3 ms·

What is bothering me is that supposedly a private organisation (FACT) was able to approach another private organisation (Equifax) with a name and acquire furthe

What is bothering me is that supposedly a private organisation (FACT) was able to approach another private organisation (Equifax) with a name and acquire further details including a home address, without warrant or personal authorisation. Can somebody explain to me how this is not a breech of the Personal Data clauses of the Data Protection Act 1998[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998

sandworm101 11y ago
From wikipedia above >> Section 29 – Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle. Note that the exception does not state that a warrant is needed for the collection or sharing in such circumstances.
- cabalamat 11y ago
  Somehow I suspect if I wanted to do an investigation on whether FACT were breaking any laws, Equifax would deny me information. In many ways we have a society where it is one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary person. A good recent example of this is Facebook, which is happy to let Donald Trump say things they class as hate speech on their platform, but won't let their ordinary users do so.
marme 11y ago
i am wondering what kind of evidence other than this information they had against them. Because if it is that easy just to link a username to a person and convict based on that it seems way too easy to just make an account linking to someone you hate, throw in a few random references to their family members and/or the city they live in and in a couple months they will be arrested
mpeg 11y ago
There are two main ways to access names and addresses in the UK, the electoral register, and the open register. The electoral register is the one that has more limited access and uses [0] while the open register is readily available for many other purposes such as direct marketing. You can opt-out of the open register, so it would be interesting to know if in this case the person in question had opted out, or not. Edit: a quick search on the open register for Wolverhampton reveals Sahil's full address from the 2009 and 2011 electoral rolls. Which means you could have used 192.com [1] or whitepages.com [2] to find him and thus very unlikely he had opted out, as those sites use open (edited) register data. [0]: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/ https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/ [1]: http://www.192.com/ http://www.192.com/ [2]: http://www.whitepages.co.uk/electoral-roll-search-and-electoral-register-voters.html http://www.whitepages.co.uk/electoral-roll-search-and-electo... DISCLAIMER: I work for one of the major credit bureaus but views are my own, and my understanding of the regulations around access to this kind of data is very shallow.
- Nursie 11y ago
  The opt-out nature of the open register is a disgrace, IMHO.
  - mpeg 11y ago
    Can't argue with that, I wonder how many people would tick the box if it was opt-in...

sandworm101 11y ago

From wikipedia above >> Section 29 – Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle. Note that the exception does not state that a warrant is needed for the collection or sharing in such circumstances.

cabalamat 11y ago
Somehow I suspect if I wanted to do an investigation on whether FACT were breaking any laws, Equifax would deny me information. In many ways we have a society where it is one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary person. A good recent example of this is Facebook, which is happy to let Donald Trump say things they class as hate speech on their platform, but won't let their ordinary users do so.

marme 11y ago

i am wondering what kind of evidence other than this information they had against them. Because if it is that easy just to link a username to a person and convict based on that it seems way too easy to just make an account linking to someone you hate, throw in a few random references to their family members and/or the city they live in and in a couple months they will be arrested

mpeg 11y ago

There are two main ways to access names and addresses in the UK, the electoral register, and the open register. The electoral register is the one that has more limited access and uses [0] while the open register is readily available for many other purposes such as direct marketing. You can opt-out of the open register, so it would be interesting to know if in this case the person in question had opted out, or not. Edit: a quick search on the open register for Wolverhampton reveals Sahil's full address from the 2009 and 2011 electoral rolls. Which means you could have used 192.com [1] or whitepages.com [2] to find him and thus very unlikely he had opted out, as those sites use open (edited) register data. [0]: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/ https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/ [1]: http://www.192.com/ http://www.192.com/ [2]: http://www.whitepages.co.uk/electoral-roll-search-and-electoral-register-voters.html http://www.whitepages.co.uk/electoral-roll-search-and-electo... DISCLAIMER: I work for one of the major credit bureaus but views are my own, and my understanding of the regulations around access to this kind of data is very shallow.

Nursie 11y ago
The opt-out nature of the open register is a disgrace, IMHO.
- mpeg 11y ago
  Can't argue with that, I wonder how many people would tick the box if it was opt-in...