192.com people finder

[rockwell304]

Hi Teaboy,

 

Have you checked recently to see if your details are back on? Mine have reappeared three times over the past 18 months. Their reason is their systems trawl various sites including Companies House and automatically update information. They say they have no control over this - absolute rubbish spouted by the same surly, ignorant woman I spoke to on previous occasions!

 

I will follow your lead and include section 12 & 12a in a section 10 DPA notice.

[teaboy2]

Hi rockwell

 

Yeah i just check 2 weeks and just checked again now to make sure, and they still have not been put back on neither has my mothers for the same address either and my brother (who doesnt live here) has not had his details put back on either, but his details still show at his own address along with his wifes - though i did not request my brother and sistering laws details and address be removed, only mine, my mothers and my brothers name from mine and my mothers address, so that our address did not show up when people searched my brothers name.

 

So yeah so far they have complied fully with my request.

 

If they had no control over their automatic system then their system would not be in complience with the Data Protection Act Section 12 (Automated Decisions). It is clear that their response to you is absolute rubbish as clearly, the fact i used section 12 in my section 10 notice has resulted in them from not adding my data by automated means they are referring too. Such Software they use will have little things called Filters that can easily filter out a person details to prevent it being added

 

P.S. Don;t forget section 11 too, after all you do not want them selling your data of passing it onto marketing companies either.

[theghost]

Anyone had a response from the ICO about whether this is acceptable or not them?

 

Slight shoddy that you have to pay (fax or post) to get your details removed.

[rockwell304]

Well, these shysters are at it again! I am back on their listings despite repeated email requests to cease processing my data.

 

Should I raise a formal complaint with the ICO? Will it do any good?

[hillards]

Well, these shysters are at it again! I am back on their listings despite repeated email requests to cease processing my data.

 

Should I raise a formal complaint with the ICO? Will it do any good?

 

I would have sent a letter with a signed for delivery, rather than email.

 

As for complaining...

[lenny100]

i have complaind sevral times and all you get is its not their fault its the automed systems and were they get the infomation from, although they never state were they get all their info from.

[rockwell304]

This is the automated response I received from their so called customer services rep. As teaboy says, if they cannot control their trawling system then surely they are breaching the DPA. They also list innacurate information on me as they list someone unknown to us at our address. I'll send a DPA section 10,11 & 12 letter RD to their Chief Exec and see if this works!

 

Thank you for your email,

The data sources used on our website http://www.192.com are as follows;

* The UK Electoral Roll (2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011)

* The OSIS database (full listing of UK telephone numbers, not including ex directory)

* Business and Director Reports (provided by Dun&Bradstreet/Web Data)

* Land Registry data (© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of Land Registry.)

All this information is available in the public domain. The nature of the source and the volume of data dictate how we deal with removals. Individual’s data eg name, home address and telephone number (if not ex directory) will be given if listed on the UK Electoral Roll, OSIS database or as a director or listed executive of a company.

Electoral Roll

By law your local authority has to make the electoral register available for anyone to look at. The register is held at the local electoral registration office and some public buildings, such as libraries.

Until recently, any company, organisation or person could buy a copy of the register. The government has now changed the law so that every individual has some choice about who can buy details of your name and address. Under the changes there are now two versions of the register: the full version and the edited version. When you complete your electoral registration form each October you will be able to choose whether you want your details included on the edited register.

The full register has the names and addresses of everyone registered to vote. Anyone can look at it, but copies can only be supplied for certain purposes, such as elections and law enforcement. Credit reference agencies are also allowed to use the full register, but only to check your name and address if you are applying for credit and to help prevent money laundering. This means that we no longer have access to the complete electoral roll for use on our products.

We have always offered to remove individual’s details from the Electoral Roll upon completion of a CO1 form. Available at

http://www.192.com/support/downloads/C01.pdf

We have 21 days from the date that we receive the C01 form to remove it from the 192.com website.

OSIS (telephone numbers)

We are unable to remove telephone numbers as we receive a daily update direct from OSIS. If we remove the record it will reappear unless the record is removed at source. To remove a record the individual needs to contact their telecoms provider and request to go ex directory. To check to see if your details are on BT, please click on the following link - www.bt.com.

Directors Report

The Directors' and Shareholders' Database contains detailed information on over 2.3 million companies and 6 million directors and key contacts. It includes directors' home addresses and dates of birth. It also includes detailed financial information on companies from turnover to No. of Employees. Director and company reports can be downloaded online. Derived from a number of sources, from Companies House to telephone research, the business database is updated on a monthly basis.

Amendment of your Director Report

Current UK Law used to require directors and secretaries of companies, members of Limited Liability Partnerships and permanent representatives of overseas companies with a place of business in Great Britain, to supply their usual residential address for the public record, however since 1st October 2009 as a director you are able to protect your residential address from disclosure.

You are now able to protect your residential address by offering a service address in its place. For more information about the Companies Act 2006 please contact

www.companieshouse.gov.uk/act

Removal of a Directors Report

If you are at serious risk of violence or intimidation because of the activites of a company of which you are an officer, then you can apply under Section 1088 of the Companies Act 2006 for an address that is on the public record to be made unavailable for public inspection.

All details can be found in the Companies House guidance booklet GP7 - Restricting the disclosure of your address

(http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp7.shtml).

Specifically chapter 5 covers this topic in depth.

Family Records

Births, Marriages and Death records cannot be removed as these are public records that are taken from The General Register Office - https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp

I hope that this information has helped you understand our removals process more clearly however if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Service Team directly.

Kind Regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nadine Burrell

Customer Services

i-CD Publishing (UK) Ltd

 

[anti192]

Hello,

 

I've decided to register so that I could communicate with people who understand how frustrating it is to have a reckless company violate our rights to privacy.

The first time I contacted 192.com was in 2010. I sent them a form and they removed my details . 4 months later I googled my name and there they were for everyone to see...

A couple of months passed and I had to contact them again (they deleted my details), then again in february 2011 (they also deleted my details) and again in June 2011.

This time, they only replied to my first email in which they told me they had already removed the details. But the details are still there and they just keep ignoring my emails.

I also told them i'm tired of having to contact them every 4 months for them to delete my details.

 

I have opted out of the electoral roll, did the TPS and the email thingy which I forgot the name,etc.

No other website or company holds any personal info about myself. Only 192.com. Sooner or later the info might disseminate and I might not be able to control it.

I don't have a facebook account, linkedin, myspace or twitter. I'm an extremely private person. Don't want my name ,which is quite unusual, on the internet.

 

If any of you has a template letter for me to send to the ICO I would appreciate if you could share it as I don't even know where to start or what to say exactly.

 

Also, has anyone commenced legal proceedings against them?

 

Sorry for the rant.

This is driving me crazy.

 

thanks for reading

[anti192]

rockwell304, are you talking about zoe?

[judy woolf]

Having just received the electoral form from my local council, I noticed that this year the box to tick to not have your details sold on had not been completed. I phoned the council and spoke to them about this only to be told that they are no longer able to complete this box on behalf of residents. Apparently they have always done this previously to help people out, as they believed that if people had ticked the box once, not many people would then change their mind to have their details sold on. They told me that they the majority of councils had actually not been following the regulations for that specific box on the form, which should give people the choice yearly as to whether they want their details sold on. This seems a ridiculous regulation to me - if I've chosen once to not have my details sold on, I'm not likely to then decide I do.....! The person I spoke to was very helpful and agreed wholeheartedly with me that details shouldn't be sold on, and that they had fought very hard to try to persuade the powers that be at my local council to still fill in the box. It would appear that this has all come about following freedom of information requests from the Parliamentary Brief to all councils asking them if they will be going against the regulations and completing the box on behalf of the public. Having looked into the Parliamentary Brief and checking 192.com out, a couple of the people behind the reports about council's pre filling the box are connected to 192.com. It seems to me that 192.com are once again using back door methods to get more people's names and addresses.

 

My advice is to check your electoral form carefully and if the box doesn't have a tick in it already, make sure you tick it - I can see a lot of people, especially the elderly, being caught out through no fault of themselves or the councils, but the people behind Parliamentary Brief/192.com trying to name and shame councils, like my local one, who have been looking out for our interests and pre filling our previous request not to have our details sold on.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Our forms have always been blank as far back as I can remember

you have always had to opt out.

[theghost]

I got one of these last week and the boxes are blank - but to be fair they do make it bloody obvious what the box is there for and what happens if you dont tick it.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It comes down to the old adage '' IF ALL ELSE FAILS READ THE INSTRUCTIONS'''

[count orlok]

mine was ticked as was the postal vote box, thats the way i always have it so there was no change.

[WelshMam2009]

Having just received the electoral form from my local council, I noticed that this year the box to tick to not have your details sold on had not been completed.

 

I'm glad you raised this Judy as I posted my electoral form yesterday and noticed that the box hadn't been ticked as it normally is.

 

I though this strange, as the box has historically been ticked, but there was a notice underneath which said that you now had to opt out on an annual basis.

 

I do believe that, to date, councils have been respecting the rights of individuals not to have their personal information shared freely. Clearly there is big money in this and companies such as 192.com are hoping that we will omit to repeatedly opt out.

[rockwell304]

Well, these shysters are at it again! I am back on their listings despite repeated email requests to cease processing my data.

 

Should I raise a formal complaint with the ICO? Will it do any good?

 

Well...guess what, I'm back on their list yet again. The word apoplexy comes to mind!

 

They trawl the Companies House website every 4 - 6 weeks, I'm a director of a limited company, also a charitable trust, so they claim they obtain my details here. They also claim....they have no control over how they process my details (I wish I recorded this) as their system updates automatically from CH and other data sites. Well, as someone else mentioned here, if they have no control over how they process your data they must surely contravene the DPA.

 

Suggestions welcome as to how I can finally deal with these chancers!

[lenny100]

look like the only way to stop these is a court action to cement the rules once and for all, this company is finding ways to ignore the guidlines left right and center

[sillygirl1]

Complain to the Information Commissioners Office, you have given them the 'opt out' in clear terms. If they CANNOT control the data that they have then it is worthless in commercial terms - end of.

 

They (192.com) still have MY data incorrect against a former address and refuse to change it until I can give them the dates of birth of the unknown people linked to my address.... what a joke.

 

Remember this is a self appointed body and as such is not a government funded initiative, they already have a very poor image so these stories only harm their data analysis.

[Sahou]

My mother sent me an email today saying she had looked me up on 192.com (a website I had not ever heard of before) and it said I was living with eleven other people (in my two bed house) and had details of my address, phone number and how much I paid for my house.

 

She also said that when she looked herself up that it had her as living with her husband and my father who has been dead for eight years. I have sent 192.com a very strongly worded email about this as it is a complete invasion of our privacy and misuse of our information. We hear every day that our information is precious and that we need to watch for people trying to gain information on us to use fraudulently and yet here is a website that is giving away information it doesn't own.

 

I am on the MPS, TPS, opted out of the boxes on the Electoral Roll so my info shouldn't show up and an x-directory with BT and the PhoneBook and still my information is on this website in the free section (and also the so called "Premium" section where someone can pay just 35p to find out everything about me)!

 

I have sent a rather strongly worded email to 192.com asking them how they were allowed to use my information and asking them to take me (and my deceased father) off their list. If they can't give me a satisfactory answer tomorrow (and remove me and my deceased father from their records) I will contact the ICO as sillygirl1 has said. I am also going to fill out a C01 form and fax it to the ASAP.

 

Thank you for your advice everyone - I cannot begin to describe how angry I am at this!

[Victoria Begum]

Hi all I am new here and my story is similar like all of you. I am not happy at all about sites like 192.com which collate my staggering information from several different databases and then without my consent sell it to god knows who?

 

After clicking on about 192.com on the top right hand side corner of the 192.com I came across Privacy Policy

 

Right at the bottom of this Privacy Policy page you will see TRUSTe . Amazingly 192.com Ltd states that they are licensee of the TURSTe Privacy Program. When I click on TRUSTe and submit the 192's URL it says

 

The URL .192 .com does not belong to a TRUSTe licensee.

 

Am I doing something wrong here or 192.com is just bunch of clever morons?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Victoria Begum
spelling mistake.

[Victoria Begum]

After filling and sending C01 Form(recorded delivery) and a polite letter and 2 emails my information is deleted, but god knows for how long as according to previous people they tend to reappear after few months. But now when I Google my self it leads straight to my partners name and our full address and phone number even though we are ex-directory for years.

 

Once again I will urge all of you to visit the 192 site and check Privacy Policy and report them to TRUSTe site please.

[Victoria Begum]

When I sent an online message, Zoe from 192 replied, she surely is working for 192.com for quite a while now, as her name is mentioned in the earlier posts which date backs to 2009.

If 192.com is such a safe sitehow come their staffs are so reluctant to use their surnames in their replies?

[citizenB]

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

 

Just bringing this forward. Rockwell mentioned the first link a few days ago .. But it seems it was already on the thread.

[phoenix11]

Thanks to DX - I had no idea this was here but I shall give it a go to get my details removed.

 

They've only just been added, well, within the last few months, so not sure what's going on there.

 

Despite the comments at the beginning of this thread (and yes, I did start reading from page 1 at first), the issue is that we should be able to stop such intrusion if we want.

 

Whilst it's 'useful' when someone wants to find out everything about another person, it's never so nice when it's us being 'stalked'.

 

We all managed to live for thousands of years without this need to have everything exposed to every one - so on the balance of things, I really feel this kind of personal information harvesting should be banned - somehow!

 

It is not necessary - by all means have information available on request, for a fee, as appropriate from specific organisations.

 

But - for example - to actively encourage snooping on a person by adding all kinds of links to their name, such as their Amazon account etc, is going too far.

 

The assumption that we are all gagging to hang our private parts out of the windows for people to oggle and drool over is really offensive.

 

If we want to do it, then that's up to the individual. If we don't, we and our privacy should be respected.

[citizenB]

Thanks to DX - I had no idea this was here but I shall give it a go to get my details removed.

 

They've only just been added, well, within the last few months, so not sure what's going on there.

 

Despite the comments at the beginning of this thread (and yes, I did start reading from page 1 at first), the issue is that we should be able to stop such intrusion if we want.

 

Whilst it's 'useful' when someone wants to find out everything about another person, it's never so nice when it's us being 'stalked'.

 

We all managed to live for thousands of years without this need to have everything exposed to every one - so on the balance of things, I really feel this kind of personal information harvesting should be banned - somehow!

 

It is not necessary - by all means have information available on request, for a fee, as appropriate from specific organisations.

 

But - for example - to actively encourage snooping on a person by adding all kinds of links to their name, such as their Amazon account etc, is going too far.

 

The assumption that we are all gagging to hang our private parts out of the windows for people to oggle and drool over is really offensive.

 

If we want to do it, then that's up to the individual. If we don't, we and our privacy should be respected.

 

What !!!