192.com people finder

[lickthewallfatboy]

anyone had this email from 192.com?

 

The government is currently reviewing the future of the edited Electoral Roll, an essential database for finding people in the UK.

 

We all need to take action now to keep the national resource in the public domain. Can you spare 5 minutes to tell us your views on the edited Electoral Roll?

[247orbital]

squeeky bum time for all at iCD-UK/192.com

[palomino]

My cynical view is that the govt will then simply sell the full version.

[count orlok]

My cynical view is that the govt will then simply sell the full version.

 

They can't do that, there are many people who's lives could be put in danger by the disclosure of this information. Also there are many legitimate reasons why people may not want to be found. Anybody who wants people to know where they are would have already told them.

 

I think this kind of thing should be left to the Sally Army, the Jeremy Kyle show and Trisha. At least these people would respect your privicy.

[Rymitch]

They say they have an audit trail which they can use to track anybody who accessed you details but what about those that buy the cd example I buy the cd a couple of month later decide to sell off all my stuff at a carboot sale some guy I don't know buy the cd for 50p then use the info on it to make up a lot of false IDs for his terrorist friends he got all the relevant info DOB place of birth mothers maiden name address etc how do the find HIM he aint on their audit trail. On a side note I remember a similar cd being given a way free on the cover of a popular monthly PC mag a couple of years a go that anybody could buy from any newsagent where is the audit trail there.

[JonCris]

I just love the bit where Zoe says they provide a service or friends & family to find their lost friends

 

What utter carp they are there to provide confidential information to anyone who will pay & that includes [problem] artists & DCA's

[Helford]

Couple of snippets/points in no particular order.

 

I bought a copy of the CD ROM (Infodisk 2000) some 10 years ago - no checks on my bona fides and as described, free access to all. No ID furnished to buy.

 

If my memory serves me correctly when the late Jill Dando was brutally murdered, it turned out her home address had been searched prior. See here:- JILL DANDO INVESTIGATION

 

My personal details (Not paid for) show I live at an address with my wife (Correct), the house we moved out of 7 years ago and have owned 4 houses since and apparently my old neighbour and his wife lived there as well, a serving Police Officer? Now I know that my wife has a 'thing' about men in uniform, I am now thinking that perhaps I need to have a quiet word with Mrs Helford! (Having said that his wife is a nurse! Lol)

Edited March 4, 2010 by Helford

[buzby]

I have no problem with 192.com republishing information they source from third parties. The real issue is that the ICO allows disclosure rights in perpetuity, so if you provide your details to one firm and do not express a wish your details be kept private (even assuming they ask you in the first place), it is SOLD on without any restriction, to a list aggregator, who sells it on to.... you get the picture.

 

Think of the grain of rice on one chess square, doubling on the next and the next - you'll see how quickly things get out of control. How do you stop this? You don't. Like King Canute trying to hold back the tide - you have to request removal from each database YOU identify, and you're going to miss some.

 

It will need the ICO to rule that data provided can only be used for EACH explicit use and no other. As for the CRA's they get FULL access to the unedited Electoral Roll, as will their clients searching who will get the details confirmed. (Correcting a message way back up the thread) Council are required to sell the full register to CRAs, anyone else gets the edited one.

[247orbital]

All it needs is a opt out clause for any information held by institutions, as long as you are made aware that it could effect credit etc. What the big deal.

Its down to this careless regard that identity fraud is so wide spread.

 

Should be the same for individuals to choose which CRA to use or if any at all. I personally do not see the need for three. When you apply for a loan or credit it should be the consumer who chooses which CRA they supply there information to.

[buzby]

Consumer choice?

 

There's no need for three - but if there was only one, we would have 'Big Brother' and a private firm controlling all our personal data and whist we cannot do anything about it, it sounds better that there are 'a few'.

 

You also forget, when the Editied Electoral Roll was first promoted, ONLY the full register would be used for the intended purpose, voting. The CRA's complained with two concerns, (a) those who opted out may be denied credit (b) fraud prevention would be compromised as the linking of addresses would considerably more difficult.

 

Guess what happened? The Govt of the day agreed, and gave the CRAs an exemption that means they get the full register. Clever eh?!

 

As for wanting to decide which CRA handles your data - what about your right to ensure NO CRA handles your data. Horse and Stable door come to mind.

[247orbital]

I haven't got a problem with three or thirty CRA I just want the choice of who if any process my data. As long as consumers are aware of the risks involved if I want to opt out of the electoral role and credit is harder to obtain thats my concern.

As for fraud prevention why is it in the hands of a private company anyway?

[buzby]

As for fraud prevention why is it in the hands of a private company anyway?

 

Because a firm saw the need (originally for its own purposes, of catalogue sales) and was on a roll. Followed by the Govt need to find someone who will offer services at no cost to the taxpayer!

[owen everybody]

ey up!

a friend rang me the other night to tell me he had looked up his pesonal info on 192.com and was agast at what was listed there.

i have refered him to this site to obtain a sect 10 form and send it off to 192.com people finder site and get his data removed.

Please keep telling your friends and family to check their data held and sold by this site.

[buzby]

Section 10 won't help. 192 only link to data - it's still out there, whether 192 provide it or not.

[mr2mr2]

Surley 192. like the CRAs must be put in their places.

It should always be the person "OPT-OUT" unless stated i want to OPT IN??

 

 

Like with my post dealing with CRAs http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/250771-storing-data-6-years.html

 

I think all these data companies need to be held to account.

 

where is privacy? Where is choice?

 

The sooner people like CRAs and the likes of 192 are hauld before a court the better.....

 

just a mad rant lol

[buzby]

How are the CRA's 'put in their place'? Quite the opposite.

 

As for taking 192 to court - what have they done that is in breach of the Acts? It would be like you complaining the it is Google's fault for making available that story of your outer Mongolian indiscretion, yet it was the Katmandu Herald that actually published it. 192 is still an aggregated of information in the public domain. The data is still there whether they link to it or not, so wouldn't the better option to remove the source of the problem?

[kurvaface]

Seems like a section 10 (with threat of action) does the trick. All my data has gone along with all company info.

[buzby]

Shame it's still available from the Companies House online database - have you tried an s10 on them?

[kurvaface]

I don't have a problem with Companies House. That register in some ways protects the consumer and makes directors accountable for the activities of their businesses. If a director is concerned about disclosure of their home address there is a mechanism to allow this to be hidden, for example if you are a director of a loathed DCA lol.

 

What I do object to though is parasitic companies like ICD publishing ltd (192.com) milking the public databases for their own benefit with total disregard to an individual's privacy or safety.

 

The other thing that I find disgusting is their cynical campaign to scrap the phone book on the grounds that it is environmentally damaging. What they are really trying to do is kill the free competition and get a monopoly on the data industry.

[buzby]

So because a data collector does not put in place measures to prevent the re-use if its data, it is all the fault of 192, who pay for access due to their ability to re-sell? What of the DVLA that happily will disclose your personal details, permitted under statute for £2.50 or so? I think your angst is misdirected.

 

Secondly, why do you feel it is 'disgusting' that 192 want to end the publishing of paper directories? Is is true, the bulk of them are never looked at, I must have had 200Kg of directories delivered over the last 10 years and never looked at one of them - going online (for free) in every case.

 

There are far more relevant thing to vent your disgust at - like reverse-charge texts with no opt out, Reverse 0800 calls that require a mortgage to pay for should someone (other than the bill payer) answer and accept the call. Of course 192 don't want paper directories, and in much the same was as any other commercial entity wishes to ensure the take-up of their product or service. This is what commerce is.

[kurvaface]

So because a data collector does not put in place measures to prevent the re-use if its data, it is all the fault of 192, who pay for access due to their ability to re-sell? What of the DVLA that happily will disclose your personal details, permitted under statute for £2.50 or so? I think your angst is misdirected.

 

Secondly, why do you feel it is 'disgusting' that 192 want to end the publishing of paper directories? Is is true, the bulk of them are never looked at, I must have had 200Kg of directories delivered over the last 10 years and never looked at one of them - going online (for free) in every case.

 

There are far more relevant thing to vent your disgust at - like reverse-charge texts with no opt out, Reverse 0800 calls that require a mortgage to pay for should someone (other than the bill payer) answer and accept the call. Of course 192 don't want paper directories, and in much the same was as any other commercial entity wishes to ensure the take-up of their product or service. This is what commerce is.

 

I agree re DVLA. Like the electoral roll it is a compulsory database that one has to be on and the government should not sell it. With regards to scrapping the phone book, you may not use it, but I do. My 90 year-old grandmother certainly does. I recycle the old one and the last time I looked it was made from recycled materials anyway.

 

I have a dictionary in my house which I refer to on occasion to check spelling or grammar. It is not a bad thing because I do not use it every day. Perhaps if more of us used one, more of what one says would make sense.

 

As for texts, that has nothing to do with this thread.

[buzby]

Texts? The issue was being liable for something you have no control over.

 

Your dictionary will rarely (if ever) become inaccurate due to due to the passage of time. A phone directory is inaccurate from the day it is compiled, and before it is printed. Once printed, it becomes even more inaccurate, and increasingly so as time goes on.

 

The same cannot be said for the online versions - whether you look on the BT site, or that of 192.com. Both of which remain free.

[count orlok]

The information 192.com hold on me is at least 3 years out of date, maybe more. They have me as living at a house that no longer exists with a telephone number that is unobtainable, the people that are supposed to be living with me are not even on this continent, and according to them no one lives at my present address. I would rather not give them my correct details in order to get the incorrect one removed. Besides they won't be getting much repeat business giving out incoerrect details, chances are people will be demanding their money back.

[buzby]

You point being? The phone number is that on the OSIS database (a BT company). The folk living with you were no doubt there at the time with the info taken from the local council. I do believe they make more money from the historical data they hold... pretty much like the CRA's

[mr2mr2]

How are the CRA's 'put in their place'? Quite the opposite.

 

As for taking 192 to court - what have they done that is in breach of the Acts? It would be like you complaining the it is Google's fault for making available that story of your outer Mongolian indiscretion, yet it was the Katmandu Herald that actually published it. 192 is still an aggregated of information in the public domain. The data is still there whether they link to it or not, so wouldn't the better option to remove the source of the problem?

 

 

Sorry. I meant it to be. I think they should all be put in their places.

And i think the default should be , we have opted out... unless specifically requested opt in.