On a point of information individuals will only be able to opt-out of
certain uses of the full register e.g. marketing. Discussions are on-going
with the Home Office as to permitted uses of the full register. These are
certain, almost certain or likely to include the following
1. law enforcement
2. prevention of crime
3. prevention of fraud and money laundering
4. credit risk assessment
5. selectively for employment verification
6. selectively for forwarding of correspondence e.g. to contact victims
of pensions mis-selling.
The questions of identity verification in ecommerce transactions and
removing out-of-date names from lists(as opposed to the creation of lists)
is still under discussion.
Alasdair Warwood
PS apropos Doreen's original query - very sloppy practice on the part of
the company. the reason for using Voters roll based products is
1. speed of data capture -cutting down the cost of the call to the caller
and the called
2. accuracy of data capture
----------
> From: Paul Lightowlers <[log in to unmask]>
> To: 'Broom, Doreen' <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Use of Postcodes
> Date: 16 November 2000 15:00
>
> Doreen,
>
> Have you seen www.192.com ? The company you mention should have asked for
> your colleagues house number to narrow the search. Bingo, all they have
to
> do then is work out whether they're talking to a man or a woman and apply
> the relevant salutation.
>
> 192.com is pretty scary. Name, address, telephone number etc. Oh yes and
a
> handy little street map just in case the person trying to find you wants
to
> pay a personal visit. Perhaps 192 would like to publish data on when your
> house will be empty as well! ;->
>
> I would suggest that the company you mention is probably using a similar
> data set gleaned from the electoral roll. This will not be resolved until
> you are allowed to opt out of the 'for sale' register next year. But I
have
> been told that 192 get the printed version of the register (full version
> available in libraries, even after new legislation) and send it to India
to
> be keyed into a database (this is done twice to reduce errors).
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Lightowlers (Lead Business Analyst),
> Teignbridge District Council,
> Forde House,
> Newton Abbot,
> England,
> TQ12 4XX
>
> Tel. (01626) 361101 Fax. (01626) 334620
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Broom, Doreen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 16 November 2000 14:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Use of Postcodes
>
>
> All
> A colleague of mine had ordered some goods from a company - his order was
> taking longer than he had anticipated. He phoned the company up today -
> they asked him his postcode which he related to them. Anyway, the
company
> said "Are you Mr X" to which he said no and relayed his own name. The
> person the company named was in fact my colleague's next door neighbour
who
> in fact had recently died so I suppose you could say that it is not a
breach
> of the DP Act as it only relates to living individuals. Surely this
should
> be tightened up as a postcode covers 6 addresses and you can find out
> people's private business. The company should really have asked him his
> surname...In this instance it was not about a living individual but this
> sort of thing must happen all the time.
> Anyone else got any similar stories?
> Doreen Broom
> Data Administrator
> Scottish Borders Council
> Council HQ
> Newtown St.Boswells
> Melrose
> Borders TD6 0SA
>
> Tel: 01835 824000
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright.
> Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
> The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily
> be the views held by the Scottish Borders Council.
> _________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|