It must be the larger networks only. I got nothing on Smarty.
The consent post that was linked was from the NHS website and talked exclusively about consent with regards to medical procedures. Thatās why people pointed out that the text didnāt breach medical consent.
Consent to receive text messages is different and I have no idea what the government includes in their contracts when awarding licences to operate. At the guess the occasional emergency text might be in scope.
1 Like
Although you could argue that it does.
The text specifically said that you need a booster.
The consent rules state
- voluntary ā the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
At the very least itās a misrepresentation, it could also be seen as coercion, and as @N26throwaway mentioned could be illegal too.
Need does not equal mandatory. It can also be used in a similarly manner to āextremely importantā.
It has no impact on your right to/capacity to give medical consent and you are clutching at straws with that one.
7 Likes
Focusing on need is a mistake, it says to protect against omicron, which is does, to protect yourself if you get omicron you need the vaccine, not vitamin d, not horse tablets, not bleach, not tin foil hats.
Although it does appear omicron is less serious and the gov would have been possibly better to have used this during the delta wave.
Anti-vax wont get the booster/jab but I actually do know a several people who simply havenāt got the follow on jabs simply because of effort required, I got one to go a couple of weeks by simply saying his drop in was on the go and their were no queues.
As for mobile operators sending it, as long as the gov didnt pass your details (which could normally need consent) there is probably a carve out for national issues, it wont be okay to send a āvote toryā message, thats different unless you opted in (and opt can be a bit sly)
Also the emergency system has a type of alert you can not opt out of but its still in testing I believe.
1 Like
Itās not a breach of privacy as no personal data has been transmitted. The mobile phone companies already had your number and the government didnāt pass on any details it was a message to all numbers.
The electronic communication regulations were changed in 2015 to allow emergency texts following consultation
I understand your concerns but just pointing out it was lawful and not in breach of regulations.
Guess itās like everything, we vote a government in and they make laws, they consult and take into account views but in the end we canāt opt out of laws we donāt like.
7 Likes
Thereās two people who post in this thread to deliberately try and cause arguments, post one sided rubbish or try and pick holes in things that donāt exist. Heās the no1 offender. Then acts innocent like it wasnāt intentional until he does it again. And again.
8 Likes
Iād have a check of the contract you agreed to then. For me as a Three customer I believe itās covered here. Other networks will be similar.
1 Like
I think the balance here is working out what needs to be front and centre on the website and what can be burried in the terms.
I donāt think before the last year or two many carriers ever imagined they would be required to actually send out text messages on behalf of the government. I also donāt think many people particularly care enough for this to appear in plain English in the networkās marketing material.
For those of you who do care like yourself, itās there in the terms for you to read before you sign up.
4 Likes
Iām not sure privacy is the right word here.
Nothing about you has been provided to anyone else. Your privacy hasnāt been breached, annoying as loads of texts might be.
The government occasionally sends letters to every house in the country. They tend not to have your name on them. Itās the same here: asking all mobile providers to send the same text to all numbers on their network isnāt a breach of privacy - because nothing private to you has been compromised.
It, arguably, could be spam. But Iām sure they balanced the public health benefits and decided to proceed on an informed basis.
5 Likes
Itās not an emergency alert because the UK government Fād up the deployment of the emergency alert system so itās literally sent direct to every phone via the carriers.
Apparently theyāre going to try to relaunch it in 2022ā¦
3 Likes
I canāt get my head round the idea of giving āconsentā to government communication. Taking party politics and personality away from this (obviously) I would put government, law enforcement and similar state agencies into a category of automatic exemption. Part of the role of government and these other agencies is to communicate with those they are responsible for. Weād all opt out of taxation communication otherwise.
Iām with Peter on the Privacy definition too Iām afraid. The ācrimeā here is that some of your time was taken that you didnāt want to give. That is not the same as your data or personal details being handed over to a third party without permission. But, as the paragraph above implies, I would accept that weād ceded the rights to government to do that anyway as part of having a society that actually functions.
10 Likes
One sided rubbish/alternative view
An awful lot of what is broadcast by mainstream media is one sided, is that rubbish too?
Very easy to find 2 newspapers reporting on the same story with opposing views - which one is true and which one is rubbish? 
Almost 2 years on from the start of this, and looking at where we still are now, donāt you think that some of what has happened needs questioning or scrutinising?
I certainly do, and I would imagine Iām not the only one.
Absolutely. Thereās lots that isnāt/wasnāt perfect but you donāt look/listen to facts, you pick out things that are completely wrong and twist it to suit your agenda.
3 Likes
Just so you know but when I have had those alerts come through in America there are far far worse than text alerts. Amber alerts canāt be silenced in some states so every phone make a blaring noise.
5 Likes
Iām really sorry, but I just donāt think itās a common, or in this case, reasonable use of the word.
Letās unpack that then. This is the Cambridge Dictionary definition:
privacy
noun [ U ]
UK /ĖprÉŖv.É.si/ US /ĖpraÉŖ.vÉ.si/
B2
someoneās right to keep their personal matters and relationships secret:
These are two helpful definitions.
The first one is the one that I (and I think the majority of folk on here) have interpreted privacy.
On this definition, thereās clearly no privacy impact because itās a one way push. The government and mobile operator donāt need to know anything about you - every active number receives the message.
On the second definition, I can kind of see where youāre coming from. But again, I think itās a bit extreme to consider a text message to be a breach of ābeing aloneā. Itās an unwanted message, sure, but itās not targeted at you, and itās not one that fundamentally undermines your solitude.
There are very sensible arguments that rational folk can disagree on around government powers and surveillance. But this sort of reaction doesnāt, in my view, help us have them. All that has happened here is that the government has given some copy to mobile phone operators and asked them to send it to all their numbers. Itās got nothing to do with anyone as an individual or linked to name and identity.
6 Likes
This was not always the way. When I got the first amber at the time the yank I was with told me there was no way to opt out. For clarity I go to the USA every year in different states each year for the past 12 or so itās hard to recall how long ago I got the first one.
Even today there is no way to opt out of presidential alerts in the USA I believe. The settings we have now could easily not be there when it goes live as it shows options depending on where you are so I would not take it as gospel it will be this way when it goes live.
Also the uk gov could have a 3rd type you canāt opt out from. Bojo alerts anyone? Useful for party invites, I mean work meeting he has 
I am just saying text is far better than the emergency alerts when they go off, it breaks all silent modes.
2 Likes
In @N26throwaway 's defence.
What is the law?
It is against the law for anyone to send you spam texts unless you have previously given them permission.
However, if there is an existing customer relationship between you and the sender, it can send you spam text messages about similar products and services, as long as you are given the ability to opt out of receiving such messages.
(Source - Ofcom)
The law does not cover messages sent to business numbers.
The law states ANYONE, not anyone "except the Government.
As far as I know, the Government arenāt above the law, no matter how much they have thought they are in recent times.
Just to be clear, I kinda sympathise with not liking the messages. They may well be spam (although I think theyāre probably justified given the context, but could be better written). The only point I was making was that it isnāt a privacy issue.
7 Likes