192.com people finder

[buzby]

Agreed, that would be nice - but as we know, it didn't happen that way and there's no way to push the toothpase back into the tube now...

[mr2mr2]

i just wish there was a way to take CRAs all of them to court.

as there is nothing written in law about the 6 year thing.

then also people like 192.com for selling OUR info on.

 

If there is a public domain clause like the CRAs use...

Let individual companies hunt the info, if its easy available and destroy the CRA.

 

i hate these data snoops

[buzby]

Last point first - 192 only sell on the information because the business model ALLOWS them to. All the databases work this way, it works because there are people prepared to pay for it, and it becomes a commodity.

 

As for the CRA's and 6 years - we know the reason for this. It was the COURTS that decided on 6 years for judicial defaults (CCJ's) to be retained on the register of judgements.

 

The CRA's were told they could retain info for an unspecified 'reasonable' time - so bear in mind they want to maximise the data they hold, the longest period is the one that is best (for them). The look to see what the courts do, and they have 6 years so that 'must' be reasonable - and this was the time frame that the ICO decided to allow. On a slight tangent, why else do you think CRA's used the term 'default'...? It gives more credibility than if they don't - a pseudo-judiciary, if you will.

[mr2mr2]

its just a shame we all are at the mercy of a private company.

[count orlok]

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

 

I didn't think that information from 3 years ago would be any good for a DCA or their ilk. Personally I would rather these people did not have my info, but if they must I'd rather it was info that was no good to anybody. I honestly can't see why anybody would want that info, it can't be used to haras or contact me. My phone number has always been ex-directory, but I had given it to all my creditors, when i moved i told them my new address but not the phone number.

 

I glad I didn't because one hears all these stories of how they drive people to dispair. Anybody who i want to phone me know it. If i wanted people from my past to be able to find me i would register with freinds re-united or such.

[buzby]

The historical data is worth money. You can search for current numbers FoC. I have put in place a virtual phone number I give to all but the closest friend who get my real number (which is unlisted).

 

I still get random diallers, but they just want to sell to anyone - who I am is irrelevant.

[lickthewallfatboy]

well,as expected,Paul Goggins doesn't give a stuff about you and me being compromised

 

letter back via my MP

 

basically,"tough" is the gist of it

[PosterMeerkat]

Hi

I am new to CAG but they are my knight in shining armour already. I came across the 192.com and I am absolutely mortified of the info available. Can anyone tell me where I will find Section 10 Form/Letter. Thanks.

[buzby]

You'll find it here;

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/583-letter-to-request-the-halt-on-the-processing-of-your-data

 

However, for 192 they only link existing web information and do not hold data in the way s10 requires.

Edited May 24, 2010 by buzby

[steven4064]

Buzby

 

Thay will still remove the links if you send them a s10 letter, though. I did and they did.

[JonCris]

Buzby

 

Thay will still remove the links if you send them a s10 letter, though. I did and they did.

 

Correct Personal data does NOT have to be private data. Even that data which is already in the public domain is still personal data & you can still require them to cease processing it which will mean almost certainly mean their removing it from THEIR data base

[buzby]

And how useful is that? That's like closing one library, and all anyone needs to do is go to another!

[JonCris]

And how useful is that? That's like closing one library, and all anyone needs to do is go to another!

 

The point is that sites like these collate all the info in one place making it much easier for your personal data to be revealed & put to dishonest use ie ID theft

[buzby]

I'm aware of this - At the moment if you drive past me in your car, I can by entering the VRM into my phone, find out whether it is the correct make, model, colour, engine size. Legally.

 

Now, libraries provide the same type of service - overlooking online access, you can check the Voters Roll, Valuation register, Phone Book, third party directories and discover all you want. 192.com came to prominence when their scanning of phone books allowed them to provide a reverse directory - where a street could be searched, and the phones at each address known. This was until someone said this wasn;t 'right', and this service was publicly withdrawn.

 

So we have the unusual situation that the data is out there, but only certain types of compilation are allowed. Surely this is nonsensical? Either it should be out there, or it shouldn't? Id 192 have the knowledge to pull all the different strands together, why should they not be allowed to?

 

Heck, Experian, Equifax and Call Credit, as well as a few others do it too - just pay the money, join the club and you're in and can start searching.

 

The point is lost on me if you think it is OK for them to do it, but because 192 is more easily accessible, what IT does is somehow more reprehensible? Let's have a level playing field.

[steven4064]

I don't agree Buzby - the sum of the personal data available on 192 is greater than it's parts. I know that all the data is available somewhere or other but at least people have to go look for it. Using 192 they could (can't now) find my address, DOB and my mother's maiden name - three out of the 4 security checks my bank insists I have. And they could in principle get that info for thousands of people. It would be more of an effort without 192.com

[buzby]

But don't Experian hold this too...? They're online. Why are you not asking them for removal from there?

 

I've never given my bank my DoB, Mothers Maiden name or information I deem to be personal to me. If you;re old enough to remember there used to be boxes to tick that said "Over 21" then "Over 18" is a case in point. It was the CRAs who drove the need for a DoB, so they could make the database work. What you are complaining about, is that YOU voluntarily provide your DoB to people simply by asking for it. Now why did you do this? I don;t, I have different DoB's, Middle Initials, differend Maiden Names, BECAUSE with a little care, they only want to use it as as an identifier. Providing you provide the correct answers, you;ve passed the secutiy checks and you carry on as before. The beauty of this is, no single person/bank/ supplier actually knows your genuine information, and if you DO have to provide it for a genuine (rather than frivolous) purpose, you can do so.

[steven4064]

My bank insist on that data for telephone and internet banking to prove my identity. Unfortunately, 3 out of 4 items could be got from 192. Experian do not hold those items AFAIK. And of course, no one knows the 4th piece of the puzzle.

[buzby]

This could be a code word that you have to supply a few digits of - and as you say, 192 won;t hold this, so the bank wouldn't pass muster as you 'got most of it right' - anyone trying it with my ever-changing data would be hard pressed to get anything other than my name right!

[steven4064]

The bank often don't ask for all the info. I reported a debit card missing last week and they only asked for my address and DOB - both pieces of info that would have been available from 192.com

[JonCris]

I don't care buzby The 'others' you mention should also be more tightly regulated but unfortunately the ICO is a joke

[JonCris]

Also by allowing the privatisation of data farming & distribution the government (who can access it at will) remove it from proper public scrutiny whilst still being it's main beneficiary ............result ...........fewer accusations of being big brother

[buzby]

The bank often don't ask for all the info. I reported a debit card missing last week and they only asked for my address and DOB - both pieces of info that would have been available from 192.com

 

So - dont you see that by giving your REAL DoB trhis could be construed as being 'reckless'? Since I never use the same DoB twice (Simpoly record a variable 6 digit number for each supplier that needs it, that *COULD* be a DoB, anyone knowing my DoB wouldn;t be in any better a position.

 

Incidentally, where to you think these firms GET your DOB from? Only because you disclosed it in the first place. They don't go to the source (BMD) and verify that it is correct. It seems that unusual to complain about it being misused, when the complainant was the original discloser.

Edited May 26, 2010 by buzby

[lenny100]

This site and others like it have also a lot more sinister uses than ID cloneing, via this site my wifes Ex who has a history of violance found out the address we had moved to on advice of the police, even though we were not on any widely published data, as they had pulled the infomation from "Other published adress and name databases" as they told us , and our laison oficer did her nut when she found out and also told them to remove her details and ley her office know that their personal details were also on display. A lot of these people are active police officers who work on very sensitive cases!!!!!

[JonCris]

When you give your details to one firm/agency its not giving carte blanch to everyone even if it is on a public register these other firms/agencies still need your informed consent to process it

[buzby]

When you give your details to one firm/agency its not giving carte blanch to everyone even if it is on a public register these other firms/agencies still need your informed consent to process it

 

You wish! Try that with GoCompare and the multiplicity of similar services. By giving your details ONCE, it is like putting a full page ad in a natonal newspaper. They ALL process it. Neither can you opt- out, as an intermediary, they need your OK to provide their services.