National Postcodes to be introduced

antoinolachtnai

To make sepific reference to eircode so that companies know they are protected under the current data protection legislation.

Data protection law was originally intended to protect consumers, not companies. Things have clearly changed. Thanks for clearing that up.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Data protection law was originally intended to protect consumers, not companies. Things have clearly changed. Thanks for clearing that up.

You've misread what I said, sorry let me rephrase. It's to make specific reference to eircode so that companies collecting and using this data are fully aware that the collection and use of these postcodes is protected under data protection law and they are responsible as a data controller for the protection and correct handling of this information under the data protection law in order to protect the consumer.

antoinolachtnai

ukoda wrote: »

You've misread what I said,

No I didn't.

sorry let me rephrase. It's to make specific reference to eircode so that companies collecting and using this data are fully aware that the collection and use of these postcodes is protected under data protection law and they are responsible as a data controller for the protection and correct handling of this information under the data protection law in order to protect the consumer.

If it is just a signpost for companies, and doesn't change the law at all, then why is it required as legislation at all? Why didn't they just print a leaflet?

If that's what it is, then why is there a giant carve-out from data protection in 66C(2)?

If all it is is what you say, then why is there a complaints procedure?

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No I didn't.



If it is just a signpost for companies, and doesn't change the law at all, then why is it required as legislation at all? Why didn't they just print a leaflet?

If that's what it is, then why is there a giant carve-out from data protection in 66C(2)?

If all it is is what you say, then why is there a complaints procedure?

There a complaints procedure for EVERY breach of data protection.

are you just going to argue everything? What's your point? Is it that you think it's not enough or that it's too much??

I've read it and I'm quite clear in my understanding of it. Which is: there are existing data protection laws, we put in writing eircode is clearly falling under that law, and there's a few more bits we are adding into this so it's clear. Example: you must tell a customer what you will use thier eircode for. Now, that's already a data protection legisation piece, but they've sepfically wtitten it in black and white for eircode so it's clear.

What exactly is confusing you?

clewbays

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If it is just a signpost for companies, and doesn't change the law at all, then why is it required as legislation at all? Why didn't they just print a leaflet?

If that's what it is, then why is there a giant carve-out from data protection in 66C(2)?

If all it is is what you say, then why is there a complaints procedure?

This is an area you probably have a lot of experience of but the amendments are very clearly marking out responsibilities and very strongly stating that the DPC will become involved if she deems necessary after she has formed an opinion of how Eircodes are being operated in practice. This is all consistent with previously expressed views by the DPC and DRI that there needs to some vigilance to ensure that there is no contravention of DP legislation.

Some quotes to support this view include the following:

66A. (1) The Minister may, by regulations, specify such conditions to be attached to a value added reseller licence granted by a postcode contractor as he or she considers necessary to ensure that the privacy of the owners and occupiers of property in respect of which a postcode has been allocated is safeguarded.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations made in accordance with that subsection may—

(a) require that a value added reseller produces evidence of compliance with the provisions of section 19 of the Act of 1988 (where applicable) to the postcode contractor,

(b) require that such licence contain a provision that it may be suspended or terminated by the postcode contractor whenever so directed by the Minister, and

(c) require that an audit of the books and records of a value added reseller be carried out at such time and in such form and made in such manner as the Minister or, as the case maybe, the postcode contractor so directs.

66C. (1) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as authorising the processing of personal data contrary to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2003.

66D. (1) The postcode contractor shall draw up procedures for dealing with complaints by an owner or occupier of property, (in this section referred to as ‘the complainant’) relating to the use of postcodes by the postcode contractor or a value added reseller and shall publish details of the procedures on the internet.

66E. (1) The postcode contractor shall prepare and submit to the Minister for his or her approval a draft code of practice regarding the retention of data related to postcode databases.

(2) In preparing a draft code of practice under subsection (1), the postcode contractor shall consult with the Data Protection Commissioner and such other persons or bodies as the postcode contractor considers appropriate or as the Minister may direct.

(3) The Minister may approve, refuse to approve, or after consultation with the postcode contractor, amend the draft code of practice.

antoinolachtnai

This is an area you probably have a lot of experience of but

What experience do you have?

the amendments are very ....strongly stating that the DPC will become involved if she deems necessary after she has formed an opinion of how Eircodes are being operated in practice. [/quote]

Where does it say that?

I think you should be honest and come out and explain what this bill is actually for. I note that your username was registered close to the time that the postcode contract was awarded and that you don't seem to be interested in any of the myriad other topics discussed on boards.ie.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think you should be honest and come out and explain what this bill is actually for.

Wtf. Why don't you go and get a solicitor or data protection expert to explain what this bill is to you. Go get yourself some independent consultation on this from a third party and let them tell you "what its really for"

The realms of ridiculous on this thread soar at times.

antoinolachtnai

I've read it and I'm quite clear in my understanding of it. Which is: there are existing data protection laws, we put in writing eircode is clearly falling under that law, and there's a few more bits we are adding into this so it's clear. Example: you must tell a customer what you will use thier eircode for. Now, that's already a data protection legisation piece, but they've sepfically wtitten it in black and white for eircode so it's clear.

ukoda wrote: »

The realms of ridiculous on this thread soar at times.

Yes, your interpretation (quoted above) certainly falls into that category.

Why don't you go and get a solicitor or data protection expert to explain what this bill is to you.

Why don't you do that yourself?

Bayberry

ukoda wrote: »

I'll correct you so, they have changed all their mail sorting systems to utilise eircode

If that was true, they would be completely incapable of delivering any mail at the moment, because nobody has any eircodes to put on the envelopes.

What you actually meant to say is that An Post has been paid handsomely to tack an extra field onto their database for so that they can translate between real addresses, eircodes and geolocation codes, if and when necessary. As I said above, An Post are perfectly happy with the way eircodes are designed, because An Post couldn't give a ***** whether anyone puts an eircode on an envelope, because they can happily deliver the mail without it, and they get to keep the money they've been paid even if nobody but government bodies ever bothers to put eircodes on envelopes.

The only time An Post will "utilise" eircodes is when some random joker decides to test the system by deliberately leaving out the address, and just puts a name and an eircode on an envelope. In all other cases, the written address will be the primary routing method, with eircodes only coming into play in the tiny number of cases where there's an ambiguity in the written address AND there happens to be an eircode on the envelope.

Given the random nature of eircodes, and the fact that a single error in the code can render it either useless or completely wrong, it's quite likely that An Post will end up with a policy that any delivery that ends up relying solely on an eircode will have to have a name that is known to associated with the delivery address. An envelop addresses to Sean Kelly, A65 X57L will not be delivered if A65 X57L actually points to Pat Murphy's house, because basic Data Protection principles will suggest that the eircode is probably incorrect.

recedite

clewbays wrote: »

I came across a link to an amendment to the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) (Amendment) Bill 2015 on the oireachtas website. See http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28914&&CatID=59

Does this mean that the legislation stage has been completed to satisfy the DPC advice?

It looks like this bill has a lot more stages to go through before it is enacted.
I'm guessing that an agreement has been reached between the DPC and the govt. that the eircode database can only be used after this act has been made into law, which could be a while.

Also I see they are making a distinction between "personal data" and "personalised" data;

‘personal data’ has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(1) of the
Act of 1988;
‘personalised data’ is information (other than a postcode, a geocoordinate,
an address or a variation of an address) associated to a
postcode in a postcode database that:
(a) is unique to a property and is associated in the postcode database
concerned to the postcode corresponding to the address of that
property, unless such information is lawfully and publicly available
or accessible;
(b) is associated directly or indirectly in the postcode database
concerned to the name of a person;
(c) is unique to an owner or occupier of property and is directly or
indirectly associated in the postcode database concerned to the
postcode corresponding to the address of that property;

Then they go on to say that the "personalised data" ie the persons name or anything linking the data to a particular person, cannot be on the postcode database without the persons consent.

I think the real issue though is that once the genie gets out of the bottle, there is no going back. Consumers will gradually and unwittingly match their names to the eircodes (and thus their geo-coordinates) while submitting online insurance quotes etc. Once that happens, they will appear on a myriad of unofficial databases matching peoples names to eircodes, and whatever other info was on the official database.
But that will be outside the remit of the postcode provider and the DPC, and they will simply say "not our fault".

recedite

Bayberry wrote: »

Given the random nature of eircodes, and the fact that a single error in the code can render it either useless or completely wrong, it's quite likely that An Post will end up with a policy that any delivery that ends up relying solely on an eircode will have to have a name that is known to associated with the delivery address. An envelop addresses to Sean Kelly, A65 X57L will not be delivered if A65 X57L actually points to Pat Murphy's house, because basic Data Protection principles will suggest that the eircode is probably incorrect.

Except the name is not supposed to be associated with the eircode in the database, without consent. So An Post cannot know that Pat Murphy actually lives at that address, just by looking at the eircode.

Bayberry

Trouwe Ier wrote: »

Originally Posted by: Impetus

The pdf links on this page do not work. My initial reaction is corrupt insider uncivil service, oirish, stupid, etc


THE LINK WORKED FINE FOR ME.....AND I AM A PUBLIC SERVANT FOR GOOD MEASURE!

WHATEVER THE CONTENT OF ALL THE FOREGOING POSTS AND THE MERITS AND MOTIVES OF ALL OF US WHO HAVE POSTED ON THIS TOPIC, THE "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM" MAY BE A SOON-TO-BE-WITNESSED HYSTERICAL REACTION OF SOME "COMMUNITY GROUPS" WHEN THE ROUTING KEYS ARE PUBLICISED.

FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN ON ANOTHER FORUM, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY 15 LETTERS WILL BE USED FOR ROUTING KEYS, SO ASSUMING THAT "D" WILL DESIGNATE DUBLIN, THERE MAY WELL BE ONLY 14 LETTERS (MAXIMUM) FOR THE OTHER 25 COUNTIES. THE FORUM STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING LETTERS WOULD BE USED.

A, C, D, E, F, H, K, N, P, R, T, V, W, X or Y

NO "D" FOR DONEGAL
NO "G" FOR GALWAY
NO "L" FOR LAOIS, LEITRIM, LIMERICK, LONGFORD OR LOUTH
SIMILARLY, "D" WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR LOUTH EITHER (DUNDALK, DROGHEDA)
NO "M" FOR MAYO OR MONAGHAN
NO "O" FOR OFFALY
NO "S" FOR SLIGO

I LIVE IN LIMERICK, SO WE COULD, FOR EXAMPLE BE ASSIGNED "X" AND IT COULD ENCOMPASS LARGE SWATHES OF CLARE, TIPPERARY, PERHAPS SOUTH OFFALY AND SOUTH GALWAY TOO (THE (061) STD CODE GOES INTO GALWAY).

THIS MIGHT WELL BE A SMART PR MOVE AS SOME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN CLARE ARE HYPER-SENSITIVE ABOUT BEING ASSOCIATED WITH LIMERICK.

I WONDER IF IT WILL BE THE CASE THAT OUTSIDE OF DUBLIN, THE ROUTING KEY LETTERS WILL BE COMPLETELY RANDOMLY ALLOCATED AND BEAR NO RELATION TO THE INITIALS OF ANY TOWNS OR COUNTIES IN THE AREAS TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED.

INCIDENTALLY, MY OWN ORGANISATION HAS AMENDED ITS DATABASES TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF WHAT ARE DESCRIBED AS "POST CODES" BUT HAS NOT YET RECEIVED THE API.

Does Boards.ie have a Telex gateway?

Bayberry

recedite wrote: »

Except the name is not supposed to be associated with the eircode in the database, without consent. So An Post cannot know that Pat Murphy actually lives at that address, just by looking at the eircode.

You're either misreading that, or someone thinks that it will be illegal for any business with an existing customer listing to add the eircode to that database.

Trouwe Ier

Bayberry wrote: »

Does Boards.ie have a Telex gateway?

DON'T THINK SO BUT MY ELECTRONIC TOYS ARE ELDERLY AND I HAVE A LOCKED SHIFT KEY, WHICH IS IRONIC SINCE I AM A GREAT ADVOCATE OF MIXED CASE LETTERING FOR SIGNAGE!

I'LL HAVE TO SPLASH OUT SOON ON A NEW DEVICE....

MBSnr

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'd say it's 50% hysteria and 50% paranoia with people complaining about this system. Unless they got something to hide...

*cough* undeclared rural house rental income *cough* :cool:

recedite

Bayberry wrote: »

You're either misreading that, or someone thinks that it will be illegal for any business with an existing customer listing to add the eircode to that database.

It looks to me like the original (official) eircode database cannot match the names to the eircode. If some other business (eg An Post) wanted to incorporate the info from the eircode database into their own database (which already included the customers name and whatever other specifics were relevant to that business) then this enlarged hybrid database would in theory be subject to existing data protection laws. So no disclosure of this hybrid database to third parties. Of course once these unofficial hybrid databases get out onto the internet there will be no stopping them.

Lets say for example that Joe Bloggs was known to have resided at eircode x, but has now updated his eircode to eircode y. A lot of info can be "mined" from that, for example how long he stayed at the previous address, how far he moved, whether his new address is more expensive or a less expensive area (from property tax info) He may become a good target for junk mail introducing him to pizza outlets in the new area. Whenever he moves house, he will be tracked by search engines.

The previous address may be identified by search engines as a rental property with a high turnover of tenants. Maybe they would receive junk mail from a local painter and decorator.

irishgeo

the arguments against eircode are getting repetitive.

trellheim

repetitive

Correct because postcodes are not needed in the slightest in this country

oscarBravo

trellheim wrote: »

Correct because postcodes are not needed in the slightest in this country

Translation: "I personally don't have a need for them."

MBSnr

trellheim wrote: »

Correct because postcodes are not needed in the slightest in this country

Bet you live in a city with a number on your house?

recedite

I presume they will go ahead and distribute eircodes to people, even if the associated database cannot be made available until this Bill passes all stages of the Oireachtas.
In that case the eircodes will be useless when first distributed. Its the same issue that was flagged all along; these are PPS numbers for houses and not location codes. There is no info encoded in an eircode. If access to the database becomes unavailable for any reason, the eircode becomes useless.

dr.fuzzenstein

Bayberry wrote: »

If that was true, they would be completely incapable of delivering any mail at the moment, because nobody has any eircodes to put on the envelopes.


Deleted waffle

They are incapable in a lot of cases (Not their fault, actually), because if your address is

Normally not living at this House, only visiting
The Bog
Besides the stick in the Mud
Co Clare

You'll be lucky to get your mail. Actually you won't get it unless you add
Not my name, but ask Sean across the road, he knows, if not leave it with Mrs Miggins, she always looks afte the cat.
Because postie only delivers if he knows who you are if your address is some townland, in de shticks, Co Somewhere, how the absolute fcuk else can it possibly work?
I still don't get my mail and postie knows me and where I live. If he's off I don't get anything.
Why do you think I have everything important sent to my place of work? Because it has something approaching a proper address, like a company name, streetname and housenumber.
Sick to death of the fcuking tin foil hat bullsh*t arguments. Did nobody tell you not to smoke the funny stuff out of a pipe made from alu foil?
The only people who would object are professional cranks, loonies, meth drinkers and, worst of all, the Freeman brigade.
The others just don't want to be found, the likes of people who live in shacks build from whatever material was at hand and they don't like to be on the council's radar, because the entire build is illegal. Plus they don't fancy paying property tax or anything else.
Easily recognised by not having mains water, electricity, sewerage, postbox (everything sent to friend's house or postbox), owner not having PPS number, in short, people who want to stay invisible.

Bayberry

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The only people who would object are professional cranks, loonies, meth drinkers and, worst of all, the Freeman brigade.

Look, the reason that you're having problems is because that's the way your rural neighbours want it. It'd taken the local Tidy Towns or GAA club a long weekend to name every road and assign numbers, if that's what the people who live there actually wanted. Why anyone thinks that these same rural dwellers are going to welcome eircodes with open arms is anybodies guess.

Us urban dwellers have no problem with a postcode per se - we all have unique addresses already, and in the age of automatic address reading and machine sorting, we could continue to happily live without a post code if we had to, especially now that, for the most part, a standalone GPS can get you to our front door.

What annoys some of us urban dwellers is this dogs breakfast of a "post code" that we're all paying 20-odd euro per household for up front, that doesn't actually deliver on the potential advantages that an ordinary user might expect from a post code (more efficient sorting, an easy way to figure out if someone is within the delivery radius for a takeaway, etc). So we're expected to put up with a system that is only really needed for rural dwellers, and that is useless for emergency services and people who need stuff delivered to a new building site (it'll be 6 to 12 months before the new code filters through to the delivery trucks GPS unit, if it ever happens) or a remote field or building (if An Post don't need to deliver letters to a location, it won't get an eircode).

It's taken 10 years to arrive at this juncture. Once it's deployed, it will never be fixed. While there's hardly a snowballs chance in hell at this point that anything will be done about any of this (because nobody will have to be responsible for any of the flaws in eircode, but Ministers will be lining up to take credit for any superficial benefits), it's still worth documenting these objections in a public forum, because on the off-chance that the general public gets sufficiently disgruntled with these issues after a couple of years, nobody can turn around and say "but nobody ever told us".

MBSnr

Bayberry wrote: »

Look, the reason that you're having problems is because that's the way your rural neighbours want it. It'd taken the local Tidy Towns or GAA club a long weekend to name every road and assign numbers, if that's what the people who live there actually wanted. Why anyone thinks that these same rural dwellers are going to welcome eircodes with open arms is anybodies guess.
.

Ah you nailed it.... Our fault we didn't name the roads! Then also our issue as we didn't want to? You're serious - really?

As for the code - I agree it's not perfect - there are issues as outlined in the 1000s of posts before.... But I'm not against it.

Bayberry

MBSnr wrote: »

Ah you nailed it.... Our fault we didn't name the roads! Then also our issue as we didn't want to? You're serious - really?

Someone has to do it! Would you rather it be done by some lúdramán in a basement office in Dublin? If a rural area went through such a process, an it has support in the area it would end up being officially recognized because votes! It doesn't happen though, because most of the people in the area don't see the current situation in the area as a problem (in large part because someone else picks up the tab for the inefficiencies caused by our overly dispersed rural population, of which addressing is only one part)

As for the code - I agree it's not perfect - there are issues as outlined in the 1000s of posts before.... But I'm not against it.

This is why we can't have nice things - most Irish people will put up with ***** if that's what is put in front of them.

MBSnr

Bayberry wrote: »

Someone has to do it! Would you rather it be done by some lúdramán in a basement office in Dublin? If a rural area went through such a process, an it has support in the area it would end up being officially recognized because votes! It doesn't happen though, because most of the people in the area don't see the current situation in the area as a problem (in large part because someone else picks up the tab for the inefficiencies caused by our overly dispersed rural population, of which addressing is only one part)

No one has to do it now though surely?! What you propose is virtually impossible anyhow. As you well know they'd be many parties, official and un-official, organised or ad-hoc with all sorts of agenda's and ideals, which would ensure it doesn't or wouldn't happen. Also who would approve such a thing? Not a national authority or the local council....

Bayberry wrote: »

This is why we can't have nice things - most Irish people will put up with ***** if that's what is put in front of them.

I know. There are many things to get worked up about here. This is low on the list of mine.

Sam Russell

MBSnr wrote: »

No one has to do it now though surely?! What you propose is virtually impossible anyhow. As you well know they'd be many parties, official and un-official, organised or ad-hoc with all sorts of agenda's and ideals, which would ensure it doesn't or wouldn't happen. Also who would approve such a thing? Not a national authority or the local council....



I know. There are many things to get worked up about here. This is low on the list of mine.

To get unique addresses, they should start to be introduced, and it should be started now. It should have been introduced as part of the property tax scam. It only needs a single entity to be responsible, such as Revenue or the local planning agency.

It is not necessary to do it all on a long weekend by the local scouts, but if it was started, it would be nearer completion.

Start with all urban properties that are on a named road but without house numbers. Simples. So Fancy Villa, Popoff Avenue becomes Fancy Villa, 17 Popoff Ave.

Then get local authorities to begin naming roads. Simples. Most local roads have a number at the moment, just give them names.

Then number rural houses on the metric distance down the road. Simples.

If they do not start, it will never happen.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, instead we're getting a code that easily identifies each property, so anyone with a smart phone and google maps can find it.
How does that not work? I've heard nothing but waffle and bullish*t as a counter argument.
The argument that we should scrap it all again and start NAMING (for the love of FCUK!) every country boreen and give out house numbers is beyond idiotic.

Sam Russell

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, instead we're getting a code that easily identifies each property, so anyone with a smart phone and google maps can find it.
How does that not work? I've heard nothing but waffle and bullish*t as a counter argument.
The argument that we should scrap it all again and start NAMING (for the love of FCUK!) every country boreen and give out house numbers is beyond idiotic.

We should have post codes. Certainly. If Eircode is to be scrapped, it would be for a redesign the way Minister Brennan did with the dreadful roadsigns that DCC put in place. They were redesigned and replaced.

But we should have addresses that can be determined by people - without having to have a computer with internet access to find it. Not everyone has a smart phone, and not everyone has access to the internet at all times. However, everyone should be able to find an address. The Eircode design is random, Imagine trying to find a house on a road where the houses numbers were not only randomly arranged, but the road changed name randomly as you walked down it. Nobody could help you either, because they do not know where anyone else is either.

Will Eicode postcodes be accepted as legal addresses in court cases to do with property. Do they define a property or just a letterbox? [Serious question].

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Imagine trying to find a house on a road where the houses numbers were not only randomly arranged, but the road changed name randomly as you walked down it.

Yeah, it's a ridiculous idea. Imagine if you were walking down Wolfe Tone Quay, and then all of a sudden you found yourself on Ellis Quay, then Arran Quay, then Inns Quay, then Ormond Quay, then Bachelor's Walk, then Eden Quay, then Custom House Quay, then North Wall Quay - all without taking a turn.

That would be ridiculous.