Updated GRO

BigCon · 29-08-2014 8:19pm

mod9maple wrote: »

Aren't all the decision makers on their hols?

For a month?

Jellybaby1 · 29-08-2014 8:27pm

Or more!

rxan90 · 31-08-2014 6:24am

Words can't even describe how saddened I am that they took all that away before I even had a chance to know about it! How useful it would have been, up to the present day (!) to fill in the blanks on my tree. I can only hope that by some miracle, this commissioner will sod off and let the records return FULLY and uncensored back to where they belong. Grrrrr.

rxan90 · 31-08-2014 6:33am

Actually, why IS it a problem that it lists births deaths and marriages up to the present day in the first place? I noticed that on the ITV show 'Long Lost Family', the researches are able to go somewhere and type names of people who are very much (usually) alive and well and find the records. Why is this not a problem in the UK but IS here? Billy Hawkes I hate, hate, HATE you!

KildareFan · 31-08-2014 9:54am

It's seen as a data protection issue. A lot of banks & insurance companies use your mother's maiden name and your date of birth for security questions. If these details become readily available, they'll have to start asking questions with answers which are more difficult to find out - like what's the name of your first dog, or your favourite teacher, or the result you got in Irish in the leaving cert or whatever...

I'm lamenting that I didn't jump faster when all the information was out there.

Hermy · 31-08-2014 9:58am

I do wonder why it is that Ancestry can provide UK birth, marriage and death records up to about 2005 but we can't do the same. But I don't blame Billy Hawkes for any of this - he is just doing his job. The blame lies solely with those at irishgenealogy.ie who didn't do their homework before putting up the records.

But I remain as frustrated as the rest at the absence of these records, as when presented as they were online they allowed me to make findings that would have been nigh on impossible by just visiting the GRO in Werburgh Street.

pedroeibar1 · 31-08-2014 10:49am

Billy Hawkes has been a career civil servant and in fairness is one of the very best from that area. He is covering Data Comm’s / taxpayers’ collective a$$.

Simply, the law requires considerable protection of personal data and data holders & processors owe a duty of care to data subjects. Hawkes is just doing his job before somebody with a notion and a hungry solicitor issues proceedings for ‘injury’. E.g. reputational damage and mental distress. We have already seen proceedings under DP against the State to halt publication of details in ‘wills’ held in the Probate Office, the outcome of which closed off much of that info except to the direct beneficiaries.

My GUESS is that the Data C saw / were told about a potential data breach and took pre-emptive action and/or on the advice of the Attorney General pulled the plug. Will the decision be reversed soon? No. It will take considerable political support to do it properly (possibly legislation) or a bad outcome short-cut might be to implement the 100 year rule, as in the Census.

The fact that hard copy personal data remains available in the GRO is an example of the total lack of joined-up thinking at State level. However, that and the fact that much of the information is already in the public domain (e.g. BMDs in newspapers) could/should be used in the decision process. But, still stuck with lots of useless urls, I'm not holding my breath.

CeannRua · 31-08-2014 5:04pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Billy Hawkes has been a career civil servant and in fairness is one of the very best from that area. He is covering Data Comm’s / taxpayers’ collective a$$.

Simply, the law requires considerable protection of personal data and data holders & processors owe a duty of care to data subjects. Hawkes is just doing his job before somebody with a notion and a hungry solicitor issues proceedings for ‘injury’. E.g. reputational damage and mental distress. We have already seen proceedings under DP against the State to halt publication of details in ‘wills’ held in the Probate Office, the outcome of which closed off much of that info except to the direct beneficiaries.

My GUESS is that the Data C saw / were told about a potential data breach and took pre-emptive action and/or on the advice of the Attorney General pulled the plug. Will the decision be reversed soon? No. It will take considerable political support to do it properly (possibly legislation) or a bad outcome short-cut might be to implement the 100 year rule, as in the Census.

The fact that hard copy personal data remains available in the GRO is an example of the total lack of joined-up thinking at State level. However, that and the fact that much of the information is already in the public domain (e.g. BMDs in newspapers) could/should be used in the decision process. But, still stuck with lots of useless urls, I'm not holding my breath.

Identity theft is probably a greater danger than reputational damage or mental distress etc. Using the records that were online, it was easy to plot whole families with minimal information. I don't think it's lack of joined-up thinking that's the big issue here; it's that BMD records have long been public records by legislation. There's a difference between BMD records in newspapers and their availability from the GRO in that named individuals themselves are putting in the newspaper notices.

I'm probably one of the few here that think this but I don't agree with the availability online of recent information, or that BMD records should be public records. Australia has restrictions in place for these types of records. Seems more appropriate in this day and age, than a free for all: http://genealogy.about.com/od/vital_records/p/australia.htm

L1011 · 31-08-2014 6:06pm

Any organisation still using mother's maiden name or DOB as security features needs to be severely dealt with by the DPC primarily because it has never been secure information.

pedroeibar1 · 31-08-2014 9:30pm

CeannRua wrote: »

Identity theft is probably a greater danger than reputational damage or mental distress etc.

IMO identity theft from GRO data is not an issue because the data available is not sufficient and that type of info is more readily available elsewhere. How could the State get the CLDS to take down my (or your) data from a server located in Utah? Add the fact that the records in the GRO are nothing compared to what is more widely available on Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites.
It’s all changed nowadays, anything financial requires photo ID,up-to-date proofs of residence from utilities companies, etc., mainly because of anti-moneylaundering rules. For travel the order of the day is biometrics, smartchip passports driven by agencies such as Homeland Security.
Mother’s maiden name, (like first dog/teacher/car’s name, etc.) are memory jogs to double-check an existing email address to reset a password.

CeannRua · 31-08-2014 10:19pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

IMO identity theft from GRO data is not an issue because the data available is not sufficient and that type of info is more readily available elsewhere. How could the State get the CLDS to take down my (or your) data from a server located in Utah? Add the fact that the records in the GRO are nothing compared to what is more widely available on Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites.
It’s all changed nowadays, anything financial requires photo ID,up-to-date proofs of residence from utilities companies, etc., mainly because of anti-moneylaundering rules. For travel the order of the day is biometrics, smartchip passports driven by agencies such as Homeland Security.
Mother’s maiden name, (like first dog/teacher/car’s name, etc.) are memory jogs to double-check an existing email address to reset a password.

I wasn't suggesting at all that GRO data alone could be used in identity theft, merely that it can be used in conjunction with other data for this purpose. More widely though, regardless of what GRO data might be used for, whether for nefarious purposes or straight genealogy, it is still personal data and I don't agree that there should be a public right of access to very recent information.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning CLDS and Utah? Do they have and supply full details of civil records? Again, Facebook and LinkedIn etc will normally (acquaintances posting silly stuff aside) only have information about people that that they have posted themselves, and imo there is an onus on people to be responsible with their data if this is a concern of theirs. I've been asked by Bank of Ireland on the phone loads of times what my mother's maiden is as a 'security question' (their words, not mine).

pedroeibar1 · 31-08-2014 11:09pm

Not really worth arguing over church/civil records in CLDS. The latter are there but to the nearest Quarter. Input your details here and see what you come up with

Age/name/address details are out there on the web, all one needs is how/where to look. Ireland is rebuilding the economy on its IT image, it is not going to try to close down or block offshore servers that hold data on Irish citizens. Anyway, what is posted on servers outside the State is more or less untouchable, it took more than four years for lawyers to close down ‘ratemysolicitor’ and that was successful only because the people alleged to be behind it were based in Ireland.

If I want to build a fictitious profile for myself all Idon't even need Internet access, tho' access makes it easier. But getting a bank account for that identity is quite a different matter. It can be done without GRO access if you know how, but easy it ain’t.
Branch banking in Ireland sadly is no criterion for that industry, it is now staffed by yellowpacks, they have no idea. Up the line they are not much better.

rxan90 · 31-08-2014 11:35pm

It's just a great shame that god-knows-how-much money went into digitising and sorting those records, they went up, hurrah great and then taken away some three weeks later. I hope the government sticks to its guns (the response from the lady in the department seems positive, ie she doesn't believe any data was breached or whatever) and returns it soonish (in full ... fingers crossed)

CeannRua · 01-09-2014 7:22am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not really worth arguing over church/civil records in CLDS. The latter are there but to the nearest Quarter. Input your details here and see what you come up with

Age/name/address details are out there on the web, all one needs is how/where to look. Ireland is rebuilding the economy on its IT image, it is not going to try to close down or block offshore servers that hold data on Irish citizens. Anyway, what is posted on servers outside the State is more or less untouchable, it took more than four years for lawyers to close down ‘ratemysolicitor’ and that was successful only because the people alleged to be behind it were based in Ireland.

If I want to build a fictitious profile for myself all Idon't even need Internet access, tho' access makes it easier. But getting a bank account for that identity is quite a different matter. It can be done without GRO access if you know how, but easy it ain’t.
Branch banking in Ireland sadly is no criterion for that industry, it is now staffed by yellowpacks, they have no idea. Up the line they are not much better.

I wasn't attempting to 'argue' about the CLDS. I was simply asking why you mentioned it.

If this is what Ireland is doing viz 'rebuilding the economy on its IT image,' I for one would like to know that data security and privacy controls are given centre stage, where this is appropriate. This is surely a global issue...

Hermy · 15-09-2014 10:17am

Finally an update.

desbrook · 15-09-2014 10:29am

Not anything like the Alladin's Cave we had for those few divine weeks but better than nothing . Once again I'm so happy those weeks existed and I was able for find a whole set of 2nd cousins who only lived two miles away . They are delighted too and love the info I have uncovered .

Shouldn't your right to access this data and uncover living relations be protected ???

Ps - Dear financial institutions and utility companies - if you are really saying someone's DOB and mother's maiden name are adequate to combat identity fraud it's you guys who are the fraudsters . Ridiculous .

pinkypinky · 15-09-2014 12:41pm

I'm pleased with Claire's update but it is a disappointment in general.
All we really gain from the whole thing is 6 years of deaths, and mother's maiden names for a 13 period at the started of the 20th century.

Familysearch (and the copy databases at FMP and Ancestry) still has everything up to 1958. I wonder will they be made to take it down?

L1011 · 15-09-2014 12:51pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

All we really gain from the whole thing is 6 years of deaths, and mother's maiden names for a 13 period at the started of the 20th century.

And matched marriages for a period, which is a huge help also.

Jellybaby1 · 15-09-2014 7:57pm

I'm happy to hear there is something stirring at long last. I've got my fingers crossed it will be soon though its not really anything like we had for those two weeks. Hard to cross fingers whilst drumming them!

Jellybaby1 · 15-09-2014 8:25pm

Check it out guys

http://www.irishgenealogy.ie/en/irish-records-what-is-available/church-records

I'm getting an error for the civil records

Edit: Now I'm getting tetchy. They have a link for discussion groups and blogs, the first one I clicked (http://www.bi-gen.blogspot.ie/ ) closed down in 2013.

L1011 · 15-09-2014 8:34pm

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Check it out guys

http://www.irishgenealogy.ie/en/irish-records-what-is-available/church-records

I'm getting an error for the civil records

They've just restored the links, not the actual search interface. Inverse of last time - the search went before the links did.

Would suggest its a few days max if not maybe tomorrow.

MargeS · 17-09-2014 12:11pm

Will the abridged records on irishgeneology.ie have any more information than FamilySearch or RootsIreland. (I'm burning through credits on RootsIreland

)

pinkypinky · 17-09-2014 12:30pm

Why are you spending money on Rootsireland? Is it just for speed (since you can get some civil records on there)?

There will only be a bit more available on the irishgenealogy.ie version. As I said above:

All we really gain from the whole thing is 6 years of deaths, and mother's maiden names for a 13 period at the started of the 20th century.

MYOB then reminded us: And matched marriages for a period, which is a huge help also.

MargeS · 17-09-2014 1:06pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

Why are you spending money on Rootsireland? Is it just for speed (since you can get some civil records on there)?

To get names of parents. FamilySearch doesn't always have parent names so it's easier to cross check across possible siblings.

shanew · 17-09-2014 1:56pm

The parents names you see on some FamilySearch records are generally from their extracted civil birth record collection. These include partial details for many, but not all, civil births between 1864 and about 1881. The years after 1881 would be from their index records which give the more basic details - name, registration district etc.

pinkypinky · 17-09-2014 2:16pm

I'd never use Rootsireland unless there was no other option. I feel they're very mercenary.

Ponster · 17-09-2014 4:11pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'd never use Rootsireland unless there was no other option. I feel they're very mercenary.

And I think that it's a wonderful service. Each to their own

Hermy · 17-09-2014 4:31pm

Ponster wrote: »

And I think that it's a wonderful service.

It's an expensive service that only provides transcripts which you only have access to for a finite period of time.

L1011 · 17-09-2014 4:54pm

RootsIreland is horribly over-priced, mercenary in ensuring you pay to see what's on the transcript and has zero ability to see the image to see if the transcript is made a mess of.

The extra years of deaths should be rolling every January if this is done right, e.g. we'll get 1964 (or 65 depending which way they work it) in January 15, ditto extra years of maiden names and matched marriages as appropriate.

Ponster · 17-09-2014 5:32pm

Hermy wrote: »

It's an expensive service that only provides transcripts which you only have access to for a finite period of time.

It's half the price compared to getting a normal photocopy cert and the point about having them for a limited amount of time is rubbish really considering that you have 2 years to note the details.

I agree that a photocopy will sometimes give you more info and it removes the doubt that there was something missed in the transcription but there are often cases where you just don't need the photocopy.

After 217 purchases I've saved a load of money rather than getting the photocopies.

Updated GRO

Comments