, all of the deals on the table remain ambiguous and won't make a massive difference to her life. A better offer would surely involve stuff like a free upgrade (including handset) and a cheaper bill, so that Briony stays with O2 long term, thus everyone wins. 


This seems to be a struggle for O2, as even in compensation, they use the guise of giving with one hand, only to take a greater financial and contractual reward with the other.


In the meantime, I have just had the predictable "this is to protect the children" response from O2 when I called them out on their blocking of websites for adult customers. It's somewhat hilarious that my blog was blocked but it is also completely contrary to a free society. O2 offers parental controls so parents can ensure their kids can't access adult content on their phones so why they feel the need to restrict adult internet access is a mystery.

On the upside, Briony can vote with her money if she finds a better deal elsewhere. This is indeed a vast improvement on the government-run duopoly of the United Arab Emirates, where we both used to live. There you get the choice of two equally incompetent telecommunications companies, Etisalat and Du, and that is all.

As for Hilary Mantel, she has thankfully not apologised for her controversial 5,000-word essay, which she gave as a lecture two weeks before any of the newspapers noticed. Her unrepentant response is inspiring to anyone who has dared express an opinion only for it to be misunderstood by the moronic masses.

I will love her forever for this brilliant line: "I do think that the Duchess of Cambridge is an intelligent young woman, who, if she cares to read my essay, will see that I meant nothing but good to her."

If only O2 was as uncensored.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com




Thursday, 28 February 2013

Getting a little too personal with the phone company...



Customer service representatives at O2, one of the competing telecommunications providers here in Britain, have shown blatant disregard for customer privacy. My friend Briony has been embroiled in an increasingly one-sided Twitter war after receiving an unsolicited phone call from the customer service department. Unsolicited calls are annoying enough but can be quickly dispatched if you feel your time is being wasted. However, in this instance, the customer service rep told Briony about the possibility of a better deal.

Refreshingly cynical, Briony asked if she was being data-mined or whether there was a genuinely better deal to be had. Apparently there was a better deal to be had, but she was told she could not be informed about the details of the upgrade unless she went through a security screening process. As it was an unsolicited call, Briony had no idea whether it was a genuine call from O2 or not. Briony is not an idiot, gullible or naive, and, as such, she did not give out personal details over the phone to a stranger who called her out of the blue.

A Twitter discussion ensued in which Briony was told she would have to give over personal information in order to hear the best offers for her account. There was, however, no explanation as to why O2 cannot offer proof that it is a genuine customer service call.

Briony also tried to access this very blog yesterday but O2 had blocked her from accessing this "over-18 site" (I had no idea this blog was so saucy but I digress...). Briony is 40 and O2 already have her date of birth, but they want to charge her another quid to lift this block.

Respecting customers who request email contact rather than phonecalls is also important. There is no reason why a customer cannot be made aware of special offers by email. In Briony's case, she was told via Twitter to change her preferences to "email only contact." Turns out, she had already done that before the calls started coming in.

Today she received a second call from someone at O2 who only identified himself as "Moh", but Briony cut him off before he could ask for any personal details. The number that came up on her phone, 0800 064 1087, is indeed a genuine O2 number, but this does not excuse the fact they've ignored Briony's preference for email contact only or the request for personal and password details over the phone.

Asking for personal details from a "valued customer" before offering information about a better deal is completely absurd. How does this fit in with O2's privacy policy? Quite well, it would seem. Alarmingly, the privacy policy is very rubbery indeed. It says quite clearly that O2 can request "personal details about yourself, including but not limited to when you:

1. purchase products or services from us whether in store, online, by phone or elsewhere;
2. register to become an O2 customer;
3. submit enquiries to us or contact us
4. enter any promotions, competitions or prize draws via the Services;
5. use O2 products and Services;
6. take part in market research; and/or
7. when you terminate your account with us.

The " including but not limited to" clause seems to have given O2 free rein to ask for personal details during the course of an unsolicited customer service call which ironically seems to have been made with the intention of keeping Briony's business.

If someone from O2 would like to respond to this situation, please contact me via this blog or feel free to comment at the end - the right of reply is always welcome here at The Rant Mistress. It would appear an urgent change in policy is required or else there may be a rapid loss of customers.

UPDATES

I have received a response via Twitter from O2 via the @O2 account:  Hey Georgia, we're picking this up as we speak. We can assure you that there is no failure in privacy though.

This is indeed a baffling response. Imagine if other businesses refused to share information about special offers until personal details were shared. "I'm sorry, madam, but Sainsburys cannot possibly tell you any more about that special offer on the tinned tomatoes until you share some personal details with us...".

Now whoever manages O2's social media has shared this Tweet with Briony and I:

  Of course, it's straight forward, but we can understand her concerns and appreciate the nature of this.

Briony is not taking this lying down and has responded thus:

  How can ignoring my personal preferences & being called on consecutive days about same thing be 'straight forward'?

O2 has now requested more information from Briony about the situation than can be squeezed into a 140-character tweet. Stay tuned for more updates as they come in.

And we have a further Twitter exchange between Briony and O2.

First, O2 responds to Briony's questioning of the use of the term "straight forward":

 The issue itself is straight forward, however we totally agree, to help your concerns we needed to act quicker, we're sorry.

And we have a magnificent response to all this from Briony:

  Agree it should be faster but frustrated you have DM me requesting personal mobile number - are you being ironic?

Briony now seems to be trapped in some sort of surreal circular logic nightmare as the conversation moved off Twitter and into direct messages. She has been told by O2 that they can tell her the reasons why all this happened without her supplying her phone number but for them to fix the issue, they need her phone number. Which is weird given they have already called her on her phone number as they are her phone provider.

It is baffling although possibly unsurprising that it has reached this point without O2 admitting any fault in the first place or starting by offering to fix the issue. This takes me back many, many moons to my days at Pizza Hut when I was a student. We were told that when a customer makes a complaint, the first thing to do is to offer to fix the problem and ask the customer what can be done to make the situation better. That is the starting point, not the end of a tiresome online discussion.

Briony has just tweeted this:

  Thanks 4 admitting that O2 needs to fix issue, that is something, as your cust service denied call took place yesterday

It is not surprising that Briony is now losing the will to live as O2 keeps on asking for her number. She has asked them, quite reasonably, "when you say 'fix the issue', what will you be doing exactly. My preferences are set to email only contact."

O2 has informed her that they want to make sure her preferences are indeed set to "email only". They have also said they want to "feedback your experience to the relevant people so any training needs can be addressed."

Disturbingly, "feedback" is now a verb...

An exsperated Briony has reiterated that her experience has not been good and she has tweeted the following:

  indeed if an honest approach had been taken yesterday, we would not currently be at this juncture.

We are still no closer to finding out why O2 thinks it is not a privacy failure to ask for personal details before sharing information about special offers with a supposedly valued customer or why they ignored her preference for email only contact to begin with, or indeed why they locked her out of an over-18 site when they know she is 40 years old...

Briony, like me, tries to maintain a zero tolerance of idiocy policy. As such, she has tried to cut out the frustrating 140-character direct message conversation she has been having with O2 all day and has now offered them her email address in an attempt to have a proper discussion. Stay tuned...

And the madness continues as she is asked, via a Twitter direct message, for her Twitter ID... O2 has her email address so there is no reason why the conversation cannot be conducted by email now. Apart from "Moh", she has not been given the name of anyone at a senior level in customer service or the social media manager.

Oh, and we're still no closer to finding out from O2 why personal details are necessary in order for someone in "customer service" to share information about special offers with an existing customer. Or why Briony was called out of the blue when her preferences stated "email only contact". Or why she was locked out of an over-18 site when O2 knew her birthdate. None of this has actually been resolved.

And in news just at hand from the frequently fabulous Lady Chappers Twitter account, it seems O2 is not alone in ignoring customers who set their preferences to "email contact only." She has just sent me this missive about Three:


 It's not just O2. I was getting up to three unsolicited calls/day from  despite being set to email only. Pure spam.

O2 AND THE HEAVY-HANDED INTERNET CENSORSHIP

It would appear it's not just Briony who is having trouble accessing my blog. Another two people have just alerted me to O2 blocking them from this apparently scandalous Over-18 website. This is his Tweet:


 I tried to read it and got this. Censorship?



And here is another:


 Just tried to visit yr blog on O2 wifi in Brum. They've blocked it like a porn site.  < wankers



Here is the a screen grab of the message O2 customers are receiving when they try to click on my blog:


I can only assume it is the word "mistress" in the blog title that is setting off O2's pearl-clutching filters. Despite the fact that Briony, Marcus and Barry are all over 18 and O2 would have their dates of birth on file, they are still content to charge £1 to unblock my site. In fairness to O2, they will very generously credit £1 back to their mobile bills.

Why would they block anything on the phones of adults in a supposedly free society?

I have received these tweets from Mark telling me he has had to verify his age four times in person because he doesn't have a credit card:


 I've had to get my age verified FOUR times now. Each time at a shop because I only have debit not credit card.



  Fed up with dealing with them. Just marking time until I can end the contract.


With many thanks to Jamie Smith, who tweets as @JamieSmiff, I have now discovered O2 implemented this ridiculous policy in March 2011. That still doesn't make it right or explain why my blog is considered adult content. I can only assume this is because of the word "mistress" in the blog title. In any case, it reminds me of the absurdity of internet censorship that I experienced when I worked for five years in the United Arab Emirates.

And in further news, O2 has just opened up my blog for Barry Butler after he opened a can of whoop-ass via Twitter:


  Fuck me. They just opened it up again. Result.

However, this was not before O2 suggested Barry call an expensive number to discuss the situation...


 Just had an email from u re my feedback. U want me to ring a premium number 0844 463 2625. You are taking the piss now.

Now, according to O2, this site was not blocked


 We've not blocked the site, we've checked and it's listed as a blog, can you screen shot any error messages please?


But Barry begs to differ:


 It wasn't an error message. It was your usual WiFi block. As you know. It's gone now. Being Big Brother doesn't suit. 

Barry has shared with me the message he received when he tried to access this blog:


Marcus Boothby-Lund tweeted me last night to tell me that my blog had been unblocked:

 oh and I can now read your filthy scribbles, unblocked 

And today, I am blocked again with the same warning as last time:

 it's blocked again ffs 

Michael K B tweeted me this on O2's lack of trust in adult customers:


 I guess humanity isn't trusted by multinationals. Which is ironic considering where their ££ come from


In the meantime, I have called out O2 on why they feel the need to censor internet access for adults and I got this response:

 Sorry you feel that way, lots of parents have contracts for there children, we have to do all we can to safeguard.

Won't someone think of the children? Yes, how about parents think of the children. It is perfectly fine to limit internet access for underage users and O2 offers a Parental Control function so that parents can be parents and take some responsibility for their kids' internet usage. This is surely enough without censoring access for adults and making them jump through cumbersome hoops every time they are hit by the O2 ban-hammer.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com