192.com people finder

[192CS]

I have tried to answer the questions raised however I can still see that there is confusion over our service. Due to the specific nature of an individual’s data and the anonymity of the forum I am unable to respond directly. I know it has been raised that a few people on the forum are concerned about contacting me directly as I would then be able to link them back to their forum identity. This is not the case, if you contact me through [email protected] I have no idea who you are and therefore would be making no such connections. So if anyone would like to contact me with any further questions or a Subject Access Request please do and I will respond accordingly.

[lenny100]

192 dont you get the piont we are all makeing your service is not poviding a service to anybody exept yourself and your bank ballance

my police liasion officer hit the roof when i contacted them today expect a call

[kurvaface]

I have just had a lengthy conversation with my prospective MP (Who will almost certainly win his seat at the next election because he has a tiny majority to overturn) about this company and what they are doing and the lack of regard to our data security.

 

His first impression is that what this company is doing is contrary to the principles of the Data Protection Act and if it is using some loophole to stick 2 fingers up at the Act then he would be interested in taking this up at a parliamentary level to prevent them from continuing this practice.

 

He agrees that the type of data being sold has the potential to expose an individual to significant harm or to expose an individual to having their identity stolen or abused in such a way as to cause significant harm.

 

He has advised me to complain directly to the ICO (In addition to I-CD Publishing (UK) Ltd ) and to copy him in on all communications. He says that the ICO will react quickly to a notification.

 

I get the impression that this kind of issue will be taken seriously by your MP or prospective MP so do the same and hopefully we can reign in this business that is a parasite on our freedom.

 

 

[beachcomber60]

My listing is dated 2007, it is my business number & in the public domain its under my business name NOT in my own name , yet 192.com lists me OH & our son - can you please explain how you obtained that information 192 - I'am self employed & not a ltd company.

[jimdev1976]

i did a search for me and i found me. Couldn't believe it. Admitedly its well out of date, as i moved out of that house in 2002. It also listed all my old flatmates, 1 like me doesn't live in the UK anymore, and another is now semi-famous. Not one of us lives at that address, and hasn't done since 2002. i pity for poor fools who pay for that info. unless its a DCA of course.

[kiptower]

I wonder why 192cs is ignoring the legal requirement "PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT"

 

regardless of their offer to remove, they did not have CONSENT in the first place regardless of where they extracted the info from

 

CONSENT in LAW is required to retain and forward the the INFO to anyone

 

stop playing on we can remove the INFO if you want, you dont in most cases have the right to hold the INFO in the first place

 

come on 192CS address the questions asked ,

[Nagasis]

I'm on that 192 site and I'm ex directory and I have opted out of the ER

[angry cat]

i did a search for me and i found me. Couldn't believe it. Admitedly its well out of date, as i moved out of that house in 2002. It also listed all my old flatmates, 1 like me doesn't live in the UK anymore, and another is now semi-famous. Not one of us lives at that address, and hasn't done since 2002. i pity for poor fools who pay for that info. unless its a DCA of course.

 

Breach of the 1st Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Shocking!

[kurvaface]

So I wonder when our "Zoe" is going to answer the questions here...if ever.

 

No doubt she has some pseudo-jobsworth title like "Customer-Liason-Manager" or "Company-Interface-Executive", specialising in issue avoidance and burying the problem.

 

I for one will take anything she says as BS.

[kurvaface]

Just keep this bumped to the front of people's minds. letting this issue slip off our radar is just what Zoe wants - hence the pms

[angry cat]

It has been noted that, much of the information as listed on 192 is inaccurate and out of date.

Furthermore, why isn't the 6 year rule re processing being observed?

[kurvaface]

angry cat....what is the "6 year rule"?

 

Thanks

 

KV

[Werner M]

....hello Guests....

[mkb]

....hello Guests....

 

 

 

Blimey, must be a slow day in the offices - there are 8 guests on here at the moment.

 

Do feel free to register & add your comments but do be aware that Caggers can spot trolls from a long way off

[kurvaface]

9 guests now

[kurvaface]

Come on zoe, answer the questions.....please:)

[Undercover-Elsa]

There aren't any answers she can give which justify using peoples' information without permission, for profit. Hence the deafening silence.

[247orbital]

Can someone expelain to me why data over the 6 years is being kept on my account? I was under the impression that address information was only kept for 6 years?

[Undercover-Elsa]

A little further reading...

Is 192.com Britain’s most invasive website? | PC Pro blog

 

Councils sell voters' addresses for half a penny - Times Online

 

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-01020.pdf

[dannyboy660]

....hello Guests....

 

Hello.

 

It's a very interesting thread, and some good points being made.

[angry cat]

How did 192 obtain the necessary consent from each and every individual involved, in order to process their subject data?

 

How long should organisations keep data for?

The Data Protection Act says that information should be kept for no longer than is necessary. The Act does not specify what a ‘necessary’ period should be for particular information. Each case would be considered on its own merits. If an organisation is obliged to retain data for a given length of time under any other laws, this should be taken into consideration.

 

For example, financial institutes may have to keep some information for up to six years in accordance with the Financial Services Authority regulations. A sole trader, however, may not need to keep information for longer than a month.

[dannyboy660]

A little further reading...

Is 192.com Britain’s most invasive website? | PC Pro blog

 

Councils sell voters' addresses for half a penny - Times Online

 

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-01020.pdf

 

 

192 used in conjunction with Facebook/Bebo Ancestry etc, etc is a surefire way to track someone down. Cheap, quick and easy too.

 

Personal info is all over the internet like a mad persons manure.

 

Not advertising here, just another similar example PEOPLE SEARCH,using the electoral roll and voters roll

[angry cat]

The country has gone mad!!

 

The majority of British people have no objection to being in a telephone directory, if that is their choice and if not, they can become ex-directory.

 

Personally speaking I strongly object about having my data banded about on the internet, when I have not provided consent nor, posted up data about myself on facebook etc...

 

Much of the information that is being published by 192, is inaccurate, out of date and often providing data that could be of a sensitive nature.

 

Consumers who have opted out of the ER and who are ex-directory, should not find themselves as being listed on 192 etc.

 

The Human Rights Act and the Right to Privacy, is subordinate legislation under the DPA.

 

The following Link will be of interest to many:

Your rights - The Right to Privacy

[Undercover-Elsa]

Even the Electoral Roll gets it wrong. Let's face it, we could state that Elvis lived at our address and it would go in. Oooh there's a thought

 

I'm on facebook, but not with my real name. If I want anyone to find me, I tell them. Who wants some spotty ex stalker from your schooldays turning up at the door?

[dannyboy660]

Who wants some spotty ex stalker from your schooldays turning up at the door?

 

My thoughts exactly. I don't bother with any of that 'Facebook' kind of stuff.

 

It's very annoying - no - actually it's infuriating when you see details relevant to yourself appear on certain websites when you have not given them your express permission to use it.

I suspect much of it comes from the "we may sell or pass your details to reputable third party companies" or similar stuff that's in the small print of innocuous looking things nowadays..........