nice…
this website [and some others, by the look of it] have decided to
publish a searchable
version of the electoral roll:
www.b4usearch.com/
check it out – click on ‘people’ and type in your details.
rather a nasty violation of our rights to privacy…
True, but it’s worth pointing out that this is the ‘edited’ electoral
roll. When you complete the form, there’s a box to tick giving
permission for inclusion in this (publishable) version of the roll.
Personally, I hate the idea of my details being available for
companies to (ab)use, so always ensure it’s ticked. I’m (happily)
under strict instructions to ensure that every box in every form is
ticked to exclude me from that wonderful misnomer of “carefully
selected third parties”,
The ‘full’ electoral roll isn’t available for anything other than
credit agencies, or inspection at libraries. Any other use is, iirc,
pretty much illegal (as well as bloody difficult to get the data
without a hand-scanner and a lot of patience in libraries).
So, if you’re on it, it’s your own fault for not reading the form.
Oh, and free-lesson of the day. Always check the reverse of any form
you sign. Recently discovered our (spit) kitchen company had used
this trick on me, when all I thought I was doing was agreeing to a
specification (which was wrong and misleading at that)
r.
Comment by A list member — 27/Mar/2006 @ 9:04 am
>
> So, if you’re on it, it’s your own fault for not reading the form.
so, what you’re saying is, by *not* ticking a box, i freely consented
for my home address
to be searchable on the internet? i can’t believe that’s true – these
fuckers may
be exploiting a loophole to publish the data, but any way you look at
it, it’s a gross
mis-use of information.
i can see the slogan now: “free unlimited spam with every vote!”
if that’s the case, fuck democracy, it’s dope, guns and fucking-in-
the-street for me from
now on…
On 27 Mar 2006, at 09:59, Richard Leyton wrote:
> True, but it’s worth pointing out that this is the ‘edited’
> electoral roll. When you complete the form, there’s a box to tick
> giving permission for inclusion in this (publishable) version of
> the roll. Personally, I hate the idea of my details being
> available for companies to (ab)use, so always ensure it’s ticked.
> I’m (happily) under strict instructions to ensure that every box in
> every form is ticked to exclude me from that wonderful misnomer of
> “carefully selected third parties”,
>
> The ‘full’ electoral roll isn’t available for anything other than
> credit agencies, or inspection at libraries. Any other use is,
> iirc, pretty much illegal (as well as bloody difficult to get the
> data without a hand-scanner and a lot of patience in libraries).
>
> Oh, and free-lesson of the day. Always check the reverse of any
> form you sign. Recently discovered our (spit) kitchen company had
> used this trick on me, when all I thought I was doing was agreeing
> to a specification (which was wrong and misleading at that)
>
> r.
>
> –
> Richard Leyton – richard@leyton.org
> http://www.leyton.org
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Mar 2006, at 09:51, neil wrote:
>
>> this website [and some others, by the look of it] have decided to
>> publish a searchable
>> version of the electoral roll:
>>
>> http://www.b4usearch.com/
>>
>> check it out – click on ‘people’ and type in your details.
>>
>> rather a nasty violation of our rights to privacy…
>>
Comment by A list member — 27/Mar/2006 @ 9:28 am
You’re right that this isn’t in line with what I’d have considered
. Their
‘appropriate use’ of the edited electoral roll, and I’d not be happy
about it if my details were on there (they’re not though
robots.txt doesn’t imbue much confidence either. You may want to
consider complaining about it, at the very least the data protection
agency or your local council? Or ignore it. It’ll go away then I’m sure.
That or ensure you’re on the Mail Preference Service list. Anybody
who’s going to post unsolicited stuff to you needs to check against
the registrants on that:
http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/
But, that said, you may still want to strip down that AK-47 and fire
a few test rounds into the sea down there in sunny(?) Brighton.
r.
Comment by A list member — 27/Mar/2006 @ 9:50 am
I can’t see that they hold anything on me other than what is freely
available on Google – a couple of websites which i have published
myself anyway.
I used the ’search people’ box.
I did the same for you Neil and all I saw was a bunch of Real world
stuff.
What I did find odd was that I searched myself twice and got
differing results both times.
On 27 Mar 2006, at 10:20, neil wrote:
>>
>> So, if you’re on it, it’s your own fault for not reading the form.
>
>
> so, what you’re saying is, by *not* ticking a box, i freely
> consented for my home address
> to be searchable on the internet? i can’t believe that’s true –
> these fuckers may
> be exploiting a loophole to publish the data, but any way you look
> at it, it’s a gross
> mis-use of information.
>
> i can see the slogan now: “free unlimited spam with every vote!”
>
> if that’s the case, fuck democracy, it’s dope, guns and fucking-in-
> the-street for me from
> now on…
>
>
> On 27 Mar 2006, at 09:59, Richard Leyton wrote:
>
>> True, but it’s worth pointing out that this is the ‘edited’
>> electoral roll. When you complete the form, there’s a box to tick
>> giving permission for inclusion in this (publishable) version of
>> the roll. Personally, I hate the idea of my details being
>> available for companies to (ab)use, so always ensure it’s ticked.
>> I’m (happily) under strict instructions to ensure that every box
>> in every form is ticked to exclude me from that wonderful misnomer
>> of “carefully selected third parties”,
>>
>> The ‘full’ electoral roll isn’t available for anything other than
>> credit agencies, or inspection at libraries. Any other use is,
>> iirc, pretty much illegal (as well as bloody difficult to get the
>> data without a hand-scanner and a lot of patience in libraries).
>>
>> Oh, and free-lesson of the day. Always check the reverse of any
>> form you sign. Recently discovered our (spit) kitchen company had
>> used this trick on me, when all I thought I was doing was agreeing
>> to a specification (which was wrong and misleading at that)
>>
>> r.
>>
>> –
>> Richard Leyton – richard@leyton.org
>> http://www.leyton.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2006, at 09:51, neil wrote:
>>
>>> this website [and some others, by the look of it] have decided to
>>> publish a searchable
>>> version of the electoral roll:
>>>
>>> http://www.b4usearch.com/
>>>
>>> check it out – click on ‘people’ and type in your details.
>>>
>>> rather a nasty violation of our rights to privacy…
>>>
Comment by A list member — 27/Mar/2006 @ 10:38 am