We NEVER gave them permission - 192.com

[Surfer01]

At no time did we give 192.com permission to list our names etc. Unfortunately to see what other details they have on us they require us to buy "credits" and there is no ways I am paying a tenner to see what details they have listed for us.

Surely this is a contravention under the Data Protection Act. Our telephone number is unlisted and our details are not available on the electoral roll.

What should we do regarding these morons who seem to think that they can do whatever they please with some one's details?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Send them a SAR?

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Surfer01]

Not sure what a SAR would tell me and it would cost £10 whereas I could buy the credits for £9.99 so doing a SAR doesn't make sense especially as they were never given permission to hold or publish my details in the first place.

Should I be contacting the Data Commissioner about this?

[ashmk]

I have the CD version of 192 dated upto 2008, if you want to pm me your name and town ill check what info is held on you and email you a screenshot.

[FlyboyAgain]

ashmk

 

PM sent also.

[buzby]

They do not require 'permission'. They became a licenced directory information supplier - and their original claim to fame was providing a geographical-based phone book, listing the telephone numbers of properties in STREET order. This was blocked (except for the security services), but they expanded to include data from Electoral Registers, Business Directories and other public data sources that are exempt. Also a reverse lookup directory was also blocked.

 

YOu can ask them to remove you, just by asking them, giving the details you wish taken out - BUT, this just removes their link, as the raw data will still exist on the public database behind it.

[Huff&Puff]

There's a lengthy thread on this here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/236913-192-com-people-finder.html

[FlyboyAgain]

Anybody got an up-to-date version of their disc?

[buzby]

They stopped publishing it ages ago - ther online service eventually replaced it.

[Surfer01]

Ask any DCA as they probably have the latest version.

[Surfer01]

They do not require 'permission'. They became a licenced directory information supplier - and their original claim to fame was providing a geographical-based phone book, listing the telephone numbers of properties in STREET order. This was blocked (except for the security services), but they expanded to include data from Electoral Registers, Business Directories and other public data sources that are exempt. Also a reverse lookup directory was also blocked.

 

YOu can ask them to remove you, just by asking them, giving the details you wish taken out - BUT, this just removes their link, as the raw data will still exist on the public database behind it.

 

If you make an application for an account, you are always asked if they have your permission to conduct a search and pass on details to a licenced CRA however with 192.com they never requested our permission which is in contravention of the DPA. We should not be requesting them to remove our data as they never had our permission to hold the data in the first place.

[buzby]

Nope - you've got it wrong, and at the first hurdle.

 

Of the data sources used by 192.com, none of these are from 'account applicants'. They use public sources that are freely available for use, and simply pulled them together and made them available because certain folk were willing to pay for it.

 

For your data to be removed, you contact BT, Electoral Register etc, but then the historical data still remains. I've been going geneology searches, and the Electoral Registers of 1948-56 gave me great insight into where the family moved, who was there and where they went. Too far back for 192 as they only stored details when the original data become searchable (rather than on paper).

 

So, I hate being an apologist for 192, but they do not need your permission as they are only re-processing they data, they do not provide it or modify it - they are simply an aggregator.

Edited March 4, 2010 by buzby

[FlyboyAgain]

Point taken, but noising them up will be worthwhile. I've just used their site for the first time, looking up a colleague's details; very interesting. Ok, they are, as you say, an aggregator, but they are making money from selling our details to God knows whom and that, to me, is wrong.

 

Why are you so abrupt with forumites, Buzby?

[Surfer01]

That is the way Buzby operates and most of us have learnt to accept it as generally Buzby offers good advice. Oh well I will send them a S10 request and complete a CO1.

[FlyboyAgain]

So I've noticed...........

[buzby]

I share your sentiments, but not the reasoning. You say that aggregators should not profit - but how do you make the leap that it is morally somehow wrong? Are you against them being profitable (or being able to profit) because they can? Isn't this anti-capitalism?

 

There are many fields where previously held information has become chargeable - you could search the Land Registry, Birth/Marriage/Deaths, Company Registrations previously for free. yet for one reason or another these are STILL deemed 'public' information - yet you won't see anything unless you pay someone for it. You can still check Directories and the ER for free (say, at a library) whilst 192.com will charge you for some elements of it.

 

I don't use credit, yet I am listed by a credit reference agency and cannot request that they cease processing my data, my wishes here are irrelevant. They will sell on my data to anyone they like, and have even searched out a way of making me pay for services that will 'track' my file - a file they created - to ensure it is correct. How clever is that?

 

Why are you so abrupt with forumites, Buzby?

 

Whilst it may appear so, the only time I've spotted this is where there is an inability to understand well-established norms, as I've been around long enough to see them evolve and note their effects. If I speculate, I'll say so, but not otherwise. So rather than watch others try to re-invent the wheel I cut to the chase. If offence is caused it is unintentional, unless I happen to be unjustly targeted, in which case my posts are invariably removed by mods.

[FlyboyAgain]

'I share your sentiments, but not the reasoning. You say that aggregators should not profit - but how do you make the leap that it is morally somehow wrong? Are you against them being profitable (or being able to profit) because they can? Isn't this anti-capitalism?'

 

Yes, it's wrong when someone profits from your personal details. It's a bit like a crook down the boozer selling your wife's jewelry that he nicked from your house while you were out.

 

Anti-capitalism? What on earth are you talking about,man??

[FlyboyAgain]

Why are you on this forum, Buzby? You may, perhaps, have given good advice to some, but from my experience with you, you seem to come across more gadfly than alturistic Cagger. You are also often an apologist for some of the rat-bags that Caggers are trying to retaliate against.

 

There's nothing wrong with people making an honest Pound, but from dishing out recycled personal data? Oh, come on! HAve a wee think about the recent Mossad sketch that was in the news and how easy it is to create a false identity around an innocent person; that's the issue here.

[buzby]

Anti-capitalism? What on earth are you talking about,man??

 

If you can't see the connection - I'm not about to teach you.

[buzby]

There's nothing wrong with people making an honest Pound, but from dishing out recycled personal data? Oh, come on! HAve a wee think about the recent Mossad sketch that was in the news and how easy it is to create a false identity around an innocent person; that's the issue here.

 

What are you going to complain about next? Gravestones in cemeteries? (Because it gives family details and you could use these to fabricate identities?)

 

So you're against recycling? Just personal data? The ICO is happy to allow it, and firms exist to exploit it because the market is there, either for the raw data or in some application that provides value added service?

 

Have a look at MyHousePrice.com here, you can (pay) and discover what your house - or your neighbours was sold for, who the mortgage was through and whether any legal inhibitions are on the property.

 

Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like it - DO something about it, stop bleating that it is terrible that firms can profit from it. Limit your exposure, do what you can to protect your interests, and play them at their own game.

[FlyboyAgain]

If you can't see the connection - I'm not about to teach you.

 

I never said I didn't; and I don't need taught from you, ok?

[buzby]

I never said I didn't; and I don't need taught from you, ok?

 

Heck. We agree on something.

[FlyboyAgain]

'Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like it - DO something about it, stop bleating that it is terrible that firms can profit from it. Limit your exposure, do what you can to protect your interests, and play them at their own game.'

 

You often use the above; got it pasted in a Notepad on your desktop, have you? You're also making a generalisation about 'recycling'. I don't give a monkey's what the InfoComm allows/permits unless it impinges on me, personally. Just because a public body 'allows' a practice doesn't mean you have to agree with it. If we all did then we would be no more than sheep and sites like this would have no need to exist.

 

Think about it and stop being a sh*t stirrer.

[buzby]

Really - care to list how many times I've used it?

 

Since you've not really added anything to the debate, apart from even more abiuse, stop being a pr*t at leave it at that.

[FlyboyAgain]

I haven't added anything to the debate because you keep detracting from it, boyo!

 

At what point did I level abuse at you? You're the abusive one, calling me a prat!

 

I'd sooner listen to the words of a madman than your advice. Do not quote me or comment on any of my posts on this forum ever again.