Electoral Lists 1937-1964 taken down

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!