nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Eircode - its implemetation (merged)

beveragelady

I called An Post today to try to sort out a problem with deliveries. The customer service chap was very helpful and I think it all got sorted.
The thing is, I tried to give him my Eircode because I live at a vague rural address but he said that they're not using them because the system isn't set up.
Amazed!
It's bad enough that they're no good to users of satnavs or google maps, but this is just astonishing. Can anybody explain how this could have been launched to such fanfare when it's all but meaningless?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

clewbays

ukoda wrote: »

Mine arrived with eircode pre populated, wasn't mentioned in conversation with enumerator

I wonder whether non-unique addresses are pre-populated with an Eircode which would put CSO ahead of the game. They probably are if CSO are using geodirectory. Was any mention made in relation to the Eircode of where you work?

clewbays

Interesting description of an addressing project in Zambia which will involve naming streets, numbering houses, and assigning postcodes:

http://www.zicta.zm/Views/Publications/FINANCING%20PROPOSAL%20FOR%20NADS.pdf

as Plodder repeatedly says the old 1950s postcodes are non-unique on their own but what granularity will 21st century postcodes have and will they be integrated with GPS functionality?

ukoda

clewbays wrote: »

Did the Census enumerator give you any instructions about Eircodes - it looks a bit vague on the form as to where they should be inserted?

Mine arrived with eircode pre populated, wasn't mentioned in conversation with enumerator

clewbays

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Have any of you folks got your Census forms yet? First use of Eircode in my experience.

Did the Census enumerator give you any instructions about Eircodes - it looks a bit vague on the form as to where they should be inserted?

Sam Russell

Driving licence form asks for 'Postcode' and does not have correct format, but still ......

Nekarsulm

Have any of you folks got your Census forms yet? First use of Eircode in my experience.

ukoda

Mentioned before, SUSI Grants system using eircode, estimate they'll save 250,000 staff hours a year now that the staff won't have to look up Google maps.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/student-grants-could-be-slashed-by-half-in-postcode-overhaul-34557703.html

plodder

^
Re post above I am happy to continue this discussion on the other thread. Though this discussion isn't really about design. It's about the decision of paypal to implement eircode and require it for all users.

GJG wrote: »

Of course there is a trade-off, there are many of them. That is why the anti-Eircode obsessive(s) can easily find a single point where their pet system is 'superior', but only as long as you ignore all the other requirements.

Plodder, I recognise that you are trying to be constructive, and I don't want to be negative towards you personally, but I think that this demonstrates that you might not have much practical experience on this topic.

I'm working in IT nearly 30 years, including dealing with software security. So, why don't we just stick with discussing the issues?

Firstly, if you think that people who are willing to ignore DP best-practice, let alone the law, then the idea that they will carefully extract postcodes only from a customer file to make it, they think, anonymous, then that is a bit naive.

if customer transactions are stored in a database, it is the easiest thing in the world to extract information piecemeal, eg a list of all product purchases together with the postcodes of the purchaser, and nothing else. This is what they do. For example, it is conceivable that amazon.com might produce lists of book purchases by postcode, and sell/provide that information to book publishers or distributors, who might then use it for stocking shelves in bookshops. That's hardly stretching credulity is it. Now, when analyzing Irish book purchases the following things could happen:
a) they know about Eircode. So they license the ECAD and convert Eircodes into some other anonymised area code.
b) they think a) is too much trouble so they just dump Irish stats from their analytics altogether
c) they don't know about Eircode (unlikely in this case) and the raw eircodes get delivered along with postcodes from elsewhere.

But moreover, you say that all other postcodes are anonymous. They are not. UK postcodes cover a maximum of 26 dwellings, but often far fewer. Typically, they each cover one side of a street. A highly DP-sensitive use of postcodes is for health statistics. The public good in having very accurate locality information when investigating environmental causes or targeting treatment services is obvious.

But what about releasing to researchers 'anonymised' location data of HIV infections by type? How would you feel about releasing the male-to-male sexual transmission data, if you were the only gay couple living on the street? Equally German postcodes, with up to 100k residents, might hamper looking for clusters of childhood illness, to get early warning of an epidemic.

Obviously, there are different levels of anonymisation that are suitable for different uses. There is a job to be done in establishing what is suitable for what, and making, communicating and enforcing sensible rules. The DPA should have been all over this with, but there is nothing on their website about this other than vague blathering.

Fortunately, Eircode can do this better than almost any other system, because it is easy to build a system that converts Eircode into any other location division, be it Dáil constituency or Small Area. The fact that this hasn't been done yet, or that people may use Eircode wrongly, is hardly the fault of Eircode

We're not talking about health statistics though. Extra precautions are needed when dealing with that type of data. We're talking about more mundane things like purchases on websites. I gave examples before of privacy policies on websites where they say they will keep your personal information private, but reserve the right to share other information, including postcodes. It is those kind of organisations that are at risk of divulging Eircodes improperly, if they don't know that Eircodes need to be handled differently. It is probably fair to assume that large reputable organisations, will do that, especially if they have a presence in this country, but there is a risk that not all will.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we get back to discussing implementation rather than straying into design.

GJG

plodder wrote: »

Correct, but at least you are starting to see there is a trade-off.

Of course there is a trade-off, there are many of them. That is why the anti-Eircode obsessive(s) can easily find a single point where their pet system is 'superior', but only as long as you ignore all the other requirements.

plodder wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many times posters come back and say. "But, but, but ... a UK postcode plus a house number is equivalent". It doesn't matter because postcodes can be automatically extracted from sales information and shipped off to third parties regardless of the privacy guarantees provided by the vendor, and the question is will every website in China or Hong Kong, know that Eircodes should be treated differently and removed from such lists.

It's really not complicated a point, but it is amusing to observe the twisting and turning around it.

Plodder, I recognise that you are trying to be constructive, and I don't want to be negative towards you personally, but I think that this demonstrates that you might not have much practical experience on this topic.

Firstly, if you think that people who are willing to ignore DP best-practice, let alone the law, then the idea that they will carefully extract postcodes only from a customer file to make it, they think, anonymous, then that is a bit naive.

But moreover, you say that all other postcodes are anonymous. They are not. UK postcodes cover a maximum of 26 dwellings, but often far fewer. Typically, they each cover one side of a street. A highly DP-sensitive use of postcodes is for health statistics. The public good in having very accurate locality information when investigating environmental causes or targeting treatment services is obvious.

But what about releasing to researchers 'anonymised' location data of HIV infections by type? How would you feel about releasing the male-to-male sexual transmission data, if you were the only gay couple living on the street? Equally German postcodes, with up to 100k residents, might hamper looking for clusters of childhood illness, to get early warning of an epidemic.

Obviously, there are different levels of anonymisation that are suitable for different uses. There is a job to be done in establishing what is suitable for what, and making, communicating and enforcing sensible rules. The DPA should have been all over this with, but there is nothing on their website about this other than vague blathering.

Fortunately, Eircode can do this better than almost any other system, because it is easy to build a system that converts Eircode into any other location division, be it Dáil constituency or Small Area. The fact that this hasn't been done yet, or that people may use Eircode wrongly, is hardly the fault of Eircode

plodder

GJG wrote:

A unique postcode was the only viable way to solve Ireland's non-unique address problem. The problems of people misusing Eircode you claim exist would be equally of any unique postcode, whatever the design.

Correct, but at least you are starting to see there is a trade-off.

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Yes, I made that same point.

That's not proof. You've asserted that Eircodes will be handled with less care than they require - the onus is on you to prove this assertion.

What I said was:

Postcodes are normally assumed to be anonymous and might not be handled with the same level of care as addresses, which can be assumed to be unique and personal.

It's not an assertion of fact. It is an opinion, based on the fact that all postcodes in the world apart from Eircode are anonymous, and anonymous information that cannot be tied to individuals is not subject to the same data protection rules as personal information.

It doesn't matter how many times posters come back and say. "But, but, but ... a UK postcode plus a house number is equivalent". It doesn't matter because postcodes can be automatically extracted from sales information and shipped off to third parties regardless of the privacy guarantees provided by the vendor, and the question is will every website in China or Hong Kong, know that Eircodes should be treated differently and removed from such lists.

It's really not complicated a point, but it is amusing to observe the twisting and turning around it.
...

So, still no google maps support yet, just a lot of 'I believe' this, that and the other.

threeiron

ukoda wrote: »

But weren't they paid €9 million already for use of their geodirectory by eircode?

Hopefully it has been resolved if An Post were the cause of the significant delay. It really would be ridiculous and farcical if they are still opposing them to protect their local knowledge relating to one need to be able to find a non-unique address.

BoatMad

The anti Eircode group are continuing their reducto ab absurdum argument, stretching credibility and dredging up unlikely edge cases to justify knocking the whole project. its just ridiculous , its even more ridiculous now that Eircode is implemented

marmurr1916

ukoda wrote: »

Let's play out your doomsday scenario of "I'm a merchant who bought a list of postcodes and I think this particular postcode is like the UK one and I know Mary at this postcode bought a laptop so I want to do a mail shot to all Mary's neighbours because I think they are laptop purchasing folk"

Ok so Mary's postcode is ABC123, hmm now that means nothing to me, I better look it up....off I go to the Irish postcode website to have a look, oh no! This is a unique identifier to one house! But WAIT! I can just get the list of all neighbouring postcodes, on no! They aren't sequential so I in fact can't just fire out letters to her neighbours, damn it, BUT WAIT I can licence this ECAD thing and then get all the addresses in a certain radius of Mary's house, look at me go, oh dear, has Mary given consent for me to have her address now that I know the postcode = one address. I'm a reputable marketeer so I will check with the merchant before I do anything.

Or if I'm a bit dodgy: screw it I'm going to send my laptop brochure to all her neighbours.

End result:
Best case scenario, nothing happens at all
Worst case scenario, someone gets a laptop brochure

Oh the humanity! I've been violated

That's the problem with these fear inducing statements of "SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN" people get caught up in it and need to take moment to get back to the reality of not everyone is out to violate your privacy. Some are, and they will do it with or without eircode. Such is life.

If I was the kind of person who'd send out unsolicited marketing material, I wouldn't be bothered about getting Mary's Eircode in the first place. I'd just pick a load of addresses at random and fire away.

Here are guidelines from the UK's Information Commissioner about unsolicited marketing literature (junk mail):

What is junk mail?

Junk mail is unwanted postal marketing such as flyers, competition entries and postal campaigns.

How can I reduce the amount of junk mail I receive?

If you are having a problem with the overall amount of junk mail that is addressed to you, it could help to register your name and address with the Mailing Preference Service (MPS).

The MPS is a free service set up by the direct marketing industry to help people who don't want to receive junk mail. It is good practice for organisations to check the MPS list before sending marketing but it is not a legal requirement that they do so.

To register, contact the MPS www.mpsonline.org.uk

You can reduce the amount of 'unaddressed’ mail you receive by registering with the Royal Mail's door to door opt-out service. However, this will not stop mail addressed to 'the occupier'.

Write to:
Freepost RRBT-2BXB-TTTS,
Royal Mail Door to Door Opt Outs,
Kingsmead House, Oxpens Road,
Oxford, OX1 1RX
Or email at optout@royalmail.com

How can I stop an organisation from sending me junk mail?

If you receive marketing that is addressed to you, the Data Protection Act gives you the right to tell an organisation to stop sending it to you.

You should write to them by letter or email to tell them to stop using your personal information to send you marketing. When they receive your request they must stop marketing you as soon as they can.

Suggested letter:

[Date]

Dear Sir or Madam

Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 not to use my personal information for direct marketing.

I [your full name] of [your full address] require you to stop / not to begin processing personal information relating to me for direct marketing as soon as possible and in any event within 28 days of the date of this letter / email.

If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer or the person who does.

Please note that if you do not comply with this notice, I can apply to the court for an order against you under the Data Protection Act.

Yours faithfully
[Signature]

If you have written to the organisation to ask them to stop sending you marketing material, but they have continued to send it, then you may wish to report your concerns.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/junk-mail/

So junk mail sent to 'The Occupier' will still be delivered by Royal Mail unless you write to the company responsible and demand they stop.

This is the position under Irish data protection law:

POSTAL MARKETING

The rules governing postal marketing are mainly contained in Section 2 of the Data Protection Acts.

Marketing through the post is the traditional and oldest form of direct marketing. For mail to be considered to be direct marketing it must, generally speaking, be addressed to a named person and must be promoting a product or service. Unaddressed mail or mail addressed to "the occupant", "the resident" or "the householder" does not normally involve the use of personal data and consequently data protection legislation would not apply. However, where a data controller can identify "the occupant", "the resident" or "the householder" from the address in conjunction with other data in or likely to come into his possession, this may involve the processing of personal data and data protection requirements would apply. Also, the rules do not normally apply to postal marketing of corporate entities (companies, agencies etc) - including marketing of office-holders within such an entity (provided that the marketing is related to the organisation's business needs and that the details of the named person in receipt were obtained fairly).

Before you can use personal data for postal marketing, you must tell customers (or potential customers) that you intend to use their data for this purpose and give them an opportunity to refuse such use. Where you yourself have collected the personal data, this should be done at the time of collection (for example, by providing a "tick-box" on a form). Where you have obtained the personal data from a third party - including a source of information that is publicly available by law - the opportunity to refuse direct marketing material must be provided before any such material is sent.
If any customer objects, you may not use their personal data to directly market them. The individual may withdraw their consent to direct marketing at any time. If your only reason for holding an individual's personal data is direct marketing, then you must erase the personal data from any lists or databases that you hold once the individual has objected.

You may use names and addresses drawn from the Edited Electoral Register for postal marketing. The "Edited Register" contains a sub-set of the names and addresses on the "Full Register" of voters. Individuals on the Edited Register are those who, when registering to vote, did not object to their personal data being used for marketing or other non-statutory purposes. It is an offence under electoral law to use information drawn from the "Full Register" of electors for direct marketing (or for any other purpose not provided for in legislation). It is also your duty to make sure that you are using the most up-to-date version of the Edited Register (see separate guidance-note).

https://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=&fn=/documents/guidance/GeneralGuideDC.htm

Unless you're going to go to the trouble of getting the names of the people who live at the addresses (with or without Eircodes) where you're sending direct mail to, you're not subject to the data protection rules.

Getting someone's Eircode doesn't mean you'll have their name too - the databases that you can license (or the Eircode Finder or the free An Post Eircode tools) don't contain personal names.

So it would be perfectly legal to send out unsolicited marketing materials by post to millions of people, with or without their Eircodes as part of the address, and you wouldn't even be covered by data protection law - as long as you send it to the Occupant/Resident you're not subject to data protection law unless you also had information about their names as well as their addresses/Eircodes.

If you do want to send direct mail to named individuals, you can get names legitimately from the Edited Electoral Register and use them in conjunction with Eircodes (you would then be subject to data protection law) unless the people tell you to stop.

BoatMad

because every postcode in the world apart from Eircode is anonymous.

I see UK post codes along with a publicly purchasable database with identifies every house is " anonymous "

the fact is the reverse of your statement is true, most postcodes , often with commercially available extensions are unique

marmurr1916

plodder wrote: »

Anyone who takes data protection law seriously will take care.

Yes, I made that same point.

plodder wrote: »

because every postcode in the world apart from Eircode is anonymous.

That's not proof. You've asserted that Eircodes will be handled with less care than they require - the onus is on you to prove this assertion.

BoatMad

ukoda wrote: »

What I was getting at was: if they were willing to pay the geodirectory licence would Google not be willing to pay the eircode licence, but it seems you are implying it's being priced to be unattractive?

Do you think it will get sorted in the short term?

yes I believe that the pricing for large users was unattractive , which is why I believe the minister got involved.

I believe it is sorted now and its a function of Googled priority plans

ukoda

BoatMad wrote: »

The licensing costs of Ericode are fundamentally a function of the internal licensing costs with Geodirectory

Google cant affect Eircode licensing by having a geodirectory license

the rumour is that Anpost want aggressive Geodirectory licensing as it didn't want post codes as it saw these gave its courier rivals a leg up. in that regard Google maps and Eircode integration would damage its competitive position

What I was getting at was: if they were willing to pay the geodirectory licence would Google not be willing to pay the eircode licence, but it seems you are implying it's being priced to be unattractive?

Do you think it will get sorted in the short term?

BoatMad

ukoda wrote: »

But weren't they paid €9 million already for use of their geodirectory by eircode? Surely they can't be back for more money if eircode want to resell the ECAD to google? Also, Google already purchased a copy of the geodirectory at some stage as it's listed as a source for their maps content on one of the disclaimer pages I'm sure

The licensing costs of Ericode are fundamentally a function of the internal licensing costs with Geodirectory

Google cant affect Eircode licensing by having a geodirectory license

the rumour is that Anpost want aggressive Geodirectory licensing as it didn't want post codes as it saw these gave its courier rivals a leg up. in that regard Google maps and Eircode integration would damage its competitive position

ukoda

BoatMad wrote: »

GeoDirectory is a service jointly opened by the OSI and AN Post, the licensing arrangements for Eircode are primarily driven by the licensing costs associated with GeoDirectories, rurmor has it that the pricing initially offered to Goggle was very very high

Given An post historical antipathy to postcodes, you can do the math yourself

But weren't they paid €9 million already for use of their geodirectory by eircode? Surely they can't be back for more money if eircode want to resell the ECAD to google? Also, Google already purchased a copy of the geodirectory at some stage as it's listed as a source for their maps content on one of the disclaimer pages I'm sure

BoatMad

ukoda wrote: »

Why would An Post be blocking it?

GeoDirectory is a service jointly opened by the OSI and AN Post, the licensing arrangements for Eircode are primarily driven by the licensing costs associated with GeoDirectories, rurmor has it that the pricing initially offered to Goggle was very very high

Given An post historical antipathy to postcodes, you can do the math yourself

BoatMad

ozmo wrote: »

With paypal You don't always get the option to not give out your address - its up to the merchant they way they implement paypal.

games, ebooks, music, digital licences, concert tickets, website fees and shop vouchers etc. - they don't need a physical address as they are emailed why should I offer it up to them for no reason?

actually they do, as under the new VAT regulations for digital services, the vendor MUST collect the addresses of the buyers of digital products as one of the steps to verify what VAT rate to be applied

ukoda

threeiron wrote: »

Is it An Post that is blocking an agreement with Google maps? If it is then looks like the July 13th anniversary will come and go a few times before an increase in Eircodes uptake is facilitated.

Why would An Post be blocking it?

threeiron

plodder wrote: »

Soooooo... any news about Google maps or Satnav support?

Is it An Post that is blocking an agreement with Google maps? If it is then looks like the July 13th anniversary will come and go a few times before an increase in Eircodes uptake is facilitated.

GJG

I think you are drawing a distinction where there is no difference. The difference between a database using one field rather than two as a primary key is trivial. Thousands of companies in the UK use postcode + street number as a unique identifier for households.

plodder wrote: »

But, they would be very careful to not release those two pieces of information together because they know that they uniquely identify a household.

Every call a UK customer makes to a call centre starts with giving their postcode, then their house number. The operator then has their exact address. This is identical to what Eircode offers. You still haven't managed to say what 'problem' this causes, but if it exists, then it has existed in the UK for decades.

plodder wrote: »

So long as you understand that an Eircode uniquely identifies households then there is no difference, but if you don't then there could be. Companies outside of Ireland might treat all postcodes the same - ie as anonymous tokens.

Companies outside Ireland might mistakenly do lots of things. How is that an argument against Eircode?

plodder wrote: »

This was the key sentence in my post.

Postcodes are normally assumed to be anonymous and might not be handled with the same level of care as addresses, which can be assumed to be unique and personal.

A unique postcode was the only viable way to solve Ireland's non-unique address problem. The problems of people misusing Eircode you claim exist would be equally of any unique postcode, whatever the design. If you are arguing against solving that problem, then fine.

plodder wrote: »

and by the way, there seems to be some dispute about whether paypal provides addresses to all merchants whether they need it or not. You said they don't, but other posters seem to be saying that they do. I'd like to know if paypal will be giving my eircode to all merchants whether they need it or not.

There is no such dispute. This is the internet - people make stuff up. You log in and check for yourself, like I did.

The 'problems' that you allude to, but can't quite specify, all seem to revolve around people doing stupid things. To the extent that you are saying that Eircode won't stop stupid people from doing stupid things, then you are correct, but that is hardly a valid criticism of Eircode.

To be clear, I am fully aware that there are privacy issues with Eircode, and they need to be managed. The DPC should have been all over this, but the Bertie 'friend' appointee simply wasn't up to the job, and lobbied for retaining non-unique addresses because that would not generate a workload for him. The notion that jobsworths are entitled to veto national infrastructure for personal convenience says a lot about the quality of the people involved.

plodder

marmurr1916 wrote: »

How do you know what level of care is taken by people and organisations who hold that type of information about people in the UK?

Anyone who takes data protection law seriously will take care.

Postcodes are normally assumed to be anonymous and might not be handled with the same level of care as addresses, which can be assumed to be unique and personal.

Proof for this assertion?

because every postcode in the world apart from Eircode is anonymous.

[Deleted User]

or you just (if you have a large network of staff) send someone to the address location with a wad of leaflets and hand deliver them to all the neighbours.
It won't matter if it's a UK style postcode or a unique eircode(or no postcode at all), the neighbourhood gets the leaflets.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

But, they would be very careful to not release those two pieces of information together because they know that they uniquely identify a household.

So long as you understand that an Eircode uniquely identifies households then there is no difference, but if you don't then there could be. Companies outside of Ireland might treat all postcodes the same - ie as anonymous tokens.

This was the key sentence in my post.

Postcodes are normally assumed to be anonymous and might not be handled with the same level of care as addresses, which can be assumed to be unique and personal.

and by the way, there seems to be some dispute about whether paypal provides addresses to all merchants whether they need it or not. You said they don't, but other posters seem to be saying that they do. I'd like to know if paypal will be giving my eircode to all merchants whether they need it or not.

Let's play out your doomsday scenario of "I'm a merchant who bought a list of postcodes and I think this particular postcode is like the UK one and I know Mary at this postcode bought a laptop so I want to do a mail shot to all Mary's neighbours because I think they are laptop purchasing folk"

Ok so Mary's postcode is ABC123, hmm now that means nothing to me, I better look it up....off I go to the Irish postcode website to have a look, oh no! This is a unique identifier to one house! But WAIT! I can just get the list of all neighbouring postcodes, on no! They aren't sequential so I in fact can't just fire out letters to her neighbours, damn it, BUT WAIT I can licence this ECAD thing and then get all the addresses in a certain radius of Mary's house, look at me go, oh dear, has Mary given consent for me to have her address now that I know the postcode = one address. I'm a reputable marketeer so I will check with the merchant before I do anything.

Or if I'm a bit dodgy: screw it I'm going to send my laptop brochure to all her neighbours.

End result:
Best case scenario, nothing happens at all
Worst case scenario, someone gets a laptop brochure

Oh the humanity! I've been violated

That's the problem with these fear inducing statements of "SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN" people get caught up in it and need to take moment to get back to the reality of not everyone is out to violate your privacy. Some are, and they will do it with or without eircode. Such is life.

marmurr1916

plodder wrote: »

But, they would be very careful to not release those two pieces of information together because they know that they uniquely identify a household.

How do you know what level of care is taken by people and organisations who hold that type of information about people in the UK?

plodder wrote: »

So long as you understand that an Eircode uniquely identifies households then there is no difference, but if you don't then there could be. Companies outside of Ireland might treat all postcodes the same - ie as anonymous tokens.

This was the key sentence in my post.

Postcodes are normally assumed to be anonymous and might not be handled with the same level of care as addresses, which can be assumed to be unique and personal.

Proof for this assertion? If they're told it's a unique identifier (similar to the account numbers, customer id numbers etc, etc that they already deal with every day) why should they take less care with it (or more care with it) than other unique identifiers? For EU data-holders, it's not optional to do this - it's a requirement of EU data protection law.

The main issue is that huge amounts of data relating to people and organisations within the EU is handled outside of the EU and that it may not be handled within the parameters set by EU data protection law, one of the reasons that the ECJ ruled that the EU/USA Safe Harbour deal was invalid.

If they knew the shenanigans that happens with data processed in India and other countries, the ECJ would probably ban all non-EU processing of EU citizens' data.

I genuinely don't think that people and organisations that are careful to comply with EU data protection law will handle Eircodes more carelessly than they do other unique identifiers. By the same token, I genuinely don't think that people who don't comply with EU data protection law are going to be careful with Eircodes. The law-abiding operations will continue to obey the law; the sloppy chancers and the data thieves will continue to partially implement or completely flout the law - Eircodes won't change that one whit one way or the other.

plodder wrote: »

and by the way, there seems to be some dispute about whether paypal provides addresses to all merchants whether they need it or not. You said they don't, but other posters seem to be saying that they do. I'd like to know if paypal will be giving my eircode to all merchants whether they need it or not.

If you pay me using PayPal, I'll be getting your full address, including Eircode.

Beware, I'll know where you live....:D :eek: :P

Almost every merchant will be getting your Eircode if you use PayPal.

Mainly because very few sell only products that don't require delivery. Most sell a mixture of product types, some that require delivery, some that don't.

I'm not going to go to the trouble or expense of configuring my website so that different types of products will have different customer details forms.

Maybe some websites will but my guess is that it will be quite a small percentage of the total.

marmurr1916

ozmo wrote: »

With paypal You don't always get the option to not give out your address - its up to the merchant they way they implement paypal.

Unless I was selling only digital products, I wouldn't bother my hole configuring my website to not require postal addresses for some products and require postal addresses for other products - too much hassle and expense.

ozmo wrote: »

games, ebooks, music, digital licences, concert tickets, website fees and shop vouchers etc. - they don't need a physical address as they are emailed why should I offer it up to them for no reason?

Some are downloadable/digital, some are posted. Of course if you're so paranoid about buying stuff online that you're only willing to buy products that don't require delivery maybe you're better off not using the web at all for any reason?