Electoral Register: b4usearch.com
Mabon Dane
electroal registers
has been passed to a company called b4usearch.com where this
information is now available on the internet. b4usearch.com is the
trading name of K.S.B Trading Ltd who specialise in gathering
information and selling it on to sell products and services to people.
b4usearch.com also gathers further information from directory enquiries
and combines it with the electoral register so an enquiry can pull in
both the telephone number and address of the person searched for.
I am ex-directory and I have opted out of having my details on the full
electoral register.
I was therefore interested why my information was made publically
available.
I rang St Edmundsbury Borough Council who holds information on me on
the electoral register. St Edmundsbury knows about b4usearch.com and
have investigated them. It appears that a credit agency that obtained
the electoral register from St Edmundsbury has passed (sold) the
information onto b4usearch.com. The information comes from the 2001
electoral register.
A case brought by a Mr Robertson, an elector, won important rights for
electors to be able to opt out of the full electoral register. Details:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/risk/electria.htm
Hence from 2002 onwards it appears those that use the opt out on the
electoral register will not have their details passed onto
b4usearch.com, however it appears this does not protect voters who
failed to tick the box to opt out in future from having their details
passed on.
192.com was also defeated in the High Court from obtaining and
publishing information
from the full electoral register.
http://www.out-law.com/page-3865
b4usearch.com has published my address from the 2001 electoral register
on the internet.
The issue for me is
1. they have obtained personal data protected information about me
without my permission.
2. they have published personal data protected information about me on
the internet without my permission.
It is well known that most companies, organisations and bodies will cut
corners and ignore the rights of citizens for various reasons, whilst
getting away with it because of lack of action on the part of the
individual. The likes of Mr Robertson is rare.
I could ask for my information to be removed from the database by
b4usearch.com but they say this may take 30 days due to a backlog.
However I want to go further than this and prevent them from publishing
anything about me in future without my permission.
This is where a court action may be about to be initiated. An
injunction in the
County Court to prevent these guys from publishing my information now
and in the future
without my permission. The objective of the fight is to win my right to
prevent personal information about me being published onto the internet
without my knowledge or permission by commercial organisations.
Mabon Dane
John
>
> 192.com was also defeated in the High Court from obtaining and
> publishing information
> from the full electoral register.
>
electoral register will know, the front page of a register contains dire
warnings about using the full register for any other purpose. Of course
192.com would lose that Court action.
JohnLoony
Mabon Dane wrote:
> The issue for me is
>
> 1. they have obtained personal data protected information about me
> without my permission.
>
> 2. they have published personal data protected information about me on
> the internet without my permission.
I'm not sure that I follow your complaint here... if they have only
published information from the 2001 electoral register, then they have
only used information from a document which is already in the public
domain. You have not said that they used information from a more
recent restricted register.
Mabon Dane
My details were provided to St Edmundsbury Borough Council for the
purposes of voting not to have them provided on the internet by some
commercial organisation against my wishes and without my knowledge. I
want to have control over information about me.
Richard Collier
"Mabon Dane" <md...@h2009.com> wrote in message
news:1143301351.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I think the point being made to you is that until very recently you
had no such right to control the data. The information being used by
b4search was legitimately in the public domain and neither the council
or b4search have broken any law. If however they were to have used the
2004, 2005 or even 2006 and you have ticked the box required to not be
on the public domain register then they would have broken the law.
Mabon Dane
I have an issue about this that information I have been asked to
provide for election purposes has ended up on the internet by a
commercial organisation. I understand that the law is a bit vague on
this issue.
Mabon Dane
Richard Gadsden
They are public domain information which can be used by anyone for any
purpose they choose without having to refer to you or inform you. This
has now changed, but the legislation is not retrospective. If you want
to do something useful about this, then you should campaign for the
legislation to be made retrospective and so to require anyone using the
public register from 2001 to be forced to remove names that are now on
the restricted register only.
What you appear to be doing is to be directing your complaint to the
wrong place - this should be directed to your MP.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
da...@piperdave.co.uk
changes made by RPA 2000. At that point, the information was publicly
available to all and sundry. Also, I doubt whether it *was* your
Electoral Registration Officer who provided your details to b4usearch.
In most of these instances, the data is bought from a credit reference
agency, who are still entitled to the full Register by law but are no
longer allowed to pass on details of electors who have opted out of the
edited register.
Richard Collier
news:1143306863.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The law isn't a bit vague on this issue. Up until about three years
ago it was completely legal for the whole electoral role to be sold by
the local authority as well as being placed in a local libraries. As a
result of a high court judgement the law was changed so that you could
opt to go on the restricted register (which I think is still placed in
local libraries). Your concern about the use of the data is
effectively the same as the guy who got the judgement. The change in
law was not retrospective (it probably would be impossible to make it
so and certainly would be impractical). So basically you can only
complain if the data was obtained from the LA in the last couple of
years.
Paul Higgins
Dane here: http://www.legalbanter.co.
uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/31656-ian-gomeche-he-out-community.html
or here:
http://www.haverhillecho.co.uk/news/Dane-found-guilty.1579000.jp
or here:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.people.
disability/2006-07/msg00181.html
here, perhaps: http://www.cambridgedirectory.co.uk/profiles/5767/
here:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=304562
This is a good one:
http://www.standardsboard.gov.
uk/CaseInformation/Casesummaries/H/HaverhillTownCouncil/Name,7513,en.html
kate glenn
joe blogger
easly avalable as you are on the sex offendors reg i realy dont feel you
have any right to data protection or privacy if you make a concius choice to
molest and condon the actions of others who molest children you sick
basterd