Posted on July 7th, 2009 by Barry Collins

Is 192.com Britain’s most invasive website?

We’re constantly warned by security experts not to divulge detailed personal information about ourselves on websites. Well, now we don’t have to, because the recently revamped 192.com is doing it for you. And then selling it on for as little as 35p per record.

192.com collates information from various public records and databases – electoral rolls, phone directories, Companies House – and then packages them altogether in one convenient lump.

Simply type in someone’s name and their rough location and you’re near instantly presented with a staggeringly detailed record of that person. You’ll get their full name and address, their telephone number and age (if they have a record at Companies House). You’ll also get the full name of any other adults who live in their house, as well as details of how long they’ve each lived in the property (gleaned from the electoral roll) and how much the house is worth.

If any of the occupants are registered as directors at Companies House, you can get their director information, including company names, addresses and telephone numbers. So now you’ve got the full set of details for someone’s work and home.

Scroll down a bit and you’ll also find full details of the person’s neighbours, including their full names and addresses and telephone numbers. Why would anyone want such information for legitimate purposes? In case your elderly mother wasn’t answering her phone and you wanted to contact her friend next door, was the best reason 192.com could come up with when I asked them.

IDENTITY FRAUD

192.com insists none of this information is of any real use to fraudsters. “The sort of data we use here is not the data used to validate transactions of any sort,” Dominic Blackburn, new technology director at 192.com told me.

True, you might not be able to apply for a credit card in someone else’s name using just the information provided by 192.com, but it would certainly give you a pretty good head start. And as Davey Winder pointed out in our recent feature on ID theft, the more information you have on someone, the easier it is to hunt them down on sites such as Facebook, MySpace or personal blogs where you can get more. Combine the person’s birthday from their Facebook profile with their age from 192.com, for example, and you’ve got their date of birth.

The ease of such data harvesting techniques is why organisations such as the Government-backed Get Safe Online warns you not to reveal too much personal data online. “Be wary of publishing any identifying information about yourself. In particular things like: phone numbers, pictures of your home, workplace or school, your address, birthday or full name,” the site advises in its safe social networking section. Too late. 192.com’s done it for you.

Still the company insists it’s not compromising your safety. “If I was a fraudster I wouldn’t want to use a site like 192.com, because every search they perform is logged,” Blackburn told us. “We’ve been doing this for ten years, and we’ve never had any actual problems.”

TASTE OF ITS OWN MEDICINE

So, we decided to take 192.com at its word. If it’s not worried about the potential privacy implications of publishing such rich profiles, perhaps we should reveal what we managed to find about the man who runs the company.

Whilst Dominic Blackburn was demonstrating his new site to us, he used the profile of 192.com’s founder and CEO, Alastair Crawford, to demonstrate some of the site’s features. Using information gleaned from Mr Crawford’s 192.com profile, we’ve been able to build up a fairly detailed profile of his personal life, using only information and resources that are freely available on the web.

The first thing we learnt was that 40-year-old Mr Crawford lives at an address in Fulham, London, along with what we presume is his wife, in a property that was worth £495,000 when it was purchased in 2000. (Curiously, Dominic Blackburn used to live at the same address some years ago).

$Alastair Crawford\'s house$ Using Google Street View, we’re able to get this detailed picture of Mr Crawford’s house, which clearly shows that he’s a Sky satellite customer (which might be useful information for someone attempting to steal his identity) and that his house is protected by a burglar alarm.

Which is probably just as well, because by looking up the director’s information on both him and his wife, they’re clearly busy people. He’s listed as a director of no less than three companies (Vouched Network Ltd, Wasabi Online Ltd and I-C D Publishing, the parent company of 192.com), while his 38-year-old wife is listed as a writer at Lexington Public Affairs Ltd and a broker at AMC Capital.

Entering both their names into a Google search produces his profile on social-networking site, Wasabi (which, as we know, he’s a director of). Here we can find the names of his friends, pictures of his holidays in Cyprus and Mexico and the rather unusual revelation that he went to the same school as the singer James Blunt (at this point, we’re not sure who we feel the most sorry for).

A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that James Blunt went to the Harrow School, and a subsequent search for “Alastair Crawford” and “Harrow School” produces a site listing one Alastair Crawford among the 1987 alumni – which roughly tallies with the age we gleaned from his 192.com profile.

So after not much more than 10 minutes, we’ve managed to discover Mr and Mrs Crawford’s age, home and work addresses, telephone numbers, photos of his home and holidays, details of his friends, his school and much more besides. And we’re bumbling amateurs, not professional identity thieves.

Mr Crawford might not be bothered about this information being public: I suspect you might be.

Tags: 192.com, Get Safe Online, identity theft

Posted in: Newsdesk

Permalink | Trackback

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

73 Responses to “ Is 192.com Britain’s most invasive website? ”

Ian Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Nice work. I hope this gets picked up.
Victoria Walmsley Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
This is alarming! I knew this information was out there, but it’s shocking to see how quickly and easily it can be discovered.
dan Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
is your problem with 192 or street view or wikipedia or wasabi or google in general … or … the internet?

better title for this article might have been “The Internet: World’s Most Invasive Tool?” as you seem to have used 5 or 6 different tools to find the info you were after.
David Coveney Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
As a director of a company I was always aware of what public information about me was available. I mean, that’s simply something you have to accept if you want to be director of a company in the UK.

It’s pretty easy to find this stuff out without using 192.com

What surprises me is that all this is news to anybody.
Jane Cooper-Smith Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
As a director of a company of course you knew this information was available, and I will go so far as to assume as the director of a company you are slightly more knowledgeable about a lot of things than Joe public.

What concerns me is the number of people who will stumble across this in a search for a telephone number and will quickly realise the vast amount of information they can glean so easily.

I am not a paranoid person, I love the internet-it is how I make a living, I was a champion of Google Street View and many other tools which have sparked controversy. What bothers me so much about this is quite simply how unnecessary it is. 192.com is no longer a directory- it is a private detective service.

It is completely invasive. I also hope this gets picked up, after the drama over Street View I can’t wait to hear 192 defend this.
teecee90 Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Exactly which bits of this public information do you think ought to be censured? Or is it just that 192 has packaged dome of it together?
UCGC Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
This sites been around for years, they’ve simply given it a makeover. But hey, 10/10 for being able to use things like the internet to put this highly insightful piece together.

This article proves nothing bar the fact that yes, there is a lot of data on the internet about everyone which can be acquired from various websites.
DbleA Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Wow! Not only is the author an excellent amateur private detective, he’s an excellent rookie researcher and he’s doing a good job as an amateur blog writer!

You people are moaning and screaming for privacy yet come to the Internet because you want the convenience of information at your fingertips. Well hey, guess what? There’s a market for people who want your information too!

The beauty of listening to one mans biased ranting in a blog means that you get to focus misdirected anger at one place rather than the other 15 companies who will also sell you the same information as long as you have a credit card.

As an advocate of privacy. I’m thankful that companies like 192 are regulated by UK law because once data heads trans-border, you really will have a reason to be worried!

You’re caught on CCTV about 30 times a day, your mobile phone company know exactly where you are, your usage on this site (and most other sites) is tracked from the moment you clicked on a link to come into the site and all subsequent actions you performed after this are recorded for some marketing spod to “improve your experience”. In the mean time you’re demographicallly profiled and given a credit score based on your spending patterns, which are encouraged by the people who analyse your spending habits based on data from your store loyalty cards.

At what point do you consider things invasive and decide to shut the stable door behind that horse who has long since bolted?
stu Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 12:34 am
just checked myself out on there and the information is nearly a decade out of date so much much use to anyone really
Cover Notes Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Elsewhere, I’m a local councillor and my name and number is plastered all over my ward. I’m sure it’s realatively easy to find more details about me – although I have a very common first/last name combination.

The information is out there, whether in physical books or online – so what? We live in a global village. It’;s up to each individual to make sure that their bank codes, mobile phone key words etc are kept secret and random.
nicholas butler Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:33 am
But that s all publically accessible information. When are all you failed journalist and ill prepared thinkers going to stop writing poorly considered articles about privacy and idenity theft and start actually talking about the Emperors clothes which is the lack of actual security and authentication provided by banks and financial services.

Identity is not the same as authority and we should be paying the price for poorly considered authentication routines.
Ian Hendry Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:38 am
It’s worth pointing out that all the information gleaned from 192.com is happily surrendered by the person it relates to, as was the information that Barry Collins gained from other internet sources.

The Electoral Role permits you to opt out of your information being public and therefore unavailable to 192.com and others. As pointed out, if you wish to be a company director this information has to be public, but no one is forced into holding such a status. And we all happily share details of who we are, who we know and what we do on social networks ourselves.

Yes, this information can be used against you by the unscrupulous. But it can also benefit you. I have previously used internet resources to successfully prove that someone new to me as a contact was lying about who they were and where they lived before they had managed to abuse the trust they had gained. And this was several years before the “revelation” in this article.

There are as many benefits to this information being available as there are downsides. Factor in that almost all of it is published WITH our consent I am unsure why it’s quite the big deal everyone is making out.

Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Barry Collins Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I fully accept the information that sites such as 192.com provide is available elsewhere. But before sites such as this existed, you’d have to go to town halls, libraries or several different websites to find them.

192.com also allows you to piece together information that you might not have previously. So, taking the example of Mr Crawford, I would have no easy way of finding out the name of his wife, let alone whether she was a company director or not, without randomly ploughing through electoral rolls or Companies House records. This site presents the data on a plate.

I also don’t believe that many people know about the opt-out of personal information on the electoral roll. So simply by voting, many people are handing over personal data that is being sold on by the Government, while another Government-backed website warns against handing out such information!

Barry Collins
Sam Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I could quite easily find out the name of Mr Crawford’s wife, using information accessible over the internet via ancestry.co.uk, which has a database of marriages from 1984-2005, including locations and months. I could search through local papers from the past few years to try to find a short article on their marriage. I could probably get a copy of their marriage certificate, from gro.gov. I could get detailed information on the company from Companies House direct, without leaving my desk.

If you allow information about yourself to be published online: if you’ve let your phone get mentioned in the Phone Book; if you’ve let your mobile phone be in mobile118.co.uk; if you’ve ticked or not ticked the box on the electoral roll form which asks whether you want to be on the public register or not; if you’ve founded a company and used your home address as the company registered address; if you’ve uploaded data to facebook or myspace or any other social networking site, and allowed even some of that information to be seen publicly, then you cannot, in any way, complain when this information is accessed.

Barry, you say “I also don’t believe that many people know about the opt-out of personal information on the electoral roll.” It’s right there, on the form. It’s easy to read, they don’t try to hide it. If you fill in a form without checking every part of it, you deserve what you get. People are so quick to complain about sites like this making freely available, public information easy to find, and yet seem to abdicate all responsibility in protecting their data themselves.
Mr E Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Barry – You don’t know the name of his wife. You know the name of his sister. Check your facts!
Jane Cooper-Smith Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
What people quite clearly seem to be ignoring here is that yes, technically I could find out every single detail about someone if I trawled through a number of websites….which most people wouldn’t!

The issue with this is that it is right there with one click, and again people- completely unnecessarily! Is there one good reason why this information should be in an online directory? Honestly!
Steve Cassidy Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Jane’s got the point here. It’s not the simple bits of information, it’s the synthesis of all of them together, and how idly you can look them up, that matters. aboutus,org is another example of how synthesis makes life more exposed – lots of people who registered their own domains and neglected to make them private, have suddenly found themselves presented on Google via aboutus’ HTTP presentation of domain lookup services.

And while mr DbleA vents his spleen, he might want to stop off and consider the point that “egulated by UK law” basically means “you have no chance of influencing them when it comes to your data…”
jt Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
It’s stand up and be counted; or thought ill of, for being secretive.
If you have nothing to hide and need the security of being believed
all the time, tell the truth; hide nothing; an open book. If anyone steals
your identity, they show themselves for what they are, a crook.

A different “game” (like the Paul Newman film – Without malice.) can
be destructive for everyone. If you dig a grave, dig two, one for yourself.
Rather a needless waste of a life. If you want to be entertaining….

i.e. an effective and troublesome route is to create a new ficticious,
identity each time you enter your details into any online form. e.g.
Mr C. Gull, Seaview, The Ridge, Clift Terrance, Homeland on Sea. C1 4ME
A new identity every day; will that cause some confusion among the
record keepers! Oh, what games we could play.

This sword has many edges; do we need to be believed? Do we need
to know the true details of others – at some time? Is there ANY white feet
in this tribe? At all? In this infectious method of record mis-direction?

I think total transparency is the best option, – if no one abuses it;
but, that makes another story, sorry. Life goes on.
JH Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Couldn’t find anything about myself, except possibly for the ‘x birth records’ and I am unwilling to pay to see. But I suppose its all part of the traces of ourselves we leave everywhere, scientists in the future would be looking not at fossils but at ancient servers because they can find out more from the information therein.
Rob A Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Thankfully the website is terrible when it comes to flats.

Apparently I live with my neighbour and not my wife. I think I should sue the site for defamation by suggesting I’m having an affair with a man.
Tim Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Isn’t there a responsibility under the data protection act for information like this to be accurate?

I can find plenty of examples of incorrect information
Tim Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
My mother died in 2001 and she is listed on this website!
Tim Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Just checked out details on my company and the website listed against the entry for my company is a page from another directory service. It’s not my company’s website; it lists 6 companies; none of them mine.

One of the companies I work for uses a trading name that is not a limited company but on 192.com it is listed as a limited company at the wrong address.
Papa G Says:
July 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I’ve just checked information regarding my family members on this 192.com site.

First, I know that my wife has ticked the box regarding privacy on the electoral register, and we have an Xdir phone, and do not give our home phone number out to anyone as we have a small business and give out that number whenever asked.

In this day and age and with someone breaking into our bank accounts a few years ago, we’re very cautious now.

Yet, this information was available fully on 192.com. I don’t understand how you can be cautious, and them still publish the information unless someone hasn’t done their job well, or it has been obtained dishonestly.

So, how do we check? How does 192 verify with us that our information “should” be shared, when we specifically opt out when signing certain documents or providing our private information in forms etc.

Why is it always that “Big Brother” is always fast to grab, but not protect those that feel invaded? I think its about time “Big Brother” had to answer to all of us, and possibly a few lawsuits where fraud has occured, and places such as this were the tools used to accomplish it. Surely collusion is still a crime?
Nick Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
That the information is available is understandable. What is exceptionally difficult to understand is the difficulty in dealing with institutions when there is a problem. No one will help you when a fraudster uses your name and address to take out a loan in your name, all of them arguing that it is your fault.
Hagley Road Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Funny I stumbled upon this article. I wrote one two days ago about eerie 192 and that idiotic mobile number directory 118 800 that is about to be launched.

I must say I am surprised by the lack of controversy surrounding 192.com. After I found out about it I was seriously blown away. Especially as you read one hollow article after the other about “privacy” and then details can be accessed so easily!

Why would I want anybody to know names and surnames of those who lived with me in 2003? What purpose would that serve?
Here’s my thoughts on Hagley Road to Ladywood

http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2009/07/privacy-and-technology-rant.html
Kate Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Drop by. Nice Blog.
yvonne Says:
November 19th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Thank you 192 my daughter now has a stalker. They have told him her address, how to get there and phone number. `how can this be legal? do we as citizens have no rights? This is all so some greedy bastard can make money at other peoples misery.
Mail from Santa for yor children! Cheap Christmas Cards , Christmas Free Clip Art , Christmas Gift Ideas Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Mail from Santa for yor children! Cheap Christmas Cards , Christmas Free Clip Art , Christmas Gift Ideas…

http://seasonchristmas.com Mail from Santa for yor children! Cheap Christmas Cards , Christmas Free Clip Art , Christmas Gift Ideas…
airline travel insurance Says:
December 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
airline travel insurance
…

http://airlineplace.com airline travel insurance
…
king and queen beds and mattresses Says:
December 20th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
king and queen beds and mattresses…

http://best-beds.com king and queen beds and mattresses…
Pula houses for sale Says:
January 16th, 2010 at 10:22 am
You’d better not get married because of data misuse. Also, your property can be overtaken in case of split up.
www.192.com Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
http://www.192.com are “online thugs”. My parents never use the internet, and have no intentions of using it, yet their personal info right down to their ages and middle names are listed on http://www.192.com. I have repeatedly told http://www.192.com to remove my family’s info, but they keep sending me out this stupid form. I reply each time saying I am not filling your form out because I do not wish to give you more info than you already have. Two weeks this has been going on back and forth. What I want to know is this, how come I have to fill out a silly form to get them to “successfully remove the information”, yet I don’t ever remember them sending my parents out a form asking for their permission so they could blast my family’s information all over the world. ANY PSYCHO CAN PAY FOR MY PARENTS INFO, yet I can’t even get them to remove it.

If http://www.192.com do not remove my family’s information by 5pm tomorrow (09/feb/2010) I will take great pleasure in taking this matter as far as I possibly can.
192scum Says:
May 26th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
The Government should stop this, they don’t even have an opt out button to press. They even have a photo of my bloody house on it.
free clip art online Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 3:32 am
free clip art online…

[...] Resource: Is 192.com Britain’s most invasive website? | PC Pro blog about free clip art online…
Sharon Wilkins Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
All this information on 192.com is about 10 years out of date.
Mat Says:
August 25th, 2010 at 10:40 am
192 don’t produce this information, they just provide tools to access it. This information is all public already.

More to the point, 192 is widely used by retailers TO STOP ID FRAUD not by fraudsters to perpetuate it.

Many retailers use services, like 192, as an anti-fraud measure. When a purchase is made in your name 192 gives them a means to check that this is not happening without your permission.
Sally Says:
August 27th, 2010 at 5:28 am
I was shocked you can see so much information WITHOUT logging on to the site. You can see someones NAME, POSTCODE, TOWN, their age bracket and who else lives in the property!! Fradusters can easily ring you up to glean more information from you by confirming to you the details they have on you and then asking you more personal questions…they don’t need to go through your rubbish bin anymore!!
Wes Says:
September 1st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
The “we will find you” tool of the 21th centenary, I don’t even have facebook – this is clearly wrong!
I don’t won’t my info on this site or any other useless I have input it.
The scary thing about this –
“Your mother’s madam name” on there
“Your address” on there
“Date on birth” on face book
And there away. . . .Scary indeed

http://statics.192.com/downloads/C01.pdf <- to remove the info
192Abuse Says:
September 7th, 2010 at 3:22 am
I have also asked them to remove my details. They request I sign a form if I want my details removing and there is no way in hell I’m doing that as they obtain my signature. I want to take legal action against this company, is any one else interested in joining me? The more we get together the better. Why should these thugs be allowed to profit at others expense? Please post below resources (legal, government protection etc) and lets plan on how we can group together and see this service wiped out once and for good.
Sam Says:
September 11th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
This is an invasion of privacy. My work involves work that upset some dangerous people. What about my right to privacy.
Despite me requesting my voters list information not to be revealed, the address info from 8 years ago when this choice was not there is revealed. It even tells you how many births are registered under my surname there (my kids identity!) with the basic search. I suppose the premium search reveals a lot more.
I cannot imagine anyone needing all this information for a honest genuine purpose.
Site should be banned.
Brian Says:
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
What is the point of being warned not to publish information about yourself if it’s already on the web – care of 192. Why is it an ‘opt out’ system rather than ‘opt in’.. I will tell you why – because no one in their right minds would ever opt in! This needs to be looked at urgently.
Jenny Says:
October 7th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
You think this is bad, I am not on facebook but a friend decided to join recently. Just by providing her email address and name, Facebook were able to suggest tens and tens of people who she might like to invite to be friends. We could not tell how they made the recommendations, but the sheer volume and obscurity of the people facebook knew she had had any connection with in the past, was terrifying. Basically, Facebook know a substanital amount about your whole social/work life history. Moreover, are VERY likely to have your name, email and and a photo of you all linked together, whether or not you have ever had any direct contact with the company. Sometimes you wonder where papers get such great pics of people accused of, or victimised by crime. Often, media get photos from Facebook (whether or not your profile is ‘private,’ and potentially, regardless of whether you even have a profile.) and then splash it across the front page.
Rogerbanger Says:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Petition against 192.com

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39936.html
Rogerbanger Says:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
SIGN PETITION + and please join “Shutdown 192.com” Facebook Group —

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/39936.html
Rob Says:
November 8th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
I’m saddened that there are so many morons that don’t have a problem with companies selling their private data.
ben Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
192.com would be an absolute joke of a website if it wasn’t so sinister. why the FUCK would i want MY personal details up on the internet for all and sundry to have a look at?? legislation must surely follow..
Sallie Grosvenor Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
The very ideal method to locate laser hair treatment in your neighborhood is actually referral and rather than by an MD who is getting a chunk of the action. I used to visit a great MD to get laser light treatments. I had spotty hairy spots and had been recently thru all of those other hair removal systems. I purchased a new tria laser and have not been more pleased. At long last I am hair free for the summer time. This will be a good yr for me.
Catherine Viggers Says:
January 1st, 2011 at 3:31 pm
List of occupants living with me in 2002 is totally incorrect!!
Catherine Viggers Says:
January 1st, 2011 at 3:37 pm
2009-2010 also wrongly named occupant
Conehead Says:
January 11th, 2011 at 10:42 am
The implications of providing details online (correct or otherwise) is worrying. The right to privacy is being violated here simply because people are not providing this information voluntarily through some social networking site. On these occasions people tend to be guarded with the info they supply. My advice, never ever give true info about yourself on line anywhere. The law is not interested in your personal freedoms only about fraud, or paedophilia. Give wrong post codes and never use your real name. The loss of integrity brings the whole sordid system down.
Anonym? Not anymore! Says:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
I am absolutely horrified by what this company is doing-how they can claim it has done no harm I am astounded by. I found out about this site when I asked a stalker how he got my address. And despite this and other crimes I am certain are down to them, 192 still refuse to remove any details what-so-ever. They give themselves 21 days from receipt of a form. thats 21 more days I don’t feel safe in my own home-and this is just to prevent further damage being done. I’ve explained everything and pleaded with them over and again to remove at least some of it sooner but all they care about is the money they’ll make from selling me for the next 22days.

Look at all these info thieves/stalkers/sales people CEO/192.com employies and similar taking over this site and others like it-think we can’t see your game-worth too much to you. Much hugely embarrassingly wrong information on there about my family and myself on there too. All at the fingertips of any idiot who cut and paste. So wrong, I will not rest till these sites are closed down.192abuse and petitions to shut down I agree. Of course it should be opt in. Why have we bothered in painstakingly shredding every detail of our addresses for all these years when all someone has to do is time in your name and these greedy scumbags make sure everything about you is available to anyone who looks. Well done to this journalist-lets get many more like him to publicise what these sites are doing.
rhc Says:
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
There are plenty of examples of ‘out of date’ information on the internet. Think of all the unused accounts people set up.
Steve Says:
March 18th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I definately opted out on my electoral form but I’m still on there, I will have to send them the form and give them more info but i can’t believe how few people have signed the petition
tony Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:47 am
I opted out of 192 yet i’m on there , this is scary, this is worse than facebook and a stalkers dream come true – all you need is someones name and local area and thats it, how can this be allowed?? i checked on all my friends and found there personal details and how the hell do they have my land line phone number!!! ! i will be filling in the form monday and will speak to the council , can I Sue? Outrageous invasion of privacy
john Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:53 am
i work for a newspaper and will email this link to journalists but you know they use 192 all the time to get there stories, so media will black this story out , as they will be cutting there their own throats, need a protest!!
tony Says:
March 29th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I just done some investigation, I called the council and i did opt out so how the hell did they get my details and my new phone number! So i figured it out, recently i subscribed to a Sky package, Telephone, broad band and internet so looks like there the Culprits :@
Matthew Says:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I am on the process of taking legal action against 192.com . I have asked them to remove all my detail along with the rest of my family members but they only removed our address and didn’t bother to remove our names and so a shortly a court hearing will commence. The good thing is it doesn’t cost me nothing for legal cost as one of my family member is a practicing solicitor.
Matthew Says:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Beware that some councils have started selling electoral register of those who opted out from their details being made available to 3rd parties. As councils are faced with cut backs from central governments, some have started selling the names and details of individuals on electoral register to 192.com. I found out after my details where published on 192.com and it says they got it from electoral register but when I contacted my local council, I was told that the record on their system shows that I opted out. and so I asked how the hell then 192.com got details on their web site and they claim to have got it from the electoral register? Then they told me they didn’t supply the details and that I need to contact 192.com and then I contacted 192.com to explain what the council said and guess what? the lady from 192.com told me that the council sold them new and old records in bulks from their electoral register about 6 months earlier and they got my details on their web site. I find this disgraceful and I think some councils ought to come clean by letting everyone know that they make money by selling records of those who opted out.
zigojacko Says:
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Anyone know how we can correct our business address on 192? Stupid website is presenting incorrect details for us and I can’t see any options to correct them.
Ignorance Says:
August 25th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I cannot believe how stupid some people are or should I say ignorant. Simple research will show you 192.com actually aggregate data from legitimate sources who have your data in the public domain. All 192.com do is combine that information nothing illegal or wrong as far as I can see.

People need to be more careful and use their intelligence when it comes to handing out their data in the first place i.e. how many people actually read the voting forms? How many people read the small print when they fill out forms on line? How many people use facebook or other social networking sites?

192.com is not invasive at all since they don’t get your information illegally it is all available in the public domain if you could be bother to get off your fat arses to look for it.

Sites like 123people are far more invasive.

For those who moan about stalkers etc if they are intelligent enough they can just go down to the local library and find all they need about you.
ann jones Says:
August 28th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
for those who rightly are not happpy about theie detail on the site in question ,that is their perogative and their entitled to their opinion surely concerning themselves, it`s their business -simple,it is on a plate and no one can take away their right to object or be bullied into thinking otherwise , for those who don`t mind then that`s ok to , each to their own but by the way CHOICE shouldn`t be forgotten, IF ONE IS NOT PEEVED THEN WHY MOAN ABOUT THOSE WHO VALUE RESPECT SHOWN TO THEM.
jim Says:
August 31st, 2011 at 6:39 pm
beats me how they can charge money for a look at the electoral roll,which is free.
Alexander Smith Says:
October 13th, 2011 at 7:52 am
192.com is only publishing consented public information in a directory – like the telephone book and Edited Register, which you can opt out of, that is obviously not a breach of privacy, however specially publishing photos of someone’s home, as some sort of revenge, incl. details of who else lives there, in a magazine, eh…is a breach of privacy, duh!
Anonym123 Says:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I have sent them the detail cancellation form TWICE and waited 3 months and still my details are there! What should I do to have these “people” respect my privacy??? PLEASE HELP!!!!
Anonym123 Says:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Ignorance you are wrong! These people are IGNORING my request to delete the data! In your opinion this is MY FAULT???
lisa clare Says:
December 27th, 2011 at 1:31 am
This is bang out of order. for one you dont care how hurt we can be when you can stilll sratch someone deceased but my now husband who divorced ten years ago is still listed with his ex wife. this is offensive and wrong. just delete the lot or update please
lisa clare Says:
December 27th, 2011 at 1:32 am
That should say search
Blahblah Says:
January 1st, 2012 at 5:49 am
This is really scary all my info is up on that site. I just turned 18 and it says it there. I have a very unusual name and surname so anyone who googles me would see my number, address ect. My parents are there too. Is there anyway I can get them to remove it?
Roy Stockdill, Says:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:10 am
There is far too much paranoia around about privacy! I am a professional genealogist and know pretty well all there is to know about tracing people and their ancestry. All 192.com have done, as other more enlightened people have pointed out,is incorporate data that is freely available and already in the public domain from a number of sources.

For example, the births, marriages and deaths indexes of the General Register Office for England & Wales are online in several places and accessible by anyone with a subscription to one of the genealogical websites that carries them. The registration of BMD events has been a completely open system ever since civil registration was introduced into England and Wales in 1837 (Scotland from 1855 and Ireland from 1864). The reason it is an open system has always been for the very reason some folks seem to be worried about. i.e. to prevent fraudulent and fictitious births, marriages and deaths being recorded.

Give me the name of anyone born in England or Wales since the second half of 1911, plus the place (registration district) and a year, and I can usually supply the maiden name of the mother within minutes. However, this is NOT an intrusion into privacy because the birth details of any individual are a matter of FACT and public knowledge and not that person’s exclusive possession. That banks and financial institutions and other bodies still use the absurdly outdated system of asking for the mother’s maiden name as a codeword is nonsense and only goes to show how stupid they are! It is not the fault of the registration system, which is there to guard against fraud, as I have explained. My advice to all when asked to supply your mother’s maiden name is to change it, make something up and not use the real name. All they want, after all, is a codeword that only you and they know. Give them any name you like, it doesn’t have to be the real one!
Roy Stockdill, Says:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:18 am
I might add, further to the above message, that it has always been possible to discover details of someone’s birth simply by going to a record office and looking at the GRO indexes in books or on microfiche. This was the principal use of the former Family Records Centre at Islington, now sadly closed. All that’s changed is that the indexes are now on the Internet, which of course makes them more easily accessible to far more people. However, in my opinion and experience, fraudsters don’t bother using the GRO records because they are far more likely simply to forge a fictitious birth certificate! Someone will probably tell me about the trick recorded in “Day of the Jackal” by Frederick Forsyth (where the villain obtained the birth certificate of a dead child), but this is a very rare occurrence. The only person I’ve ever heard of who used it was the late John Stonehouse, a former government minister, who left his clothes on a beach in America, letting everyone assume he’d drowned, and then turned up in Australia.
badzir Says:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
For God sake! For all you people who don’t mind to share all your details with the world- share as much as you wish. I don’t want my personal informations to be available for everyone just by few clicks. I should have a choice to opt out. I do mind, and I want my privacy to be respected. How to sue them for shering my details without my consent?
Markyboy Says:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I work abroad and meet lots of people. What if you have a problem with ex-girl friend? It’s nice to go back to UK and return to your privacy. I don’t like the fact that person can look you up and also your family. Gross invasion of privacy.