RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: jc26red on Wednesday 08 February 17 11:01 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all,
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
Looking on FindMyPast on how to close a person's details I need a recent document with her dob and her signature. well that's not so easy when the person in question is approaching 97 and has never driven and her last passport was over 40 years ago and long gone. I am in possession of all her paperwork, and the only thing that has both signature and dob is a financial document which I do not want to send. She can still write her signature, just about but of course I don't want to worry her.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
-
Would they accept a Statutory Declaration from her son, confirming he is her son, stating her date of birth and that she is definitely still living?
JM
-
Very unlikely they would have any document with her current signature to compare it with.
JM
-
I had the same problem when I found my aunt on there, although as she was 100 at the time it was understandable. I contacted FindMyPast who said that they were legally able to open records once the person was 100 years and a day but they would close it again once she proved that she was still alive. I discussed it with her daughter and we decided to leave it open but not tell her. In actual fact I don't think she would have cared anyway as it didn't really give any information that couldn't be found elsewhere by anyone really interested. Unfortunately she died last month, so it is now open anyway.
However, as your mother in law is not yet 100, I would contact FindMyPast and ask them why it is open as unless they have proof of her death it should still be closed.
-
What happens if you try this?
If you happen across someone whose record should be closed due to them still being alive, click 'Update the record', then 'close an open record'.
-
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
Yes!
I discovered recently that my aunts entry had been opened (She is 88)
I contacted FindMyPast and asked them to provide me with the evidence of her demise that they had used to open the entry. I added that I was particularly interested in seeing their evidence since I had spoken to this supposedly dead person only a couple days previously.
I received an apology and the entry was immediately closed again.
-
That's what I was suggesting Jen, as if the person is under 100, their record should be closed unless FindMyPast has proof they have died. Bit different in my aunt's case as she was over 100.
What happens if you try this?
If you happen across someone whose record should be closed due to them still being alive, click 'Update the record', then 'close an open record'.
Where is that Steve, I can't see anywhere to click on the page?
-
Not seen it myself but that's what they say in the FAQs
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01jgc/
-
What happens if you try this?
If you happen across someone whose record should be closed due to them still being alive, click 'Update the record', then 'close an open record'.
Tried that and you have to attach the "proof" document otherwise you receive an error!
-
Think I will contact FindMyPast! Temped to attach a photo of mil in her nursing home.
-
Try Jen's approach - you may have to phone them though. They are in the wrong under the 100 year rule.
-
Definitely contact them.
I wasn't asked for any proof. I simply emailed them and I made it clear that I felt the onus was on them to provide me with the evidence they had used.
Obviously, they had no evidence at all!
-
Hi all,
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
Looking on FindMyPast on how to close a person's details I need a recent document with her dob and her signature. well that's not so easy when the person in question is approaching 97 and has never driven and her last passport was over 40 years ago and long gone. I am in possession of all her paperwork, and the only thing that has both signature and dob is a financial document which I do not want to send. She can still write her signature, just about but of course I don't want to worry her.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
As the discussion is about claiming "rights" to have a record closed you or your husband is (by not asking his mother if she is concerned about the information being available) overiding her rights to have the record kept open, rather ironic.
Of course your mother-in-law may want her record closed but you give us no insight into what her views are just what your and your husband's views are.
FindMyPast have acted correctly in this situation.
Cheers
Guy
-
Definitely contact them.
I wasn't asked for any proof. I simply emailed them and I made it clear that I felt the onus was on them to provide me with the evidence they had used.
Obviously, they had no evidence at all!
Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi all,
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
Looking on FindMyPast on how to close a person's details I need a recent document with her dob and her signature. well that's not so easy when the person in question is approaching 97 and has never driven and her last passport was over 40 years ago and long gone. I am in possession of all her paperwork, and the only thing that has both signature and dob is a financial document which I do not want to send. She can still write her signature, just about but of course I don't want to worry her.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
As the discussion is about claiming "rights" to have a record closed you or your husband is (by not asking his mother if she is concerned about the information being available) overiding her rights to have the record kept open, rather ironic.
Of course your mother-in-law may want her record closed but you give us no insight into what her views are just what your and your husband's views are.
FindMyPast have acted correctly in this situation.
Cheers
Guy
I think you are being unnecessarily judgemental....I think a son has the right to protect his 97 year old Mother by requesting closure if he thinks it's in her best interests. He may have a very good reason for his actions.
Carol
-
Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all
Not only did they discuss it, they apologised for their error.
-
I agree Carol, for all we know, he may have Power of Attorney and have every right to make the decision in his mother's interests.
As I see it, it doesn't matter who asks for it to be closed, FindMyPast are in the wrong as they obviously haven't checked whether she has died before opening it.
-
Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all
Not only did they discuss it, they apologised for their error.
Just to clarify, at no time did I actually ask for my aunts record to be re-closed.
I simply contacted FindMyPast and said I was most interested to discover what evidence they had used to open her record, since I had spoken to her only a couple of days previously and she was most definitely alive and kicking. They replied that they would look into it, and a couple of days later the record was closed.
-
Definitely contact them.
I wasn't asked for any proof. I simply emailed them and I made it clear that I felt the onus was on them to provide me with the evidence they had used.
Obviously, they had no evidence at all!
Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all
Cheers
Guy
My husband does has power of attorney for his mother. She know that her name appears on FindMyPast as an ex GPO employee.
-
Hi all,
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
Looking on FindMyPast on how to close a person's details I need a recent document with her dob and her signature. well that's not so easy when the person in question is approaching 97 and has never driven and her last passport was over 40 years ago and long gone. I am in possession of all her paperwork, and the only thing that has both signature and dob is a financial document which I do not want to send. She can still write her signature, just about but of course I don't want to worry her.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
As the discussion is about claiming "rights" to have a record closed you or your husband is (by not asking his mother if she is concerned about the information being available) overiding her rights to have the record kept open, rather ironic.
Of course your mother-in-law may want her record closed but you give us no insight into what her views are just what your and your husband's views are.
FindMyPast have acted correctly in this situation.
Cheers
Guy
How have they acted correctly???
His mother is not over 100
They are in the wrong. Obviously they do not have verication of her death ,which they should have obtained to open her record in the first place.
http://www.findmypast.com.au/frequently-asked-questions/answer/why-are-some-records-in-the--register-officially-closed
Regardless of his very much alive mother's views , they are totally in the wrong to have opened her record .
-
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
Could it have been a simple error opening the wrong one being as they were husband & wife?
"Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all"....
So it's illegal to discuss (with a family member) something they have illegally on display to the rest of the world ???
Annie
-
No, she was still single in 1939
-
In the last two weeks I have found four living relatives' names on the 1939 register, open and unredacted, all of them considerably under 100.
Quite a surprise and a big change from the early days of the register where every page seemed to hold more black lines than unredacted names.
I could engage FindMyPast and ask for them all to be hidden, but I'm not that keen on the idea that I should be working unpaid for FindMyPast to help them comply with their contract or with DP legislation.
-
Hi all,
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
Looking on FindMyPast on how to close a person's details I need a recent document with her dob and her signature. well that's not so easy when the person in question is approaching 97 and has never driven and her last passport was over 40 years ago and long gone. I am in possession of all her paperwork, and the only thing that has both signature and dob is a financial document which I do not want to send. She can still write her signature, just about but of course I don't want to worry her.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
As the discussion is about claiming "rights" to have a record closed you or your husband is (by not asking his mother if she is concerned about the information being available) overiding her rights to have the record kept open, rather ironic.
Of course your mother-in-law may want her record closed but you give us no insight into what her views are just what your and your husband's views are.
FindMyPast have acted correctly in this situation.
Cheers
Guy
How have they acted correctly???
His mother is not over 100
They are in the wrong. Obviously they do not have verication of her death ,which they should have obtained to open her record in the first place.
http://www.findmypast.com.au/frequently-asked-questions/answer/why-are-some-records-in-the--register-officially-closed
Regardless of his very much alive mother's views , they are totally in the wrong to have opened her record .
The 100 year cut off is not a statutory cut off it is simply a length of time it was thought most people would be happy with.
Unlike other countries in the World the UK has no law of privacy.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've discovered my mother in law is on the 1939 register, one of the recently opened identities. The only problem is she is still living and I know my husband isn't too happy that it's viewable.
The stupid thing is her husband's details are still closed and he has been gone for over 40 years!
Could it have been a simple error opening the wrong one being as they were husband & wife?
"Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all"....
So it's illegal to discuss (with a family member) something they have illegally on display to the rest of the world ???
Annie
Basically yes.
A Data Controller is not allowed to discuss data subjects with third parties, that is why we have the ridiculous cases of Doctors receptionists not being able to tell spouses their partner is still in with the doctor or has finished his/her visit and has left the surgery.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thank you for all your replies, I have contacted FindMyPast and await their reply, lets just hope common sense prevails. ;D
-
Definitely contact them.
I wasn't asked for any proof. I simply emailed them and I made it clear that I felt the onus was on them to provide me with the evidence they had used.
Obviously, they had no evidence at all!
Legally FindMyPast should not have discussed the case with you at all
Cheers
Guy
My husband does has power of attorney for his mother. She know that her name appears on FindMyPast as an ex GPO employee.
Just seen your reply.
In that case it would be simple for your husband to contact them and ask them to close her entry as he is acting on her behalf
Cheers
Guy
-
I've just found my mother in law AND her younger sister open when I checked. Mercifully my mother and her sister weren't.
-
Looks as if FindMyPast are getting a bit slack!
-
My 95 year old dad's open too. My sister was told we have to prove he's alive for it to be closed.
-
As I see it, it doesn't matter who asks for it to be closed, FindMyPast are in the wrong as they obviously haven't checked whether she has died before opening it.
I agree Groom.
Whether or not a discussion takes place, if FindMyPast get an email from anyone with a concern about a person's details being open & the person is known to be alive, they don't need to discuss it but they should take on board what has been pointed out to them & they in turn should check the info. given on the named living person on view as they will obviously not find a corresponding death.
They are obviously not checking their records the way we do (double checking/cross referencing) yet they have all the info. they need for to do those checks prior to opening the 1939 ::)
Annie
-
My 95 year old dad's open too. My sister was told we have to prove he's alive for it to be closed.
How strange is that....they obviously don't have a DC for him, is that not proof in itself ???
Annie
-
My 95 year old dad's open too. My sister was told we have to prove he's alive for it to be closed.
I would challenge them on that, if you/he want it closed again, ask them to prove that he isn't still alive and ask for them to send you that proof.
-
Looks as if FindMyPast are getting a bit slack!
That's what I thought! I understand the need to preserve the privacy of people who may still be alive... but they need to pay more attention to accuracy. For example, I've seen one family where all the members' records were open because the years of birth had been badly mistranscribed, and another where the wrong DOBs were assigned to the wrong people so the wrong records had been closed.
-
I have said the same thing in my email to their customer support. Proving someone is alive is harder than proving them dead. Short of getting mother in law to sign a big piece of paper with today's date and her dob and sending a photo of her holding it... even then it could be any old dear in the nursing home sitting there grinning ;D
-
My 95 year old dad's open too. My sister was told we have to prove he's alive for it to be closed.
I would challenge them on that, if you/he want it closed again, ask them to prove that he isn't still alive and ask for them to send you that proof.
Surely they should be the ones to prove he or anyone else is dead before opening up their record.
What's the world coming to?
Living people related to someone can't discuss their relative but the world has access to more info. than would be required to close it....(as in), FindMyPast not finding a DC in their database i.e. said person is still alive.
Annie
-
Dad doesn't actually know about it, and to be honest I don't think it would bother him too much. It annoys my sister and I though.
He still lives independently and is very much 'with it'.........Most definitely alive! ;D
-
My 95 year old dad's open too. My sister was told we have to prove he's alive for it to be closed.
How strange is that....they obviously don't have a DC for him, is that not proof in itself ???
Annie
FindMyPast don't use DCs unless a member of the public ask them to open a record, the 1939 has a column on the right hand page that is marked if the subject died.
I suspect that the majority of records opened in error are due to column slippage during the transcribing/recombining process and it is only now coming to light.
I would not be surprised to hear that some may have been opened due to an error in the new GRO death index, if they have been using that, but I have no proof of this.
The problem seems to be that a number of people are getting annoyed even when the subject of the record may not be.
Cheers
Guy
-
The problem seems to be that a number of people are getting annoyed even when the subject of the record may not be.
Cheers
Guy
Trouble is, Guy, that these are now elderly people, who are very vulnerable. My m-i-l is nearly blind, and over 90. And this reveals married names, maiden names and dob's. Understandably, we worry about them. Mercifully, her dob is wrong on the record!
-
Trouble is, Guy, that these are now elderly people, who are very vulnerable. My m-i-l is nearly blind, and over 90. And this reveals married names, maiden names and dob's. Understandably, we worry about them. Mercifully, her dob is wrong on the record!
Isn't it sad that we have to be so worried about the possibilities of scams etc. I only hope that any scammers wouldn't bother to go through the 1939 and cross match the records to find living people as there must be easier ways.
I still think that as FindMyPast have placed the onus on us to prove a person is dead before they open up a record, that they should take responsibility for closing any record that they have opened in error. Why would anyone want an open record closed unless that person was still alive?
-
The 100 year cut off is not a statutory cut off it is simply a length of time it was thought most people would be happy with.
Unlike other countries in the World the UK has no law of privacy.
Cheers
Guy
[/quote"]
"Why are some records in the 1939 Register officially closed?
Answer:
Individuals’ records remain closed for 100 years from their date of birth (100 year rule). Records remain closed for people born less than 100 years ago until proof of death is verified."
The quote above is from findmypast questions and answers page http://www.findmypast.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/answer/why-are-some-records-in-the--register-officially-closed
So their own declarations are meaningless, lies ? If so, they are guilty of Deception- on purposely declaring misleading statements to their subscribers and the public.
They clearly state that under 100 yrs, the records will remain closed on their site - They are doing the complete opposite of what they have declared to their customers and the public.
This is legal? I think not!
It's up to them to prove a person is dead. A person under 100 should not have to prove that they are alive - because findmypast have declared that all records under 100 will remain closed unless the death is verified (which obviously it wasn't verified if the person is still alive). The records should not be open according to their own public statements and rules.
Is there a watchdog , or civil rights body in the uk that you can take your complaints to? Findmypast is not above the laws
Kind Regards
Ps, If they asked me to prove the person is alive - I would ask them to first show me the verification that they have that the person is dead. If they couldn't give me one , I'd point them to their declaration and demand that they close the record or I'll be taking it further.
-
The 100 year cut off is not a statutory cut off it is simply a length of time it was thought most people would be happy with.
Unlike other countries in the World the UK has no law of privacy.
So, why try to fool people with their laws regarding 'privacy' having to prove someone is alive who they say is deceased?
How many of these Laws are actually 'Law'?
By law they can't do this/that/next but at the same time they are breaking the law by having people (less than 100 yrs old) on view to the public!
In other words the word 'Law' comes into force if/when it suits them.
I think a court would be more inclined to throw out the 'Law' of a 'discussion' (with a relative) of someone who's name (who shouldn't be) by 'Law' is open to the world on their site if the relative took them to court for breaking the 'Law' by having that relation on view to the public simply because they can't prove where they got their supposed proof of the person being deceased.
Annie
-
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/1939-register/
2.3 Closed records
Individuals’ records remain closed for 100 years from their date of birth or until proof of death is produced. From 1948 the Register was also used as the National Health Service (NHS) Register, and was updated until 1991, when the paper-based system was discontinued. This included notification of deaths, so the records of people born less than 100 years ago, but whose death was reported to either the National Registration authorities or to the NHS, will be open (see also section 7).
Some online search results of the register will have a number of blanked out lines, indicating closed records of individuals deemed to be alive. As more records are made public by 100 having elapsed from date of birth, they are available to search and view online at findmypast.co.uk (£).
Findmypast have also been able to check the names and dates of birth in the 1939 Register against the General Register Office indexes of deaths, enabling the opening of many more records where exact matches are found.
and
8. Why are the records closed for 100 years?
Information relating to living individuals is withheld under sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In February 2004 the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Council on National Records and Archives considered and accepted a proposal for the use of a standard closure period, and that a lifetime of 100 years should be assumed.
100 years from date of birth is a method for calculating the closure period for personal information about people who may still be alive. The information about them will remain closed for 100 years from their date of birth, as given on their entry in the 1939 Register (unless the record has been uniquely matched to a registered death record).
and
5.1. They were born less than 100 years ago
The record of anyone born less than 100 years ago is closed because they are deemed to potentially still be alive (if you can prove that they are dead you may be able to get the record opened). For more information see sections 9.
If someone was born less than 100 years ago, and has died, their record may still be closed if their death was not notified and recorded in the register. Deaths that occurred outside the United Kingdom are unlikely to have been notified. These include the majority of Second World War deaths.
JM
-
JM,
From what has been mentioned re people on 1939 who are still living (younger than 100 yrs old) has no effect on where they died (if outside UK) as they are not deceased & FindMyPast have obviously opened those records without any proof of a death whether inside/outside UK.
Annie
-
JM,
"The record of anyone born less than 100 years ago is closed because they are deemed to potentially still be alive (if you can prove that they are dead you may be able to get the record opened). For more information see sections 9."
This is a contradiction as to what they are asking from the relatives of living people, to prove they are still living ??? ;D
I'm confused with what their rules say & what actually happens when someone notifies them of living people being on view ???
Annie
-
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm going to have a look tomorrow to see if any of mine are open (ones who I have gaps on) who should be closed ???
Annie
-
Annie,
Yes I agree.
I posted the TNA live link that includes far more detail than just those snippets. I cannot see where FindMyPast had any authority to open any record where the person was not yet 100 years of age unless they had positive proof that the person was no longer living. Also earlier in the thread there was mention as to 100 year was not a statutory cut off. I posted those snippets as to me they are from a reliable source. To me, they support the notion that FindMyPast should immediately close the OP's mother in law's entry in the 1939 register. To me, any person, not just a family member, and not just the elderly vulnerable person themselves, should be able to contact FindMyPast and say "close these open records, where the person is not yet 100 years, until you, FindMyPast, have proven they are deceased".
JM
-
JM,
That was my point earlier, they should have the proof prior to opening it up & again, if someone lets them know a person is alive but open on 1939 then yes again, if they don't have the proof of a death it should not be open.
How can they justify asking someone/anyone, especially a family member to prove their relative is still alive when they are the ones who need to prove a person is deceased ???
It's not as if anyone is going to lie to them about their relative being alive if they are deceased....who in their right mind would do that unless it was fact ::)
We can put 2 words together with this which sums them up.....contradiction & contravention!
Annie
-
So, why try to fool people with their laws regarding 'privacy' having to prove someone is alive who they say is deceased?
How many of these Laws are actually 'Law'?
By law they can't do this/that/next but at the same time they are breaking the law by having people (less than 100 yrs old) on view to the public!
In other words the word 'Law' comes into force if/when it suits them.
I think a court would be more inclined to throw out the 'Law' of a 'discussion' (with a relative) of someone who's name (who shouldn't be) by 'Law' is open to the world on their site if the relative took them to court for breaking the 'Law' by having that relation on view to the public simply because they can't prove where they got their supposed proof of the person being deceased.
Annie
The 100 year rule is something that has confused researchers for a number of years.
Initially it was created in 1966 by the Lord Chancellor’s Instrument No. 12.
That Statutory Instrument (a type of ‘Act of Parliament’ that creates laws) was repealed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
That means that the 100 year rule only had standing in law between 1966 and 2000 (34 years).
After 2000 a number of archives such as the National Archives and the GRO decided to continue to use the now defunct law as a general guideline or office policy to help them decide which records to release and which to withhold from public access.
It is however only that an office policy as the legal basis of it had been repealed.
In February 2004 the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Council on National Records and Archives considered and accepted a proposal for the use of a standard closure period, and that a lifetime of 100 years should be assumed.
However that proposal is guidance or advice unlike the earlier Statutory Instrument it is not a law, that is the difference.
There are many factors at play that allow any particular record to be open or closed on the 1939 National Registration some of which were caused by the way the data was transcribed.
Unlike most transcriptions which are transcribed line by line in the normal fashion of reading a page the 1939 was transcribed in columns instead, this was done to prevent transcribers gaining access to “private information”.
On completion the columns were reassembled to form pages but sometimes an entry would have been missed in the transcription or duplicated which meant that sometimes the columns were not aligned correctly.
This could mean that an entry was opened or remained closed when the 1939 was released.
In other instances a person’s birth date was mis-transcribed giving the impression the person was older or younger than they were. In addition the right hand page (which was not scanned due to it containing medical information) carried a column which was marked when a person died. Sometimes this was marked in error, when for instance a person emigrated or left the patient list of a doctor, in other cases this was not marked when the person died, perhaps they died overseas or the doctor was not informed of their death.
The National Archives and FindMyPast are trying their best to comply with the wishes of those whose records they hold and with the wishes of the general population, whilst complying with the law of England & Wales, but we must keep in mind errors do and have occurred both now and in the past, some of which are not easy to correct without proof of the situation.
Cheers
Guy
-
But that burden of proof should be on FindMyPast
If I say "i'm alive, but you have me as dead", it's not up to me to prove it, and I would say that quite forcefully if asked
What can have gone wrong?
1/ Error on the census
2/ Error in transcription
3/ Someone has provided FindMyPast with inaccurate information
4/ Someone has provided FindMyPast with accurate information that they have used incorrectly
5/ Their ongoing process for closing dead people has failed
6/ I'm over 100
In every case, I would expect a response of "Oops, sorry" with the record being closed
-
But that burden of proof should be on FindMyPast
If I say "i'm alive, but you have me as dead", it's not up to me to prove it, and I would say that quite forcefully if asked
What can have gone wrong?
1/ Error on the census
2/ Error in transcription
3/ Someone has provided FindMyPast with inaccurate information
4/ Someone has provided FindMyPast with accurate information that they have used incorrectly
5/ Their ongoing process for closing dead people has failed
6/ I'm over 100
In every case, I would expect a response of "Oops, sorry" with the record being closed
But how many of the request to close records have been from the person themselves.
The majority seem to come from third parties not the data subject.
Cheers
Guy
-
Surely the risk of identity fraud from the 1939 register isn't a huge problem - a fraudster can apply for a birth certificate to find the same information.
That's irrelevant though - FindMyPast should (in my opinion) do more to ensure that the wrong records haven't been opened. Yes, mistakes will happen, but I've seen a lot of incorrectly transcribed DOBs (e.g. my grandmother, transcribed as 77 not 27, occupation "at school" so it's unlikely she was born in 1877!)
-
Some background to how I discovered my MIL's details were open yesterday. Previously her details were closed, I am assuming she was one of the batch that FindMyPast proudly announced they had opened a few months ago.
I was having yet another search for her husband (d1976), his brother (d1999), father (d1947) mother (d1966) and living in the same town as my MIL. I have done everything to find them, including an address search as I already knew where they lived. Nothing! so I decided to do the "chat help service" that FindMyPast offer hoping that whoever I speak to would have access to the database without the details redacted. Nope, the FindMyPast lady saw exactly the same thing as me and advised me to contact the TNA to ask them for a PAID researcher to look ::) Nope, I only live a 40 minute drive away and I can do that myself!
But it was during the search yesterday I found my MIL, scrolling through all the names with a +/- 2 years age.
I am sure its probably an error on the side of the FindMyPast contractors who are updating the database but MIL isn't the only one I have found recently, no deaths recorded anywhere. Too distant for me to sort out which got me thinking, about the odds of either the person themselves or a close family member actually discovering the slip? The odds are very slim considering very few elderly people do not know how to use a computer or have close family that are researching their family history.
Surely the risk of identity fraud from the 1939 register isn't a huge problem - a fraudster can apply for a birth certificate to find the same information.
well, maybe but recently a replacement bank card "didn't" arrive (now cancelled) but all it takes is someone with the bank details and address and dob to take out loans in her name and just intercept the mail addressed to her..... and fraud has happened at her retirement village before. Unlikely to be nursing/admin staff as they have access to these details anyway. Just saying....
-
.......but I've seen a lot of incorrectly transcribed DOBs (e.g. my grandmother, transcribed as 77 not 27, occupation "at school" so it's unlikely she was born in 1877!)
I found an "Amos" transcribed as Anne female... retired locomotive driver ;D ;D ;D
and the irony....
found a distant female cousin of my MIL, a secretary who listed her occupation as "designer of the national register"! Now that's a "one off" occupation.
-
I got in touch with FindMyPast this morning, and they are "investigating", and told me that either they will close the entries within 48 hours, or I will have to use the button requesting closure (with, of course, the required documentary proof of life!)
-
I found that my mum's entry had been opened recently, even though she is still very much alive. That of her elder sister, now 90, was still closed.
I checked against the death registrations, and no record matched well. Her entry doesn't mention her 1951 marriage, and there was no death registration for anyone with her birth name and a d.o.b. within a year of hers.
I emailed FindMyPast telling them that although my mum is quite happy to have her details on view, they should use the record to improve the algorithm used to decide which records should be opened.
They responded very quickly, closing off her record and promising to pass on the details to the relevant team.
-
im beaman sister and it annoys me that i have to prove my dad is still alive with a document bearing his signature and date of birth such as passport / driving licence.which he has neither !!!
-
im beaman sister and it annoys me that i have to prove my dad is still alive with a document bearing his signature and date of birth such as passport / driving licence.which he has neither !!!
Refuse to do it - throw it back at FindMyPast that it is their duty to prove that he is isn't alive, not yours to prove that he is. I can't really see how a document with his signature on proves it anyway, especially as a passport lasts for 10 years. Offer to give them the name of his doctor or better still his solicitor. ;)
-
I do realise that some may find it very sensitive but when I told my 88 year old father that he was visible on the 1939 register he burst out laughing and asked to see the entry. He wasn't in the least bit bothered and was actually quite pleased to be able to see something like that. I will therefore not be requesting closure.
-
I do realise that some may find it very sensitive but when I told my 88 year old father that he was visible on the 1939 register he burst out laughing and asked to see the entry. He wasn't in the least bit bothered and was actually quite pleased to be able to see something like that. I will therefore not be requesting closure.
I think everyone else is over-sensitive. I imagine most people alive prior to 1939 would feel the same as your father :)
-
But how many of the request to close records have been from the person themselves.
The majority seem to come from third parties not the data subject.
Come on Guy,
How many people of a certain age would be on a comp. doing family tree to notice...be real & take into account ages of the people concerned & their kids who are doing 'their' genealogy not to mention that some of the 'open' people probably suffer dementia or similar, frail & not a clue what the '1939' is/was.
Why do you always have to be so negative...if one says black, you say white ??? Try grey, an in between & look at things from both sides i.e. positives & negatives but don't forget to include ages here!
I would love to find some of mine on the 'open' register (I'm sure we all would) but some people are more protective than others.
Personally, if I found a living person 'open' I'd be over the moon but my research is just that for genealogy purposes.
There are criminals out there who would go to the ends of the earth to find out things & as we know, it's not too hard is it?
Annie
-
I have a very much living 90 year old great aunt whose record has been opened, I have enquired from FindMyPast why. I could understand that with common names, entries for multiple people with the same name and birthdate could get opened incorrectly, but the individual in question has a very unusual name. In the latest batches of opened records it certainly seems there are a few bugs in FindMyPast's algorithm for opening records.
-
I think everyone else is over-sensitive. I imagine most people alive prior to 1939 would feel the same as your father :)
'Most' but not all as there are many things that even direct families of these people wouldn't know & other's shouldn't know.
I am not agreeing/disagreeing with anyone who wants the record closed on a living person as it's a personal choice but I do object to the 'protocol' of FindMyPast & the people in question having to prove their relative is still alive as they should be proving they're deceased!
Their own website stipulates the boundaries if you like but they are not working within those boundaries with the people who do have complaints, which they should by law as it's themselves who are breaking the law at the end of the day.
Annie
-
I got in touch with FindMyPast this morning, and they are "investigating", and told me that either they will close the entries within 48 hours, or I will have to use the button requesting closure (with, of course, the required documentary proof of life!)
I hope you replied by requesting their proof of the death which doesn't exist.
I would also mention that they are breaking the law as they obviously don't have the proof.
It's easier to prove a death than prove someone is still alive & they should be using the proof of a death for each of their entries prior to it being opened.
Are they using 'hints' for deaths or actual documents?
It would be interesting to know just exactly how they work?
My bugbear is not having immediate access to Scottish 1939 records which is surprising as SP's records (up until the recent change) have been magnificent compared with others.
Annie
-
Could the people getting hot under the collar and shouting 'scandal' please reflect on the possible implications of their actions on future access to new recordsets.
I can understand the anguish and frustration caused by finding the implied death of a close relative and being asked to prove they are still alive. I can also understand the concern about protecting potentially vulnerable people from identity fraud and scams.
However, if you take a handwritten dataset which potentially has living people included and seek to place that information online in a searchable form then it is virtually impossible to ensure that absolutely no living people's details will be included in the published data. Seeking to achieve 100% accuracy in the process would mean it is not economically viable.
If the people complaining loudly are listened to the next time there is a dataset including potentially alive people then those people in charge who are quite happy to keep all data hidden will be able to point to the "terrible invasion of privacy" which the 1939 Register was as justification to keep 'their' data hidden because just one mistake could lead to compensation claims etc.
In real terms the published data on the 1939 Register does not pose much of a security risk. Married names and maiden names are easily found by other methods. As Clairec666 points out, DoB (the 'correct' one!) can be obtained by ordering a certificate - and indeed is readily available online for anyone who has been a UK company director. Having an incorrect DoB opened on the 1939 Register could even be a security benefit as any fraudster who decided to use those details may well trip anti-fraud alarms!
In the last couple of years I've opened many new bank accounts - the information you need to provide is substantially more than name, address and date of birth. The information you provide is verified against databases and cross-checked - even for opening savings accounts. I had one application rejected because the word I gave for 'mother's maiden name' did not match the record held in a third-party database. ::) (Not surprising as my Mmn changes with every bank!)
It is very difficult to get a credit card or loan if you don't have a quite active credit history - this in itself is likely to be a protection for our older vulnerable relatives.
Fraudsters are business people, time is money. They are unlikely to spend hours trawling through the 1939 Register to identify someone whose record has been opened in error in order to find out their (possibly incorrect) date of birth. There are far more economically efficient ways of getting ID's to scam!
So please, don't shout too loudly that records are open which should be closed. So long as FindMyPast take a reasonable approach to closing incorrectly opened records that should be enough. And yes, 'reasonable' should include checking to ensure the person asking for the (re)closure has the authority to ask. Imagine the outrage you'd feel if you discovered FindMyPast had closed your ancestor's record because a stranger had made a mistake, or made a malicious request?
-
I agree Nick_lps
I highly doubt a scammer would waste a whole lot of time & money searching 1939.
PLEASE don't make it even harder for future datasets to be released.
I thought people would be more concerned how easy it is to track living people and their details through social media and newspapers.
With the information living people put out there on social media (ALMOST EVERYTHING) it's easy to connect an entire family [siblings, parents, nana, cousins, aunties, nephews, in-laws etc]
It's easy then to track some through various bdm datasbases and finally through newspapers finding living people's birth details and marriage notices. Death notices which acknowledge living family members.
My mum who is 84 and living, I told her all her personal details were available online free to view newspapers. When I showed her she was clearly happy, ended up printing copies for her.
Her 1933 birth & 1954 marriage notice and myself & my twin sister birth in 1957 announcing my parents having twin girls and my marriage in 1980 can be viewed in New South Wales newspapers.
You can also find living people in the electoral roll today.
Guessing my private life is not so private. :o
Jane
-
I've got nothing against using 100 as a cut-off, it's what I use for my Ancestry tree. What I'm saying is that FindMyPast are in a no-win situation if they take a hardline approach when it's exceeded or misapplied.
A good reputation for strictly enforcing data integrity is not going to outweigh the perception that you go around harassing OAPs, if someone wants to portray it that way. You can almost see them wheeling out a chap wearing a string of medals saying "I served my country for 80 years, now they say I don't exist"
I would have thought that a approach along the lines of "Not dead? Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Of course we'll close the record. It'll take about a week. In the meantime, could you send me a mail confirming what you've told me so my boss knows why I've made the change. If you've got any supporting documentation that'd be great" would be better.
-
I would have thought that a approach along the lines of "Not dead? Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Of course we'll close the record. It'll take about a week. In the meantime, could you send me a mail confirming what you've told me so my boss knows why I've made the change. If you've got any supporting documentation that'd be great" would be better.
I agree, that sounds like the right approach. Although I don't think there's a huge invasion of privacy if a living person's record is opened, it's bad P.R. for FindMyPast if they're making people jump through hoops to prove someone is alive.
-
I would have thought that a approach along the lines of "Not dead? Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Of course we'll close the record. It'll take about a week. In the meantime, could you send me a mail confirming what you've told me so my boss knows why I've made the change. If you've got any supporting documentation that'd be great" would be better.
I agree, that sounds like the right approach. Although I don't think there's a huge invasion of privacy if a living person's record is opened, it's bad P.R. for FindMyPast if they're making people jump through hoops to prove someone is alive.
Problem is it is not simply FMPs rules they have been given rules by the NHS and GRO about what records to open and what to redact.
They have been given a "list" of those officially deceased, if the open record is on the deceased list they have to apply rigorous rules to close the record otherwise ID fraud could take place using the claim that the deceased person is still alive today.
People are talking as if ID theft is only about defrauding a living person but most ID theft the government is interested in is about assuming the ID of a deceased person.
Cheers
Guy
-
Whatever our views about records being open or not, with the increasing number of people living longer, a hundred year cut off point is going to become quite pointless.
I know a number of people living a full and active life in their late nineties, so they are quite likely to reach their century. I have been to two funerals recently where the deceased was 102, I had a cousin who lived to 110, and today I am meeting with a very active lady who will be 101 in three weeks time.
These are just people known to me, so only a tiny example.
Jebber
-
I would also add a further note of caution.
If too many people complain about records of living people are being released the government will do as they did with the 1920 Census Act.
When the 1920 Census Act was passed in parliament it stated
“2 (b) having possession of any information which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of this Act, publishes or communicates that information to any other person ;
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.”
It also allowed the Registrar General to open any Census taken under it at a time he/she considered relevant.
Due to complaints the 1920 Census Act was amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 which made it unlawful to release any Census taken under the 1920 Census Act and removed the Registrar General’s discretion to open such census later.
Amendment to Section 8 1920 Census Act
“(2)If the Registrar-General for England and Wales or the Registrar-General for Scotland (“the Registrars”) or any person who is—
(a)under the control of either of the Registrars; or
(b)a supplier of any services to either of them,
discloses any personal census information to another person, without lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.”
Under the currant law it is illegal to release any Census taken under the 1920 Census Act at any time in the future.
That includes the eagerly awaited 1921 census
Cheers
Guy
-
I would have thought that a approach along the lines of "Not dead? Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Of course we'll close the record. It'll take about a week. In the meantime, could you send me a mail confirming what you've told me so my boss knows why I've made the change. If you've got any supporting documentation that'd be great" would be better.
...which unfortunately is exactly the kind of thing that can help start an identity fraud.
I worked in local government for many years and dealt with many frustrated customers complaining that they had been asked to write in/send proof rather than doing something by phone. But it was drilled in to us that we have no idea who the person on the phone is (however charming and friendly) and to divulge nothing and do nothing relating to personal data simply as a result of a phone call (or email).
Yes, the process may feel insensitive/bureaucratic/pedantic but it is there to protect us. Usually it is people taking shortcuts or being 'helpful' that leads to a data breach, and this kind of approach is a Data Controller's worst nightmare. With personal data the rules have to be established and followed, however frustrating they are to the customer.
For people genuinely worried about vulnerable older people being at risk of financial ID fraud I believe the credit reference/anti-fraud agencies have a facility to put a security flag on someones file to trigger more detailed checks if an application is made in their name. Some of them may charge for this service.
Another thing worth doing is using the Land Registry's free property alert service which lets you know if anyone tries to sell or secure a loan on a property. You don't have to be the owner of the property to monitor it, so you can monitor on behalf of elderly or vulnerable people.
propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk
-
I would also add a further note of caution.
If too many people complain about records of living people are being released the government will do as they did with the 1920 Census Act.
Exactly the point I was making above. Government departments rarely need an excuse to make data secret, people complaining loudly about living people's data being published in error just makes it easier to justify all the data being kept hidden. Or else adopting the kind of approach taken with the 1939 Register data for Scotland...
-
anyone had success at closing an open identity without said signed document?
I hope you have been successful in getting the record redacted.
A few weeks ago my mother (who is in her 70's) was talking about her childhood neighbours so I went to the 1939 Register to check some names for her. I was very surprised to see her name open for all to see - she was only a baby at the time and her two older sisters were still closed.
At my mother's request (and I do have POA) I emailed FindMyPast asking them to cover her record as they would be unable to prove to me that she had died.
We were ready to send them a letter from the family solicitor, depending on the reply to the email, but were pleased to receive an almost immediate reply from FindMyPast apologising for any distress this had caused my mother and a promise to cover the record - which was duly done.
Perhaps when she is in her 90's she will feel a bit more cheerful about seeing herself openly online!
Liz
-
Liz, it is good to hear that FindMyPast were so responsive to your request.
But just to illustrate some of the points made earlier, what you've been sucessful at doing is concealing a small piece of information which was only available to people who have registered (and probably paid) to view - and is one name in a list of millions. The chances of a scammer finding it are slim. FindMyPast probably log details (IP addresses or something) of people viewing each image, so if some kind of fraud resulted there may be a trail which would allow detection.
However, what you've posted above is potentially far more valuable to those with ill-intent than the information incorrectly opened on the 1939 Register. Happy to explain by PM if you'd like.
[I've edited this paragraph because I wasn't comfortable with the original version]
I don't mean the above comment as criticism of you, and I don't mean to alarm you, but it does illustrate the point that hiding a 1939 Register entry is not that effective unless you also ensure other useful bits of information (the kind often posted on FB) are kept private.
If on reflection you decide to edit/delete your post then I'm happy to do the same with this one :)
-
I have given up on getting the transcript of my family details corrected. All details are transcribed one line down, so our household name has been given as that of the man who was the last entry of the house above.
Our surname has been transcribed incorrectly too, but that does look confusing on the original record.
My mother is not on the transcript, she is on the original,
Because all details are one line down, my brother who was born in November 1931, has been given my sisters details so his birth date is shown as September 1933. My sister has my details, so instead of September 1933, she has my birthdate April 1936.
I am still alive, I'm positive, but I am there. I was under school age on the original, but I have been given the details of an Aunt who was living with us. On the transcript I have been given her birthdate and I am down as a Domestic Science teacher.
We had a guesthouse at the time, so there are about 6 more people with wrong details, if relatives have looked on the records for these people, I don't think they will have had much success.
There is not a lot of room on the transcript to make alterations, I tried when I first saw it, so now my fathers details are correct, but he is still the second line down, the name of the gentleman from next door still is shown as head of the household. ??? ???
All other details are still in correct. I have tried again just this week, to make alterations, so I wait to see what happens this time.
-
I am very interested to see this thread, as I reported this problem to both Findmypast and The National Archives not long after their update of the 1939 Register in November 2016, when they opened 2 million more records.
As I understand it, when the Register was originally launched online, records for people born less than 100 years ago were closed unless they were marked deceased on the Register itself.
Some time after that, FindMyPast ran software which checked the closed records against the pre-1984 GRO death indexes, and the 1984-2007 GRO death indexes, which they have copies of on their site, using certain rules agreed with TNA to determine whether a match was unique or not, and if it was, the record could be opened. (They also open records regularly where birth dates become more than 100 years old.)
Then they used an outside agency to carry out a similar matching process against the post-2007 GRO death indexes, which FindMyPast do not have a copy of but which is supplied to certain companies. The 2 million records opened in November 2016 were the result of this last matching process, and as far as I know, FindMyPast staff have no way to check whether there is actually a death index record for people whose records were opened then, because they do not have access to the post-2007 death indexes - unless they visit one of the main libraries which hold them on microfiche.
I don't think there was a significant problem with the earlier updates based on matching against the pre-2007 indexes, only the post-2007 one. Both FindMyPast and TNA have denied that there was any problem with this update - see the most recent comments on TNA's 1939 Register blog for the discussion which I and a few other people had with them, until they closed it to further posts:
http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/1939-register-census-census/#comments (http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/1939-register-census-census/#comments)
Most of the points I would make are in my comments on there, so I won't repeat it all on here as it would take ages and make this post much too long! But just to add that I have made a complaint to the Information Commissioners' Office and am waiting to hear the outcome.
Oh, can I also add that if you contact FindMyPast support to have a living person's record closed, they may not know how to do it properly and they may either redact it on the image or the index but leave one or other of those open, so it is best to go via clicking the button to have the record closed, but if you can't supply the ID proof which it still asks for, upload any image just so it will go through (e.g. a screenshot of the 1939 Register record or whatever) and explain in the text box how you know the person is alive. They have said that they don't require the ID proof any more, but for some reason they have not removed it from the webpage, so it doesn't go through unless you upload some kind of image.
-
Kate, I've just read your comments on the TNA blog with interest. Have you read the whole of this Rootschat topic? If not could I politely ask you to have a look at my reply #64, and some of the other comments people have made about:
1) The actual nature of the data that may have been incorrectly opened and the other sources for the same information (such as dates of birth) which are readily available elsewhere. This is not 'secret' information, just information people might prefer is not is the public domain, but in reality they have no control over.
E.g. Michael Heseltine's DoB is available from a simple Google search - his 1939 record being visible would be of no consequence. And I doubt Mr Heseltine is going to take legal action against wikipedia.
2) The more people complain about this, the more likely it is the next time we want a dataset containing some living people opened then the response from the government will be a no, justified on the basis people were terribly concerned about the 'small' number of 1939 records incorrectly opened.
If someone wants to find out your date of birth they will. It is not hard to do. If your bank still uses your date of birth as a 'security question' then you need to change bank.
Someone planning to use people's information for some fraudulent activity are unlikely to trawl through the 1939 register looking for the incorrectly opened details of a living person in order to get their date of birth. There are far more efficient ways of doing so.
In the nicest possible way, I do hope the Information Commisioner investigates your complaint but concludes that the approach adopted by TNA/FindMyPast is completely reasonable in the circumstances. Reading the responses from the TNA it seems clear to me that they have carefully balanced the issues of protecting living people against providing access to historical records.
If we were only able to see the 1939 records of people who could be proved to be dead (and that means the over 100's too) then it would be a much diminished resource.
Edited to add:
Also, I suspect your suggestion that the 1939 Register search should be protected by a 'reCAPTCHA' or similar anti-bot device would be deeply unpopular with the many thousands of people using the site for family history research. I also fail to understand what you think anyone might achieve by doing bot searches of the data, as the record has to be unlocked before you get any meaningful information.
-
Yes, I have already read the whole of this thread.
1) I cannot stress enough that I don't care whether Michael Heseltine's (by the way, he is a Lord nowadays, not a Mr!) privacy has been invaded, but the only easy way to get a big enough sample of verified living people to check was to choose famous people. Dates of birth for ordinary people are not so easy to get, though I realise that you can get someone's birth certificate - but you have to pay for that.
2) The first thing I did when I realised that records had been wrongly opened was to contact FindMyPast and advise them that they should immediately roll back the update until they had figured out what went wrong. After some discussion with them and getting nowhere, I contacted TNA and it was only when I finally realised that neither organisation was ever going to admit that there was a problem that I contacted the ICO (which, by the way, TNA advised me to do.) I would have hoped that the 1939 Register would set the standard for future databases which contain closed records of living people which can be automatically opened after their deaths, but since there is such an obvious error in processing of the 1939 Register, it needs to be sorted out now before it can be used as a basis for any future projects.
It is not true that a record has to be unlocked before you get any meaningful information, as data such as date of birth can indeed be obtained without even logging into FindMyPast. I would not like to go into details of how I think people might use a database made up of data copied from the 1939 Register.
-
FindMyPast sent me a kind response and closed the record of my living relative even though I did not have any documentation. Obviously the system is not perfect, but they do a good job with the funds and capabilities they have. In an ideal world, they would have someone researching every individual to determine whether they are living or not, but the cost of that would have to be passed on to the customer, and I suspect would make the venture not worth the risk.
Just as a point of reference, the 1940 US census was released in full years ago, which contains details of living people.
-
1) Lord or Mr, it makes little difference. Our information is out there whoever we are. For some it is more readily available, but nobody should think that a determined fraudster is not going to obtain a date of birth with relative ease. A birth certificate does cost money, but hey, there are expenses in every business. Also bear in mind the 1939 Register birthdates are not great when it comes to accuracy. If I was planning a fraud (which I'm not ;D ) then I'd rather pay £9.25 to get the definitive birthdate instead of risking the cheap option and a couple of years at her majesty's pleasure.
However if news reports are correct, personal information about people can be obtained online for a matter of pence per item - that is where the business is, not trawling through the 1939 Register.
2) You say there is an "obvious error in processing of the 1939 Register", but is there? The response from the TNA says
The risk for the 1939 Register has been adjudged by the Government Actuary Department, based on the likelihood of someone living in 1939 continuing to be alive at age 100, to be 1.5%. Following discussion and agreement with the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding this dataset it was decided that this was a tolerable level of risk.
To me this reads that some very clever people from different organisations have sat down and looked at the problem and agreed that whilst there is a risk of living people's data being published, the level of risk is acceptable (given that any living person can request take-down as well).
The only way of absolutely ensuring that no living person's data is published is to simply not make any of the 1939 Register available until every person known to be born before the Register was taken has died. Is this your preferred option?
I'm actually more concerned that the specified level of accuracy in matching the death records means there are many records for people who have died that will remain closed with no apparent proposals to address this moving forward - until they hit the magic 100.
Ok, yes, it is possible to obtain an idea* of the date of birth without unlocking a record. But if you remember, there were certain adjustments made to the site in the early days because FindMyPast had detected unusual activity. I think it safe to assume that although FindMyPast may not be monitoring the site use to protect our privacy, there will be sufficient monitoring to detect large-scale 'probing' of the data. *But see the above comments about accuracy of this DoB
It comes back to the 'why' - why would a fraudster go to the trouble of developing a bot to obtain free of charge dates of birth of people who might, or might not, be living? Much less risk for a fraudster to identify a 'target' person, go online, pay £9.25 and get a nice accurate birth certificate.
-
A good point about the US 1940 census vrvt, although they are operating under different rules of course!
It does make me wonder if anybody features on the UK 1939 Register AND the US 1940 census AND is still living ;D
-
Quote from Guy..
"Problem is it is not simply FMPs rules they have been given rules by the NHS and GRO about what records to open and what to redact.
They have been given a "list" of those officially deceased, if the open record is on the deceased list they have to apply rigorous rules to close the record otherwise ID fraud could take place using the claim that the deceased person is still alive today"
So we have 2 Bodies working together? which seems logical/much researched/proven/confirmed?
I can understand the for & against debates here as stated in one of my earlier posts, there may be info. (nothing to do with the threat of fraud) but 'family secrets' being open (in error) & those people (with the 'secrets') are alive but their personal info. (which shouldn't be open) is open to the world.
If those 2 bodies are working together, how on this earth can the NHS & GRO have such grave errors (no pun intended) as surely, a Doctor would need to verify a death which would then be registered with GRO prior to it then being passed to FindMyPast by whatever means?
I understand that;
(A) It could be potentially dangerous for leaked info. of open living people
(B) It may pave the way for the government to put the brakes on things available
BUT, what I can't understand is the fact that no-one seems to be taking any blame for info. which should be closed.
Were there that many mistakes on death notices which had to be signed by a Doctor then taken to the Registrar to be recorded?
If a complaint of a living person is open & asked to be closed, surely with the info. the NHS & GRO have regarding the 'supposed' deceased person, it can surely be confirmed quite easily that this isn't the case especially as we have seen on earlier posts, there are no deaths with those names in those areas with matching ages.......
So, rather than admit their errors, blame the public for 'complaining' & close them all, rather than employ competent staff who know how to verify things by cross referencing things.
Maybe they need to advertise those vacancies in that field on RC where they may find competent individuals who actually know how to cross reference important data ???
Annie
-
Yes, I have already read the whole of this thread.
1) I cannot stress enough that I don't care whether Michael Heseltine's (by the way, he is a Lord nowadays, not a Mr!) privacy has been invaded, but the only easy way to get a big enough sample of verified living people to check was to choose famous people. Dates of birth for ordinary people are not so easy to get, though I realise that you can get someone's birth certificate - but you have to pay for that.
Thankfully here in England and Wales we live in a free society, which has no law of privacy, despite what many presume.
2) The first thing I did when I realised that records had been wrongly opened was to contact FindMyPast and advise them that they should immediately roll back the update until they had figured out what went wrong. After some discussion with them and getting nowhere, I contacted TNA and it was only when I finally realised that neither organisation was ever going to admit that there was a problem that I contacted the ICO (which, by the way, TNA advised me to do.) I would have hoped that the 1939 Register would set the standard for future databases which contain closed records of living people which can be automatically opened after their deaths, but since there is such an obvious error in processing of the 1939 Register, it needs to be sorted out now before it can be used as a basis for any future projects.
Have you actually looked to see what the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) regards as sensitive personal data?
Data Protection Act 1998, Part 1, Section 2
2 Sensitive personal data.
In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to—
(a)the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b)his political opinions,
(c)his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d)whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the M1Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e)his physical or mental health or condition,
(f)his sexual life,
(g)the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h)any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.
The 1939 National Registration as released does not contain any of that data therefore it is safe to say there are no concerns in that respect.
It is not true that a record has to be unlocked before you get any meaningful information, as data such as date of birth can indeed be obtained without even logging into FindMyPast. I would not like to go into details of how I think people might use a database made up of data copied from the 1939 Register.
Have you also considered that for instance names have to be made available by law under various enactments i.e. the Marriage Act, 1949, Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, etc. and are therefore exempt from the DPA under Part IV section 34-
34 Information available to the public by or under enactment.
Personal data are exempt from—
(a)the subject information provisions,
(b)the fourth data protection principle and section 14(1) to (3), and
(c)the non-disclosure provisions,
if the data consist of information which the data controller is obliged by or under any enactment [F1other than an enactment contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000] to make available to the public, whether by publishing it, by making it available for inspection, or otherwise and whether gratuitously or on payment of a fee.
Have you also considered that the NHS is required under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI) to release the 1939 National Registration records.
They first did this using FoI requests by this was costly and time consuming for the NHS and they changed that system for the current publication scheme as noted as a duty under the FoI
Have you also looked at the Information Commissioner’s (IC) ruling about redaction of information?
Reference: FS50248664, Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
Decision Notice Date: 9 November 2009.
In his ruling the IC acknowledged
1, “the NHSIC has not been able to provide any information about any promise of confidentiality given when the information was obtained”
2, The IC “notes that the withheld information would fall under the definition of ‘personal census information’ as set out in the Census Act 1920 (the “Census Act”). Section 8(2)” however he also makes clear that the 1939 National Registration “that the 1939 Register does not fall under this legislation”.
That means such legislation does not have effect on the 1939 national Registration.
I would also note that the IC in the ruling on the 1911 census required the GRO to evaluate the information in the disabilities column of the census and make a decision on each individual case whether to released that information or redact it.
This shows that just because certain information is personal to the individual it does not necessarily imply that it is sensitive information that should be redacted.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi Annie, I can't say that I have a full knowledge of how the NHS/TNA/FindMyPast approached the opening of the additional records, but the responses from TNA on the blog give a reasonable idea.
That the final number of records matched and opened was circa 2 million gives an idea of the scale of the project - we can only guess at the total number of death records/1939 entries which were examined and not matched. The only realistic way of doing this is number crunching by computer - having real people like us doing the job isn't feasible, however much better we are at doing it ;D
The problem is list A (the 1939 Register) contains errors. List B (the deaths) also contains errors. These errors are unavoidable and include - for example - that a person's official name could be 'John Robert Smith', but appears on the 1939 Register as just 'John Smith'. We all know from our own research the flexibility of 'facts' about people as we follow them through their lives in the records.
So the problem is that when list A is compared to list B it is inevitable that there will be some false matches. The laws of random errors applied to large datasets mean that somewhere an incorrect entry will provide a false match and a record will be opened in error.
This is what the NHS/TNA/FindMyPast/ICO looked at and concluded there was an acceptable error rate. It doesn't explain how Michael Heseltine's record was opened though.
If we want access to large datasets that contain information about living people then we, as a society, have to accept that some living people's data will become public. The key issue is the response from the data publishers when they are alerted to records opened in error.
From what I've read part of the problem is the fact post 2007 deaths are not available to FindMyPast in the same way earlier death records are. Which is interesting because it would appear that adopting a less open approach with the recent death data (presumably for security and privacy protection) has indirectly led to incorrect opening of 1939 Register entries and difficulties for individuals to prove to FindMyPast that they haven't died yet.
-
No, I have not gone through the Data Protection Act etc. I asked FindMyPast whether the records of living people in the 1939 Register were covered by their Data Protection Act registration, or exempt (as I assumed there was no point contacting the ICO about it if they were exempt), and if exempt, why, and their reply was just that living people's records are closed if they are under 100 years old, which didn't help. So I contacted the ICO and they said to open a case. It's up to them now.
If the 1939 Register records of living people are not covered by the Data Protection Act then I wonder why the "Takedown form" for the 1939 Register on Findmypast says "You can use this form to request a takedown of a record if the information you have found is open and you believe it should be closed under the Data Protection Act 1998." But I don't really think there would be any point asking Findmypast.
To my mind, the question is not whether living people's records should be opened or not, but whether FindMyPast's process for opening records actually stuck to the rules which they had agreed with TNA, and if it did, there must be something seriously wrong with the post-2007 GRO death index as it must include records exactly matching people who are still alive who are considered "unique" according to the matching rules (e.g. there must have been a death registration for a Michael R Heseltine with the exact same date of birth as Lord Heseltine., a death registration for a Dennis E Skinner with the exact same date of birth as the MP, and so on.) I am hoping that we will eventually know what the explanation is!
-
Kate, the response from TNA on 22 December said:
The methodology was determined by The National Archives in advance of any of this work taking place, and we are satisfied that Findmypast and the third party have followed the methodology to the letter.
(my emphasis added)
Are you saying you think FindMyPast didn't follow the agreed methodology and TNA are now turning a 'blind eye' to it?
-
Kate, the response from TNA on 22 December said:
The methodology was determined by The National Archives in advance of any of this work taking place, and we are satisfied that Findmypast and the third party have followed the methodology to the letter.
(my emphasis added)
Are you saying you think FindMyPast didn't follow the agreed methodology and TNA are now turning a 'blind eye' to it?
Either that, or that the agreed methodology was faulty, or that the files which they used for matching against have a much higher error rate than they thought.
-
Quote from Nick_lps;
"If we want access to large datasets that contain information about living people then we, as a society, have to accept that some living people's data will become public. The key issue is the response from the data publishers when they are alerted to records opened in error.
From what I've read part of the problem is the fact post 2007 deaths are not available to FindMyPast in the same way earlier death records are. Which is interesting because it would appear that adopting a less open approach with the recent death data (presumably for security and privacy protection) has indirectly led to incorrect opening of 1939 Register entries and difficulties for individuals to prove to FindMyPast that they haven't died yet."
Yes I agree errors are inevitable as no-one is infallible.
What I don't understand (whether or not), "FindMyPast didn't follow the agreed methodology and TNA are now turning a 'blind eye' to it?", why FindMyPast are able to close some without any hassle yet others are being asked to prove a person is still alive which to me is harder than proving someone is deceased?
From reading the % of expected errors (which seems low) compared to the amount of records released then the % of people who come across any error is going to be considerably smaller again i.e. why does FindMyPast not take the complaint on board, investigate it & close it if should have been closed in the 1st place?
Again, each to their own but I will mention again that there may be 'secret' information which is my concern e.g. an illegitimate child who no-one knew/knows about & the parent is still living!
Of course there may be other things but that's just an example.
FindMyPast need a better approach when it is brought to their attention that the person is still living (by a relative) if the relative asks for it to be closed as I doubt Joe Bloggs who comes across an open entry is going to go to the bother to ask for it to be closed ::)
Annie
-
Again, each to their own but I will mention again that there may be 'secret' information which is my concern e.g. an illegitimate child who no-one knew/knows about & the parent is still living!
Of course there may be other things but that's just an example.
Always an issue with family history, you never know what you might find.
There is a significant difference between the 1939 Register and census records which is there is no information about relationships in the 1939 Register. So someone concerned about an illegitimate child could simply explain it by saying the child was a friend/relative etc staying with the family at the time.
I've found countless records where the number of redacted records doesn't match the number of children I'd expected the family to have. Are these lots of 'secret' children? I have no idea, but my expectation looking at other records is there were an awful lot of evacuees living with random families in 1939, so the 'fog of war' could be used even now to cover for any 'tricky' situation.
In terms of discovering illegitimate children, the new GRO index and FreeBMD offer far more scope :-X
-
Yes Nick;
"In terms of discovering illegitimate children, the new GRO index and FreeBMD offer far more scope :-X"
That's true but the point here is people are requesting something which was set out in the T & C's which is almost being ignored when a request is made.
Personally, it wouldn't bother me & if by chance I did find something I shouldn't have on someone who's still living, I would just keep it to myself but others have different thoughts/ideas & their requests should be honoured.
Annie
-
Oh yes, I do agree that if people find their (or a close family member's) record incorrectly opened then there should be a fairly easy way of getting it closed. If I understand correctly, TNA and FindMyPast have amended their approach so 'proof of life' (e.g. passport, driving license etc) is no longer insisted on.
If the process feels less than easy then perhaps it is the issue that Guy raised - that incorrectly reclosing a record has the potential for aiding fraudulent activity, so some 'due diligence' is required to make sure someone is actually alive. Whether FindMyPast have different systems in place to do that depending on the data source we can only speculate on, but it could explain the different approaches people have reported in this RC topic.
Equally though, people shouldn't just be able to have a stranger's record reclosed because they feel it should be. So checking to ensure the request is made by or on behalf of the person in question should also be part of the process, even if it is done following an immediate temporary take-down.
-
My reply from FindMyPast was the hard line, proof of living was still needed, though they happily accepted and updated the transcription errors! ::) I have done a search for most people in my tree and my husband's which might explain whey they think I have no connected to my MIL, even though we have the same surname and I explained the close connection ::)
I have now sent off proof of living, though how it proves she is still living I haven't a clue as at nearly 97 every day is a bonus.
While I agree that we should only have the power to close close/immediate family, I think the process should be made far simpler and FindMyPast should redact the person until full enquiries are made. Very simple these days particularly as they even requested my full contact details.
There is more to my MIL's early life which she found quite distressing, which I know she wouldn't want online. It's not a straight forward, happy young lady living with her parents story.
My own parents on the other hand would be thrilled to see their names on it! I wouldn't ask for their names to be redacted ;D I also haven't asked for the many others I know are still living to be redacted... I am not close family to them, I do not keep my trees online and neither do I share this information on living people... I, like many of you learnt the hard way not to divulge to much of my tree. >:(
-
No, I have not gone through the Data Protection Act etc. I asked FindMyPast whether the records of living people in the 1939 Register were covered by their Data Protection Act registration, or exempt (as I assumed there was no point contacting the ICO about it if they were exempt), and if exempt, why, and their reply was just that living people's records are closed if they are under 100 years old, which didn't help. So I contacted the ICO and they said to open a case. It's up to them now.
If the 1939 Register records of living people are not covered by the Data Protection Act then I wonder why the "Takedown form" for the 1939 Register on Findmypast says "You can use this form to request a takedown of a record if the information you have found is open and you believe it should be closed under the Data Protection Act 1998." But I don't really think there would be any point asking Findmypast.
The 100 year rule is not something with legal standing and is really nothing more than office policy,
There was a 100 year rule legislated for under a Lord Chancellor's Statutory Instrument number 12 in 1966 but that was repealed by the Freedom of Information Act.
Only six out of the 15 pre-1910 United Kingdom censuses have been closed for 100 years; nine out of 15 have been released after less than 90 years. The average closure period for censuses in Britain is 80 years.
Rather than worry about the occasional error we the general public should be more worried about parliament being deliberately lied to as was done on at least three occasions when deliberating on whether the NHS used the 1939 register as the basis of the NHS register.
The fact that civil servants can blatantly lie to parliament with no repercussions is to my mind far more important.
In a similar way the Registrar General exceeded his authority with the 1981 census (the first one to carry a promise of closure of the census for 100 years) he later had to admit to parliament that he had no right to make that promise and had to apologise to parliament. He should have had to apolgise to the public and then been sacked on the spot.
To my mind, the question is not whether living people's records should be opened or not, but whether FindMyPast's process for opening records actually stuck to the rules which they had agreed with TNA, and if it did, there must be something seriously wrong with the post-2007 GRO death index as it must include records exactly matching people who are still alive who are considered "unique" according to the matching rules (e.g. there must have been a death registration for a Michael R Heseltine with the exact same date of birth as Lord Heseltine., a death registration for a Dennis E Skinner with the exact same date of birth as the MP, and so on.) I am hoping that we will eventually know what the explanation is!
The simple answer to that is FindMyPast have worked with the NHS and the TNA to release the data on the 1939. They are in close contact with each other and developed the procedures together; it is not a case of the TNA and the NHS standing back.
One explanation of records of living people being open is one created by the system used to transcribe the 1939.
Instead of transcribing line by line FindMyPast was required to redact all columns except the column to be transcribed, i.e. the transcribers only viewed one column of text, such a method allowed errors such as lines being missed in a column or a line transcribed twice. Some of these were found in the pre-release checks some slipped through.
It would have been far better to have allowed the transcribers access to the full page from the register rather than being paranoid about a transcriber remembering information from hundreds of lines transcribed in a day.
Cheers
Guy
-
Yes, Guy, I realise that some living people's records are open because of transcription errors on the 1939 Register, some of which are caused by the particular process they used to transcribe it, and of course we have to accept that can happen, but none of the examples I have seen of living people's records which were opened in the November 2016 update were due to that type of problem.
-
Yes, Guy, I realise that some living people's records are open because of transcription errors on the 1939 Register, some of which are caused by the particular process they used to transcribe it, and of course we have to accept that can happen, but none of the examples I have seen of living people's records which were opened in the November 2016 update were due to that type of problem.
Ok, thanks.
Cheers
Guy
-
I think I now know how my MIL's information was opened.
There is another lady, initials B E whose married name is the same as MIL, similar ages. When I found my MIL, her first and middle name had been transposed because of an error when the 1939 form was originally completed but later corrected. The FindMyPast transcriber only noted her names in the wrong order (B E). Its very likely the other lady has since passed.
-
My apologies for this - and I openly admit that I have no intention of reading all the responses to this thread - but I cannot possibly see the problem with viewing "open" entries, which should possibly be still "closed" due to the age of that person - my thought is - be glad you're still alive, and possibly still causing chaos :o
Whoever the person is/whatever they've done since 1939, the information related to that person has not been updated for around 20-30 years = 1990's :-X
OK, I don't even appear on the 1939 - not born until 1942 - but anything on this Register would be at least 20-30 years out of date ;)
IMHO, if you keep on "knocking" the release of information, then the "powers that be" will cease to let us have access to it. Take your pick :-\
-
No need to trawl the 1939 Register looking for details...
Instead, con people into applying for a fake job to get their details. Use the details to get marriage certificates, use the marriage certificate to register babies that don't exist, use the resulting fake birth certificates to claim benefits.
Simple eh? Apparently no checks being made on who is applying for a certificate and why (which of course there is no legal restriction on anyway). And you don't even need to do the first step of the fake job in order to get someones real birth certificate and hence date of birth, mothers maiden name etc.
And he was caught because he went back to a Registrars Office he'd previously visited and the staff recognised him. Nothing to do with the backroom systems detecting anything odd.
Man registered 26 non-existent babies -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39063473
-
I have now had notification from FindMyPast that my MIL is in the process of being redacted, a little tussle but finally done.
Thank you for all your contributions but I would now like to close this thread as the orginal query has been completed.
-
No, I have not gone through the Data Protection Act etc. I asked FindMyPast whether the records of living people in the 1939 Register were covered by their Data Protection Act registration, or exempt (as I assumed there was no point contacting the ICO about it if they were exempt), and if exempt, why, and their reply was just that living people's records are closed if they are under 100 years old, which didn't help. So I contacted the ICO and they said to open a case. It's up to them now.
If the 1939 Register records of living people are not covered by the Data Protection Act then I wonder why the "Takedown form" for the 1939 Register on Findmypast says "You can use this form to request a takedown of a record if the information you have found is open and you believe it should be closed under the Data Protection Act 1998." But I don't really think there would be any point asking Findmypast.
The 100 year rule is not something with legal standing and is really nothing more than office policy,
There was a 100 year rule legislated for under a Lord Chancellor's Statutory Instrument number 12 in 1966 but that was repealed by the Freedom of Information Act.
Only six out of the 15 pre-1910 United Kingdom censuses have been closed for 100 years; nine out of 15 have been released after less than 90 years. The average closure period for censuses in Britain is 80 years.
Rather than worry about the occasional error we the general public should be more worried about parliament being deliberately lied to as was done on at least three occasions when deliberating on whether the NHS used the 1939 register as the basis of the NHS register.
The fact that civil servants can blatantly lie to parliament with no repercussions is to my mind far more important.
In a similar way the Registrar General exceeded his authority with the 1981 census (the first one to carry a promise of closure of the census for 100 years) he later had to admit to parliament that he had no right to make that promise and had to apologise to parliament. He should have had to apolgise to the public and then been sacked on the spot.
To my mind, the question is not whether living people's records should be opened or not, but whether FindMyPast's process for opening records actually stuck to the rules which they had agreed with TNA, and if it did, there must be something seriously wrong with the post-2007 GRO death index as it must include records exactly matching people who are still alive who are considered "unique" according to the matching rules (e.g. there must have been a death registration for a Michael R Heseltine with the exact same date of birth as Lord Heseltine., a death registration for a Dennis E Skinner with the exact same date of birth as the MP, and so on.) I am hoping that we will eventually know what the explanation is!
The simple answer to that is FindMyPast have worked with the NHS and the TNA to release the data on the 1939. They are in close contact with each other and developed the procedures together; it is not a case of the TNA and the NHS standing back.
One explanation of records of living people being open is one created by the system used to transcribe the 1939.
Instead of transcribing line by line FindMyPast was required to redact all columns except the column to be transcribed, i.e. the transcribers only viewed one column of text, such a method allowed errors such as lines being missed in a column or a line transcribed twice. Some of these were found in the pre-release checks some slipped through.
It would have been far better to have allowed the transcribers access to the full page from the register rather than being paranoid about a transcriber remembering information from hundreds of lines transcribed in a day.
Cheers
Guy
Interesting. What exactly happened here please? (in 1981)
-
You have resurrected a topic that was last active in February 2017.
Have you taken the time to read all of the previous posts from the start so you see the full discussion?
-
You have resurrected a topic that was last active in February 2017.
Have you taken the time to read all of the previous posts from the start so you see the full discussion?
sorry does it explain on here somewhere in more detail about the 1981 incident?