GDPR Requirement to give personal Information

Hermione_Granger

darkan9el wrote: »

Actually Hermione, I'm asking for clarification not advice, opinions come regardless.

But as you are asking legally untrained people or even if legally trained people respond, this can't be proven to actually be the case so any replies that you receive are going to be people's best guess as to what the law allows and requires.
In other words, you are going to be getting opinions.

darkan9el

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

But as you are asking legally untrained people or even if legally trained people respond, this can't be proven to actually be the case so any replies that you receive are going to be people's best guess as to what the law allows and requires.
In other words, you are going to be getting opinions.

True, but information can be checked out, sometimes you get leads or someone will say something that puts you on the right path to get accurate information.
People may have had experiences that give them an insight into similar issues, they may not be a qualified professional but having had experience or worked in the industry would give them a more informed perspective.

I don't mind opinions, everybody has a right to say what they want, some opinions are just more constructive than others and help, either way you eventually weed out the less intelligent answers and focus on useful information.

BT can have whatever policies they want, but a policy isn't a law and when you try to mislead someone by telling a member of the public that they have to pass over personal information because of GDPR and that's the law then you have been misinformed, and not properly trained.

There is a lot of misinformation about GDPR and most people don't fully understand it, just run a survey and see what answers you get.

takman

darkan9el wrote: »

I did, I told them almost immediately that I had their customer with me and that he could confirm any information required to move forward, this was the problem they were very insistent that I give them my details and that didn't make any sense to me at all. The logic was not there and even when the customer took the call they were extremely obstinate with him, that's why he was getting vexed, they just wouldn't listen to him. I even went as far as to make sure I had called BT and not a rogue number because of the behaviour of these people.

It sounds like BT have a policy of confirming the identity of the person who initially rings them up before they can speak to them about any account.

I don't see any problem with this because it's likely in place to protect both their call center staff and customers from fraud. If they always confirm the identity of the initial caller every single time it reduces the chance of any confusion if the phone is passed between different people, which can be a tactic used in scams.

It's a very different scenario if the account holder makes the call and chooses to pass the phone to someone else than if a third party makes the call and states they will pass over to the account holder to confirm the required information. The first scenario shows the account holder understands what is happening rather than the second scenario where it could be a confused older person just confirming information without really understand what is happening.

darkan9el wrote: »

BT can have whatever policies they want, but a policy isn't a law and when you try to mislead someone by telling a member of the public that they have to pass over personal information because of GDPR and that's the law then you have been misinformed, and not properly trained.

Is that what BT told you that you had to give your information because of GDPR?

reason2

you are way too dramatic..

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I have a friend who is 91, and he seems a lot more savvy than OP!

Undervalued

darkan9el wrote: »

There is a lot of misinformation about GDPR and most people don't fully understand it, just run a survey and see what answers you get.

Do you?

Regardless of whether you are correct or not on this particular point there are many aspect of the new GDPR that will only become clear over time. The ICO will make decision and interpretations which, unless overturned by the courts, will gradually clarify the new regulations.

reason2

very simple...

1) it scares you? Maybe wait until you are an adult before phoning businesses
2) there was no breach of your private information
3) they can ask whatever they want
4) you can answer what ever you want
5)they can terminate a call for whatever reason they see fit
6) you can dramatically over react on a web forum as much as you want.


everything clear now?

steampowered

It sounds like the CSO was trying to verify that he/she was speaking to the account holder?

Presumably he would need the account holder's personal info, perhaps the CSO assumed he/she was speaking to the account holder?

darkan9el

takman wrote: »

It sounds like BT have a policy of confirming the identity of the person who initially rings them up before they can speak to them about any account.


I don't see any problem with this because it's likely in place to protect both their call center staff and customers from fraud. If they always confirm the identity of the initial caller every single time it reduces the chance of any confusion if the phone is passed between different people, which can be a tactic used in scams.

It's a very different scenario if the account holder makes the call and chooses to pass the phone to someone else than if a third party makes the call and states they will pass over to the account holder to confirm the required information. The first scenario shows the account holder understands what is happening rather than the second scenario where it could be a confused older person just confirming information without really understand what is happening.



Is that what BT told you that you had to give your information because of GDPR?

Yes, they also said it was the law. I'm all for protecting peoples info and deterring scammers and the like, when the customer was actually talking to them they would not listen and kept talking over him.

steampowered wrote: »

It sounds like the CSO was trying to verify that he/she was speaking to the account holder?

Presumably he would need the account holder's personal info, perhaps the CSO assumed he/she was speaking to the account holder?

No, it was made abundantly clear to them I was calling on behalf of their customer and that they could speak to him to confirm his identity. I repeatedly asked them for service to fix the issue he was having and he himself also made that request, it was only after several attempts did we get asked to go to the speedtest website, this was near the end of the call, this was a futile effort and I could have saved them the trouble had they listened to me, instead we wasted time on a test that would never work.
We can go around in circles if you wish but I can only say the same thing a few different ways, by all means continue to post with your opinions I'm sure people will love reading them but I think it's time to bow out of this post.

steampowered

darkan9el wrote: »

No, it was made abundantly clear to them I was calling on behalf of their customer and that they could speak to him to confirm his identity. I repeatedly asked them for service to fix the issue he was having and he himself also made that request, it was only after several attempts did we get asked to go to the speedtest website, this was near the end of the call, this was a futile effort and I could have saved them the trouble had they listened to me, instead we wasted time on a test that would never work.

I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with GDPR ...