Electoral Lists 1937-1964 taken down

Mollymoo19

Anyone hear why the Dublin city electoral rolls (1937-1964) have been taken down? or, if access is to be restored in the future? I used them only last week without any problems. The 1908-1915 lists remain, so I hope it's not a 'privacy' issue. These lists have been most helpful.

L1011

I'd be almost certain its a trumped up privacy issue. These have been available to view in person forever, just like the registration indices - and without the charge the registration indices have.

They were unfortunately of little help to me with my mostly Dublin County Council residing family but if you had a city family or were trying to work down a tree to the current day, etc they could have been invaluable. Back to needing to go to Pearse Street it is...

pinkypinky

Hmm, will have to look into it. The modern electoral register is online too so I don't know why that would be a privacy issue. 1964 is a long time ago.

Hermy

Whatever next???

Coolnabacky1873

Yup.

Emailed Dublin City Archive and got this response:

"Thank you for your e-mail. We were obliged by the Data Protection Commission to take the database down.
I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you but it is outside our control."

Absolutely Crazy. As pointed out above, I can check the current day register for any county council in Ireland at http://checktheregister.ie/

pinkypinky

I think the DPC are out to get genealogists! Glad I took the time to investigate all my Dublin ancestors on that database in the past.

Is it still accessible in the reading room, I wonder? I have emailed to ask that and also to find out if there's a way to appeal it.

The youngest people on that register would be 73 now, so the vast majority are likely dead.

Coolnabacky1873

pinkypinky wrote: »

Is it still accessible in the reading room, I wonder?

Yes, the same email said the database would be available in the reading room.

pinkypinky

Just to add: DCLA did make representations to try reversing the decision but DPC said it would be likely to "cause distress to living persons".

I feel a strongly worded letter coming on.

Mollymoo19

It justs gives the address of adults 50++ years ago. What kind of egit could find that distressing?

panchosanza

Online public-access databases are vulnerable to web-scraping. There are ways to mitigate that but you need to hire IT people to implement and certify them; easier and cheaper to just take the database offline. Best-case scenario is they are only offline temporarily while the IT people are beefing them up; but I wouldn't hold my breath.

pinkypinky

I don't see what use it would be to those with malicious intent to know where someone's grandparents lived 50-80 years ago.

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

I don't see what use it would be to those with malicious intent to know where someone's grandparents lived 50-80 years ago.

Of course it has a use !;)
Just image the havoc that could be caused by retirement clubs of octogenarian web-hackers scraping address data to gain several old age pensions. Hordes of Zimmer-framed individuals thronging the counters at Social Welfare centres demanding cash - the DPC views that as a serious security risk because it could create mayhem.:D:D:D

pinkypinky

Claire Santry's report on the matter:

http://www.irishgenealogynews.com/2016/08/data-protection-concerns-force-dublin.html?m=1

shanew

as far as I know for most areas, you need to already know a full name & address to check the current register, which is probably why it passes data-protection

Jellybaby1

From Claire Santry's blog:

"As I understand it, this instance of the DPC getting involved in the removal of online access to records has come about rather more organically than the last, which saw online availability of the General Register Office's birth, marriage and death indexes seriously curtailed in July 2014. That earlier occasion came about as the result of a complaint from one person with a vested interest in the records being kept offline."

I would seriously love to know who that one person is! :mad:

spurious

I'm loathe to mention it in case someone sets the DPA on them, but a certain red coloured directory is available online for a couple of 'recent' years, 1969 and 1986 (I think).

Jellybaby1

My brain can't work out 'red directory' at the moment.

spurious

Thom's.

pinkypinky

Shush!

I thought of listing other things in my email objecting but decided I didn't want to give them further ammunition.

L1011

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

From Claire Santry's blog:

"As I understand it, this instance of the DPC getting involved in the removal of online access to records has come about rather more organically than the last, which saw online availability of the General Register Office's birth, marriage and death indexes seriously curtailed in July 2014. That earlier occasion came about as the result of a complaint from one person with a vested interest in the records being kept offline."

I would seriously love to know who that one person is! :mad:

I can take a guess, to be honest. there are various Firms that migHt have reasons to reduce access to Files, I think.

spurious wrote: »

Thom's.

I assumed this: http://www.redbook.ie/index.php which used to be thrown in through peoples doors in the old days and now appears to be online only.

Jellybaby1

spurious wrote: »

Thom's.

I'm an eejit. Of course!

pinkypinky

Woohoo! Coverage in the Irish Times letters' page.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/tourism-and-data-protection-1.2758219

pinkypinky

Ahem.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/data-protection-gone-mad-1.2759499

pinkypinky

Steven Smyrl has a good opinion piece this morning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/removal-of-dublin-electoral-database-unwarranted-1.2763459

I like his argument about the people who gave their data to the electoral register canvasser never expecting it to be kept private.

Unfortunately for balance, there's also a negative letter:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/data-protection-and-electoral-registers-1.2763339

Jellybaby1

So presumably, if anyone has an old telephone directory, they will come and ask for it back! What next will we be hit with? History howareyah! :rolleyes:

Hermy

And what about the existing phone book? Surely that has to go too!!

Jellybaby1

Hermy wrote: »

And what about the existing phone book? Surely that has to go too!!

Yikes! Shush will ya! The walls have ears. :cool:

pinkypinky

Another letter today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/data-protection-and-an-informed-society-1.2765912

pedroeibar1

Odd letter that. Hard to know if the writer is for or agin the DPC . From reading Mr. Smyrl's opinion piece and what is posted on this thread, I'd add that no organization receiving an ‘advice’ from a powerful regulatory body has either the desire, skills, time or funds to debate the issue and receive that ‘advice’ as a command and simply 'shuts down' the site in question. Bullyboy tactics!

pedroeibar1

And the row smoulders on..........
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/research-and-data-protection-1.2768512

Hermy

I think it's striking the gulf that exists between the UK and Ireland when it comes to making data available.

One can view UK civil birth and marriage indexes up to 2005 and civil death indexes up to 2013.
Electoral registers are available from 2002 to 2014 and will calendars up to 1995.

In the meantime our data commissioner is worried about an electoral register from 50 years ago!

Why is this so? Why the secrecy? Is it to do with our relatively small population size? Is there safety [anonymity] in numbers for those in the UK? Or is it just an Irish thing?

Not too long ago we were being promised unfettered on line access to GRO records, and while that was never likely to happen, you'd now be left worrying about what the data commissioner will target next!

pinkypinky

Was that your letter complaining about the telephone directory, Hermy?

You make really valid points about the differences between here and the UK but let's keep this thread for talking about the DPC and the electoral registers. Thanks.

Hermy

It was not I but I do think the point about the telephone directory - though made in jest - perfectly highlights the farce that this is.

Jellybaby1

I think it's really an Irish thing. I have long been of the opinion that there are too many secrets in Ireland. Yes, we have a small population, and what happens in the newspapers today we are assured we know someone who knows someone who knows.....etc., connected with the stories. I have said it before here, it beggars belief that a country that depends on its history for tourism, and uses it so shamelessly when it wants to, is relentlessly burying it. Who is complaining and more importantly, why?

pedroeibar1

I suggest that it is not about ‘burying’ history, it is about an overly-narrow interpretation of the law. It’s all rather ‘Jesuitical’ – the DPC would say that the phone directory contains those who subscribed and in completing the application for entry gave permission to have details published (hence ‘ex-directory’). Same with insurance applications – on every proposal form you give consent for your details to be stored/shared. The same with sites such as Facebook and ‘LinkedIn’ (where incidentally the DPC has published her own CV!) But using that ‘permission’ logic, why not ban Thoms as nobody is asked by them for permission? …and why should there be a fee for ex-directory in the phonebook when it appears to be a basic right?

Looking at the electoral rolls, it is easy to do the sums to get an idea of the number of people who COULD be upset. The oldest people on the 1937 roll probably were 87, so born about 1850. About 60,000 were born on average yearly since then, so that is almost 6 million births up to 1943 (when the youngest on the roll were born.) With few exceptions anyone born before 1916 is dead, so discount the total by 4 million, leaving 2 million. Discount that figure by the average mortality rate between 1916 and 1943 and the figure for the ‘living’ is 400k maximum, and probably closer to half thet figure when emmigration is factored in.. So about 3 to 6% of those whose names and ‘dated’ addresses on the rolls are still alive. So how many 73+ year-olds really care anymore about keeping their age a secret?

I don’t have a problem with a role for a DPC, but the role/actions taken must be commensurate with the public good. It is a waste of public funds to close down a site containing information that is available freely elsewhere.

spurious

Is it publicly available who complained? If not, why not?

If it's just Cranky McLoon, surely one complaint can't get a whole site taken down?

pedroeibar1

Not sure if a FoI request would get you that.... they'd have to protect that data!:rolleyes:

pedroeibar1

spurious wrote: »

If it's just Cranky McLoon, surely one complaint can't get a whole site taken down?

Another letter today ............. "I wonder how upset letter-writers to The Irish Times would be if I obtained their full home address, telephone numbers, date of birth, photograph, place of birth and mother’s maiden name and sold it to anyone who would pay for it, no questions asked? etc, etc.

One really has to wonder..........:rolleyes:

pinkypinky

Yeah, he's missed the point entirely.

Hermy

Isn't that what Facebook is for.

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

Yeah, he's missed the point entirely.

A couple of good responses today, one from S. Smyrl.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/research-and-data-protection-1.2772145
It is interesting that the I.T. is prolonging the coverage of this topic - one wonders how much longer the DPC can remain silent........public duty and all that..

pinkypinky

Someone in the Irish Times obviously cares about it too.

Has anyone here also written to the DPC? I have and I know of another non-boardie who did. We got almost identical responses.

amazonwomen

Any update on this issue? If they claim it's for Data Protection reasons we wouldn't be able to view them under any circumstances. So how can they justify the fact that we can view them in person?

pinkypinky

There's no update unfortunately.

By all means, write to the DPC to complain. I did and so did some others, we all got a cut and paste response. It's maddening when you consider that the electoral register is always public and no one expects privacy by being on it. Sure, they're allowed to sell the addresses!