National Postcodes to be introduced

clewbays

Enduro wrote: »

Do you not realise that with Eircode exactly 100% of Irish addresses will end up with their own postcode (and unlike a hierarchical system there will be no useful way of avoiding that)? You're quite correct that there is likely to be uproar over the data protection issues that will plague eircode as a result.

The real data protection problem is the 35% of addresses that are not unique with couriers and service delivery personnel breaching personal privacy on a daily basis as they try to find a client. Imagine a HSE or social welfare person asking all over a rural locality where does person X live and giving indications as to why they are looking so that the correct person X can be identified. By the time the person is located everyone knows her business.

It is hard to understand why previous Data Protection Commissioners never tackled the causes of these privacy infringements that Ireland has put up with for so long. Perhaps the new DPC will have the courage to solve the problem by introducing compulsory house numbering and road naming in every townland and village. This would mean the eircodes need not be unique at address level as they could find
47 Murphystown Drive Portlaoise Kildare X3YX rather than
Murphystown Portlaoise Kildare B14 NONO

I am sure once the DPC explains that it is being done to help people that it would be readily accepted!

antoinolachtnai

All of this would work just as well with a hierarchical system. A hierarchical system would allow residents to decide how exact a postcode they want to give a potential supplier, much as they can do in other countries.

It is not possible to accurately and consistently match an Irish postal address to a specific family or person. It might be possible in some theoretical world, but it is not possible in practice.

It will be trivial to accurately and consistently match an eircode to a specific family or person. There will be no option to give a more general code that could not be so trivially matched.

Do you really think that ad targeting companies will not use the eircode to target specific individuals and families online? This is just not feasible with a postal address. Data protection laws are just irrelevant and provide no protection.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Do you really think that ad targeting companies will not use the eircode to target specific individuals and families online? This is just not feasible with a postal address. Data protection laws are just irrelevant and provide no protection.

Online? Online marketing is done via cookie tracking and tagging that retargets the ads to consumers

Ericode won't be much use for online marketing, it will be useful for segmenting customer databases in the background, but that's done now anyway and they may use eircode for doing campaign lists for mail drops. But they do that now using the geo directory or bought in data. So eircode isn't suddenly going to open up some new malicious way to market anyone

antoinolachtnai

This is very speculative and hopeful. There is a lot more to online advertising than retargeting with a cookie.

There are already businesses being established to collect Internet users' eircodes to use them for online ad targeting. Because of the structure, it seems almost inevitable to me that Eircode data will be used to target specific families and individuals.

There is no good reason not to use the same sort of structure for the postcode that is used in every other country in the world, including countries with codes that go down to the individual house. It would at least remove the massive uncertainty.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is very speculative and hopeful. There is a lot more to online advertising than retargeting with a cookie.

There are already businesses being established to collect Internet users' eircodes to use them for online ad targeting. Because of the structure, it seems almost inevitable to me that Eircode data will be used to target specific families and individuals.

There is no good reason not to use the same sort of structure for the postcode that is used in every other country in the world, including countries with codes that go down to the individual house. It would at least remove the massive uncertainty.

Are there companies being set up to harvest eircodes for online targeting?! Any examples of said companies?

Can you explain how this will work?

antoinolachtnai

There was a postcode lottery company described in this thread recently. It is obvious that this is being done to target advertising. T

The ad network companies use a unique cookie to track your individual browser.

The 'postcode lottery' company (or whatever other wheeze is used to extract information) will pass the information to the ad network

The ad network can use the additional information about your eircode to find out what household you are part of. It can also make a good guess at who else is a member of that household where there is a shared IP address or some other connecting information.

The ad network can now sell access to your specific household to its advertisers.

my3cents

ukoda wrote: »

Are there companies being set up to harvest eircodes for online targeting?! Any examples of said companies?

Can you explain how this will work?

Didn't someone post a link to an Eircode lottery a few hundred pages back?

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There was a postcode lottery company described in this thread recently. It is obvious that this is being done to target advertising. T

The ad network companies use a unique cookie to track your individual browser.

The 'postcode lottery' company (or whatever other wheeze is used to extract information) will pass the information to the ad network

The ad network can use the additional information about your eircode to find out what household you are part of. It can also make a good guess at who else is a member of that household where there is a shared IP address or some other connecting information.

The ad network can now sell access to your specific household to its advertisers.

They make their money from being a lotto and charging you to play or from ads on thier website when people come to sign up. Or from taking a cut of winnings. Not from selling your data. Which they can't do if you don't consent to it.


EDIT: And you'd want to be careful what you say here. If there's only one company then they can be identified and I'd think twice before labelling them as a company who will wilfully deceive people and sell data without consent. This company hasnt even traded a day in Ireland so let's not paint them as criminals just yet

Leonard Shelby

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There was a postcode lottery company described in this thread recently. It is obvious that this is being done to target advertising. T

The ad network companies use a unique cookie to track your individual browser.

The 'postcode lottery' company (or whatever other wheeze is used to extract information) will pass the information to the ad network

The ad network can use the additional information about your eircode to find out what household you are part of. It can also make a good guess at who else is a member of that household where there is a shared IP address or some other connecting information.

The ad network can now sell access to your specific household to its advertisers.

So your definition of success when you visit websites that show advertising is that the products they are advertising must be ones you have no interest in. If they start to show adverts for products that you do have an interest in your personal privacy is somehow invaded? If Eircode could possibly somehow be used to show you an advert for a product you may be interested in then it's design must be crippled to ensure this doesn't happen?
If you have cogent, legitimate argument to make about data privacy concerns by all means please make it. But don't just throw out half thought out nebulous concerns, at least make an effort.

I wouldn't worry about a postcode company "selling" your postcode, the first time you use the postcode in an online transaction will "mark" you.

Enduro

ukoda wrote: »

thats by design, thats what was wanted, Lets see what the Data Protection Office says in the end about their concerns, i believe they are unwarented as currently everyones address is available publicly online via google maps, i cant see how adding a code to that could fundementaly change anything.

The fact that everyone's name is available publicly (places like the electoral register for example) doesn't make the privacy of their PPS number any less important. Eircodes are defacto PPS numbers for postal addresses. They provide a guaranteed unambiguos unique index (by design, as you point out), just like PPS numbers do for individuals. The fact is that legislation will need to be passed to try to bypass the significant data privicay issues that arise as a result of this proves that there are indeed DP issues there.

But even when the legislation gets Eircode past the legal issues it will still be vulnerable to end-user perception issues. The massive uproar over having to provide PPS numbers to Irish Water (despite is all be 100% legal, legitimate and above board) shows the danger that the current horrendous design of Eircode could totally undermine its future uptake by the general public.

Enduro

Bray Head wrote: »

Yes, it was deliberate. This was stated at an Oireachtas hearing. They said they did not want to create postcode ghettoes.

A hierarchical code would be preferable in theory. But there is a risk that people with particular postcodes would refuse to use them if they felt that doing so was devaluing their area, etc.

But very little is lost with the current design given that serious users will be using a technology solution and that this share will only increase with time.

It's absolutely laughable that some of the political supporters of the Eircode design are claiming that it is designed not to produce "postcode ghettos". It's orwellian double speak. The starting point of Eirocde, the very thing that determined that it would be the shambles of a design that it is, was that the existing post-code ghettos in Dublin should be preserved! D24 will still be D24, Dublin 4 will still be D04, and most moronicly of all, D6W will still be D6W.

It'll be interesting to see will we get a Ross O'Carroll Kelly style uprising when the good citizens of Blackrock get allocated their new high numbered Dublin postcode. The battle of D6W could be a small skirmish in comparison if they get allocated D26 or similar.

And all because some eejit minister decided that the best startpoint to designing a brand new postcode system was to keep all the flaws of the existing system.

Enduro

clewbays wrote: »

The real data protection problem is the 35% of addresses that are not unique with couriers and service delivery personnel breaching personal privacy on a daily basis as they try to find a client. Imagine a HSE or social welfare person asking all over a rural locality where does person X live and giving indications as to why they are looking so that the correct person X can be identified. By the time the person is located everyone knows her business.

It is hard to understand why previous Data Protection Commissioners never tackled the causes of these privacy infringements that Ireland has put up with for so long. Perhaps the new DPC will have the courage to solve the problem by introducing compulsory house numbering and road naming in every townland and village. This would mean the eircodes need not be unique at address level as they could find
47 Murphystown Drive Portlaoise Kildare X3YX rather than
Murphystown Portlaoise Kildare B14 NONO

I am sure once the DPC explains that it is being done to help people that it would be readily accepted!

I think everyone agrees that Ireland's addressing system is a serious problem. Non-unique addresses are not a DP issue though. I think I can safely say there there is no chance of any DPC anywhere taking that on as a DP issue.

antoinolachtnai

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

So your definition of success when you visit websites that show advertising is that the products they are advertising must be ones you have no interest in. If they start to show adverts for products that you do have an interest in your personal privacy is somehow invaded? If Eircode could possibly somehow be used to show you an advert for a product you may be interested in then it's design must be crippled to ensure this doesn't happen?

Who said anything about crippling the design of the code? You are building a straw man here. There are a number of postcodes that go down to the building level that don't have this random structure.

There is no real good reason for the random structure, other than to protect intellectual property via the Database Right. Intellectual property protection should not be made subsidiary to designing for privacy.

If you have cogent, legitimate argument to make about data privacy concerns by all means please make it. But don't just throw out half thought out nebulous concerns, at least make an effort.

I can't spell out the bad things that can happen in any detail, because nothing like this has ever been done anywhere in the world.

It is a pretty cogent argument given the uncertainty introduced that by doing something completely novel. The problem here isn't risk. It's uncertainty. No one really knows what the consequences will be.

Another problem privacy-wise is that a significant proportion of eircodes that will be issued at the outset will be wrong (by significant, I mean between .5 and 1.9 percent). As a result, deliveries of private material and services will be made to the wrong addresses. Once wrong codes get into the system, they will be very difficult to sort out.

If you have some sort of credentials in relation to privacy or addressing that gives you confidence in the privacy of the system that has been designed, and confidence to dismiss these concerns outright, it would be good to hear about them.

my3cents

Isn't the point that the postcode identifies the house not the householder and I don't think houses have any concerns about data protection, mine doesn't its in aerial photographs, maps, sat navs and google earth and hasn't complained yet.

Leonard Shelby

Enduro wrote: »

It's absolutely laughable that some of the political supporters of the Eircode design are claiming that it is designed not to produce "postcode ghettos". It's orwellian double speak. The starting point of Eirocde, the very thing that determined that it would be the shambles of a design that it is, was that the existing post-code ghettos in Dublin should be preserved! D24 will still be D24, Dublin 4 will still be D04, and most moronicly of all, D6W will still be D6W.

It'll be interesting to see will we get a Ross O'Carroll Kelly style uprising when the good citizens of Blackrock get allocated their new high numbered Dublin postcode. The battle of D6W could be a small skirmish in comparison if they get allocated D26 or similar.

And all because some eejit minister decided that the best startpoint to designing a brand new postcode system was to keep all the flaws of the existing system.

You want to throw away and re-create a different set of Dublin 1-24 Postal Districts?

The cons for this argument are as follows:
1. This is how An Post actually organises and delivers post. If you change it there will be significant cost and upheaval.
2. The arguments that are settled (as much as they ever can be) for Dublin 1- 24 would be re-started for new areas.

As I can't think of a single pro for this argument maybe you could enlighten me by supplying one.

Carawaystick

ukoda wrote: »

based on the Geo Co-ordinates, so if you need this info youd be better off with the ECAD than the ECAF, if youre an end user, then google maps or your sat nav will know where to take you, youd get the code from the person you are visiting so the other code would never be relavent, youd prob never even know about it.

Then what is the point of the ecaf?

antoinolachtnai

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

You want to throw away and re-create a different set of Dublin 1-24 Postal Districts?

The cons for this argument are as follows:
1. This is how An Post actually organises and delivers post. If you change it there will be significant cost and upheaval.
2. The arguments that are settled (as much as they ever can be) for Dublin 1- 24 would be re-started for new areas.

As I can't think of a single pro for this argument maybe you could enlighten me by supplying one.

What is being attempted here? What is the purpose of the code?

If we are trying to have a system that makes it easy to sort mail then it should be a hierarchical system from the beginning to the end, not just in the first section.

If An Post's systems are so advanced as they supposedly are, and if it so straightforward to do lookups on mailed items, then why does it matter whether the d1-d24 are being retained or not?

Anyway, you will still have to give the zone number after the word Dublin on the envelope, so An Post could continue to sort on that.

This brings us to the real conundrum of what is proposed. Why does the first half of the code seem to be designed according to one set of principles (hierarchy, grouping, traditional boundaries), and the second half of the code is designed according to exactly the opposite set of principles (flat/unstructured, designed to avoid grouping, eschews existing boundaries of all types)?

The answer seems to be that the first half is designed to suit An Post, and the second half is designed to allow Capita protect their intellectual property via the Sui Generis Database Right.

The needs of the actual users and addressees seem to be very far down the line.

SpaceTime

The D1 to D24 thing is just about not upsetting the natives who would go utterly mental if their D4 house ended up in XQ9. People might think they were on the Northside!

antoinolachtnai

You still have to state that the address is 'Dublin 4' as the second-last line of the postcode, so I don't think that's the reason.

SpaceTime

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You still have to state that the address is 'Dublin 4' as the second-last line of the postcode, so I don't think that's the reason.

There might be a plan to strip that line entirely.

RTE
Donnybrook
Dublin D04 W00T

The only thing that I don't get is why they wouldn't have just continued that system for Cork etc, particularly given that Cork actually has codes already (they're just rarely used)

Cork 1 to Cork 4 exist and are sign posted just like Dublin. They just never extended them beyond the original rollout in the olden days sometime.

Seems a little silly to have created "Dublin" and "Down the Country" addresses for some daft reason.

antoinolachtnai

There is no plan to reform the address in that way from the documentation I have seen. The postcode is an addition, not a replacement for anything.

The Cork codes were looked at, apparently, and they decided to ignore them because An Post doesn't use them and they are no longer put on street signs. Apparently no one even knows where this system came from.

SpaceTime

It came from the GPO I would assume in the olden days sometime.
They're signed even on new signs and the TV licensing people use them for some reason.

I would assume they corresponded to the delivery offices in the old system:

Cork 1 - Delivery Office where the Elysian building now sits.
Cork 2 - Ballinlough (Douglas etc)
Cork 3 - Northside Delivery Office (now serves most of the city centre)
Cork 4 - Togher Delivery Office (now serves entire southern half of the city)

An Post's Cork delivery office setup is now ridiculously inconvenient. If you get a missed item in the City Centre you have to go 5km up a huge hill, through a big load of council estates and pick it up in a hellish office park down a lane, next to a scrap yard, down the back of a huge telephone exchange complex surrounded by razor wire.

Lovely location!

antoinolachtnai

What is written in the project documentation:

Option A - Implement Cork 1-4

Pros:

Avoids confusion with existing street signs

Cons:

Inconsistent - treats Cork City differently from other Post Towns

Breaks link with post towns - all other Postal Logistic Identifiers are based on Principal Post Towns

Difficult to define - no clear history of how/why these were erected. New street names do not include the numbers.

Option B - Implement An Post Principal Post Towns

Pros

Consistency - treats Cork City the same as all other post towns outside the Dublin Postal Districts

Cons

Possible Confusion - Existing street signs what the numbers 1-4 which may cause confusion to the public.

Recommendation

Based on the appraisal of the options summarised above the recommendation is that Option B - Implement An Post Principal Post Towns is implemented.

This recommendation is based on the following:

The difficulty in defining Cork 1-4 areas; and
Lack of use of these areas by the public; and
The desire to limit canvassing for special treatment of other Cities or Towns

Impementation Considerations

The following issues will need to be managed as part of the implementation of postcodes in Cork:

Justification of D1-D24 when C1-4 are not being used.

I think you may have identified the actual reason why An Post wants to get rid of these divisions.

SpaceTime

There's actually significant postal district stretching in Dublin too. I know quite a lot of addresses being used totally incorrectly.

I've seen Dublin 4 on addresses in Dublin 18.
Dublin 9 being used on addresses in Dublin 13 and so on.

antoinolachtnai

It is clear that unlike other lands, Ireland has not one, but two geographies:

1. The geography of the mind. This is the geography of dreams, fears, aspirations. It is poetic, free and wild. It is determined by how the inhabitants see themselves and how they relate to one another.

2. The actual geography.

ukoda

Carawaystick wrote: »

Then what is the point of the ecaf?

I assume if you just want to pop in an eircode and get a postal address back then it would meet your needs. So it would be useful for address validation when signing up for a website...I.e. enter your eircode...website checks ecaf, presents the address back to the customer, customer confirms. In this scenario they don't need any geo coordinates or anything so they can just buy the ecaf

That's the only example I can think of but there's probably more

Leonard Shelby

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What is being attempted here? What is the purpose of the code?

If we are trying to have a system that makes it easy to sort mail then it should be a hierarchical system from the beginning to the end, not just in the first section.

If An Post's systems are so advanced as they supposedly are, and if it so straightforward to do lookups on mailed items, then why does it matter whether the d1-d24 are being retained or not?

Anyway, you will still have to give the zone number after the word Dublin on the envelope, so An Post could continue to sort on that.

This brings us to the real conundrum of what is proposed. Why does the first half of the code seem to be designed according to one set of principles (hierarchy, grouping, traditional boundaries), and the second half of the code is designed according to exactly the opposite set of principles (flat/unstructured, designed to avoid grouping, eschews existing boundaries of all types)?

The answer seems to be that the first half is designed to suit An Post, and the second half is designed to allow Capita protect their intellectual property via the Sui Generis Database Right.

The needs of the actual users and addressees seem to be very far down the line.

The first half facilitates manual sortation when the code can't be read by OCR. The second half will be sorted by automation, so no hierarchy required. Hierarchy in the second half of the code would increase complexity and cost, delay roll-out and and affect adoption. Why do that when it isn't required?

Bray Head

Enduro wrote: »

The fact that everyone's name is available publicly (places like the electoral register for example) doesn't make the privacy of their PPS number any less important. Eircodes are defacto PPS numbers for postal addresses. They provide a guaranteed unambiguos unique index (by design, as you point out), just like PPS numbers do for individuals. The fact is that legislation will need to be passed to try to bypass the significant data privicay issues that arise as a result of this proves that there are indeed DP issues there.

My name is not unique though. Very few people have unique names. My PPS number is very much unique. So your analogy does not hold.

My postal address is unique. So are the majority of Irish addresses. My eircode will be unique, like my address. So my question is how exactly my current level of privacy is being diluted? How will the situation with eircodes in place be different from now? I'd like an example from DP law or practice. I haven't seen you supply one.

Can you cite a source for your claim that new legislation will be needed? I haven't seen this argument made elsewhere.

PS: One can easily opt out of the electoral register if privacy is more valuable to you than voting. Yes, I'm being facetious, but my own view is that some people living in what is quite a non-totalitarian state take privacy and data protection too seriously.

Enduro

Bray Head wrote: »

Can you cite a source for your claim that new legislation will be needed? I haven't seen this argument made elsewhere.

PS: One can easily opt out of the electoral register if privacy is more valuable to you than voting. Yes, I'm being facetious, but my own view is that some people living in what is quite a non-totalitarian state take privacy and data protection too seriously.

This Irish Times article from September has the minister himself saying that legislation may be needed (or at least referenced as saying so by the journalist).

A better designed postcode system where we could drop digits to scale back the accuracy of the system would allow us to make an opt-out of the absolute precision of the current design, similar to opting out of the electoral register (but with very little personal downsides, comparatively).