View Full Version : 2 million more records opened on the 1939 Register
kiterunner
18-11-16, 07:05
Just saw in an email from Findmypast that they have opened up another 2 million "closed records" to mark the anniversary of the online publication of the 1939 Register.
http://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register
Only men and old maids need apply :(
maggie_4_7
18-11-16, 13:58
Be careful because on search results for some records I ask to be opened still appear closed and tells you there are closed but when reviewing the image they are open.
They have my mum's birth date wrong first it was 29 March 1921 (29 March but in 1929 was her younger sister who is in Kent hopping with Nanny) and then someone has amended it to 19 March which is correct but put 1923!!
I also have a query next to my mum's entry is ATA 26/9/1945 or 1943 what does this mean? I think it might have something to do with her call up for munitions work in Rugby perhaps.
Can't post image at the moment on the tablet.
I'd be interested what sources FMP have used to open some of the closed records. I'd noticed last night lots of family members who have died in the last few years (mainly 2010-2015) have been unredacted, one who only died in August this year!
I also found a fair amount of people I'm fairly sure are still alive.
kiterunner
18-11-16, 15:46
Good question. My aunt's record has been opened but she is very much still alive! Her ex-husband did die recently so could that be the reason? If so they need to fix whatever they did. (Well, also, if not that reason, they still need to fix it.) I can't easily check whether the ex-husband's record has been opened because he had a very common name and I don't know his family background.
kiterunner
18-11-16, 16:17
I have asked a question on FB though I didn't give my aunt's actual details. I suppose it's possible that she applied for them to open her record though it seems highly unlikely, but even if she did, weren't the rules in that situation that it would only be her who could see the record?
maggie_4_7
19-11-16, 07:00
I found out what ATA means it is the Air Traffic Auxilliary.
I think ATA 26/9/1945 could be her discharge date.
ElizabethHerts
19-11-16, 07:19
My mother's record has been opened. She died in 2004 so it was about time. However, it looks as though my aunt's record is still closed despite her having died a few years ago.
My Mum is on it - she's still alive - with wrong birth date (17 Aug instead of 20) and it gives her married name.
kiterunner
19-11-16, 11:40
There seem to be several visitor posts on FMP's Facebook page saying that living people's records have been opened, but in each case the reply is to contact FMP with the details, nothing to say they have made a big mistake and will be rectifying it as soon as possible. Surely they must realise by now that they have done something wrong? If I were them, I would roll back the database update right away, to close those 2 million records again, apologise to everyone, and figure out what went wrong before opening any more records. I wonder whether TNA are aware of what has happened? I would have thought that FMP had broken their licence conditions.
kiterunner
19-11-16, 12:03
I have posted on their FB page again saying the above, will let you know if I get any reply.
anne fraser
19-11-16, 12:41
I think it must be based partly on death records. My mother is on there with both her birth and her married name although she did not marry until 1947.
Well, my mother's death has not been registered. I attempted to enter details about my Mum's entry to have it removed, but I need her passport or driving licence, my word that she is not dead isn't enough. Problem is, I am here, my Mum is 80 miles away and she doesn't have a driving licence OR a passport!!!!
When I phone her I am also going to ask about a young lad who is living with the family that I've never heard of!
kiterunner
19-11-16, 12:49
That's disgusting, Nell. Merry had the same problem when the database was first released, if I remember correctly.
I have looked up some famous people on Wikipedia to get their dobs and parents' names and found three living household names (so far) whose records have recently been opened, so if I don't hear back from FMP on FB soon I think I might post their names up and see if that spurs them on to do something about it!
anne fraser
19-11-16, 12:54
I think evacuees were included on the 1939 census Nell.
I just sent an online request. They've got lots of support if you want to open a closed record - you have to prove the person is dead. So I think if they want to leave it open they will have to prove she's dead, which is tricky!
I think evacuees were included on the 1939 census Nell.
Yes, that's possible, poor chap! My Mum always spoke about her Mum having US soldiers billeted with her, but that was later, after Mum had left home.
Can't find my Mum anywhere. Having trouble locating my father, too. Anyone know if
there was an army base around the West Drayton area? The correct Christian name, 2nd
initial & birth year shows just the 1st initial of the surname with a ? in that area.
Well, my mother's death has not been registered. I attempted to enter details about my Mum's entry to have it removed, but I need her passport or driving licence, my word that she is not dead isn't enough. Problem is, I am here, my Mum is 80 miles away and she doesn't have a driving licence OR a passport!!!!
As Kate said, I had a similar problem with my mum's record. She is alive but has no passport or driving licence. I contacted fmp telling them that and they said, "send us a copy of her bank statement and we can use that". As a bank statement has no further useful info to match up with an entry on the register other than the person's name, I couldn't see how they could use it as proof that mum is alive over any other person on the register with the same name, but obviously I said nothing and they closed the record!!
I'll see what they say when they reply, Merry. I'm not very impressed - they'd transcribed her date of birth incorrectly and I've found several other errors in other households when the images are quite clear.
I understood that the people who did the transcribing were not allowed to see the page images, so all columns of data were transcribed separately and then the jigsaw of columns was joined together afterwards, I'm surprised we can find anything really!
Can't find my Mum anywhere. Having trouble locating my father, too. Anyone know if
there was an army base around the West Drayton area? The correct Christian name, 2nd
initial & birth year shows just the 1st initial of the surname with a ? in that area.
I've found your mum and I had to search to find out her name and dob before I could start!! If you search for her using her married name and dob they have that info correct but her maiden name is incorrectly spelled. All this assuming I was looking for the right person lol!!
If your father was in the army he won't appear in the register.
I can't find my father who died in 2010. My mother's still alive and her name doesn't appear - I know she was still at home in 1939. Her brother is also still hidden and he died in 2014.
I've found your mum and I had to search to find out her name and dob before I could start!! If you search for her using her married name and dob they have that info correct but her maiden name is incorrectly spelled. All this assuming I was looking for the right person lol!!
If your father was in the army he won't appear in the register.
Thanks Merry - you're so familiar with my family, I've no doubt you have the
right person(!)
I'd forgotten army personnel were not shown. Don't know for sure he was in
at that time but it seems likely. Either that or out of the country - I know he
spent some time abroad in the 30s.
Did her first name begin with G and born 1916? :)
Did her first name begin with G and born 1916? :)
You've got her, Merry! But then I knew you would.
kiterunner
21-11-16, 08:37
Findmypast have replied to my posts on their Facebook page, but just with the usual "email support with the details and we will look at getting these particular records closed". They are not acknowledging that they have made a big mistake with this update. I wonder what is the best way to make sure that they actually take action on this.
Goodness knows.
I suppose because of this apparently massive error it would be the wrong time for me to point out to them that I have been waiting a whole year for them to correct the dozen or so pages surrounding my mum's entry that have the names from one set of pages connected to the dates of birth and occupations from a different set of pages? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I know you found some 'famous' living people on the database. Maybe we could find more and hit them (FMP) with a new name every week?!!
kiterunner
21-11-16, 08:58
They asked me to email in the details but they have at least said it is so they can look into what has gone wrong, not just so they can close those few records. But since I had already posted the names of famous people affected by this on their Facebook page, they could have just looked them up themselves.
kiterunner
21-11-16, 09:00
Goodness knows.
I suppose because of this apparently massive error it would be the wrong time for me to point out to them that I have been waiting a whole year for them to correct the dozen or so pages surrounding my mum's entry that have the names from one set of pages connected to the dates of birth and occupations from a different set of pages? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: There is someone else posting on their FB page with a similar issue, so why not?
I know you found some 'famous' living people on the database. Maybe we could find more and hit them (FMP) with a new name every week?!!
I was thinking more of every day! Though the ones I found at the weekend don't show as "New" any more so not quite so easy now to prove that it is the latest update which has opened any more such records that we find.
There is someone else posting on their FB page with a similar issue, so why not?
Only because they have done nothing about it the last three times have contacted them ("thank you for your patience" lol) so I thought they would be even less likely to do anything if they have a different bigger problem to look at!
I was thinking more of every day! Though the ones I found at the weekend don't show as "New" any more so not quite so easy now to prove that it is the latest update which has opened any more such records that we find.
Good point.
Where did the 'New' show up? I looked at several records last week (last Thursday or before that) that were definitely not two months ago, but I didn't see anything saying New.
Oh, is this to do with it?
Filter
Added in the last 30 days (0) NEW
I don't have the tick box ticked, so I presume that's why I didn't see anything saying New.
I just did a look up from last Thursday again and ticked that box. The person I looked for and 19 of the others (of 46 original matches) now say New next to them. When did they do the 2million release? It wasn't as much as 30 days ago was it?
kiterunner
21-11-16, 09:29
Oh right, thanks. Maybe it is just not showing "New" for ones I have already looked at, or I didn't have the box ticked (I am on a different computer from the one I used at the weekend). I'll try again.
Michael Heseltine and Dennis Skinner are no longer showing. Presumably they have closed the other one you mentioned on FB too, but I've forgotten who that was!
kiterunner
21-11-16, 09:41
I'll PM you, Merry. Glad to hear they are doing something, but hopefully they are not only closing records that people have contacted them about.
kiterunner
21-11-16, 09:45
My relative's record is still open. Maybe they're only bothered about politicians' records?
kiterunner
21-11-16, 09:53
Merry, where did you find the box to tick to make it show "New", please?
kiterunner
21-11-16, 11:48
They are really pushing it with their new post on FB, "What amazing discoveries have you made in the 1939 Register?"
Tempted to post that I discovered that loads of people were dead who everybody thought were still alive, lol.
They are really pushing it with their new post on FB, "What amazing discoveries have you made in the 1939 Register?"
Tempted to post that I discovered that loads of people were dead who everybody thought were still alive, lol.
lol!!
re the New box thing....
Clicked the 1939 register tab in the blue bar on FMP, entered a name and clicked Search. The next page with the Results on it has the Filter and tick box on the left under the Edit Search button.
I just tried doing a general search from the main page, and I see it comes up for me on any of the Results pages.
kiterunner
21-11-16, 13:31
That's weird, because I don't see it on this computer, but I assume it is on my laptop, will have a look in a little while.
Edit - okay, I see on their FB page that they are trying this out and it works on Microsoft Edge browser which I use on my laptop but not on this computer. That explains that!
FMP seem to be denying that there is a problem as they posted this on Facebook:
We are proud of the fact that we currently have an accuracy figure of 99.89% on correctly opened records. The nature of the 1939 Register means there will be a tiny fraction of inaccuracies when opening such a large volume of records. We have an easy way to request the closure of a record, agreed with The National Archives, to ensure a record can be closed in the fastest time possible. Please fill out the Close an open record form if you believe a record should be closed, alternatively contact our support team at
[email protected] with details, so we can assist.
From what I have heard, this is not an "easy way" or the "fastest time possible". It looks as though the fastest time possible is to be an MP or a Lord and be mentioned on their Facebook page! But what worries me most is the ordinary people whose records have been opened who do not have FMP subs or close relatives with FMP subs and who are unaware that their records have been made public. Their solution doesn't help them. I suppose they don't care about people who don't know about it.
The other famous person who I mentioned to them still shows up on the 1939 Register but as he isn't a politician I guess they aren't bothered.
kiterunner
21-11-16, 13:34
Their figure of 99.89% accuracy would suggest that about 2,200 of the recent 2 million records were opened in error but I reckon it must be much more than that.
I would tend to agree with you Kate. It's really hard for us to prove though.
Tomorrow I'm going to contact them about the pages around mum's record and see what they have to say this time.
maggie_4_7
21-11-16, 16:40
If it were me and still alive I wouldn't care it doesn't tell much anyway.
I found quite a few relatives (still living) in the new batch.
Emailed last night, and got a reply today, saying they shouldn't be open etc etc. Said I would have to prove they were alive to have the record closed.
These are people who are alive, and who are under 100.
Rang them up after I got the email and spoke to the lady there. She refused to accept there was anything wrong initially, until I mentioned it had been all over social media and that people like Dennis Skinner etc had been released. This soon stopped her!
She said to email her the names, which I have done.
What annoys me is the fact they are not doing what they say they do. Shows very few scruples.
Good news, I've had an email today to say they have withdrawn my Mum's name.
Good news, I've had an email today to say they have withdrawn my Mum's name.
Did you have to send them any form of "proof" Nell, or did they take your word for it? :D
kiterunner
21-11-16, 18:56
Glad to hear they are removing names of some living people, but I would like them to acknowledge that there is a big problem! I was racking my brains trying to think of a way to get a list of living people in England and Wales of the right age, with birthdates and enough biographical information to confirm whether I find the right person, to get some statistical information to throw at FMP, and I found that Wikipedia has a "List of Living Life Peers", so I am going through those ignoring the Scottish ones and any who are too young, looking them up one at a time, and out of the first 5 I looked up, I have found 2 on the 1939 Register, both marked "New". I will continue till I have looked up a decent number before contacting FMP with the results, though!
Doing some very rough calculations based on their figures, 41 million records altogether, 33 million open now (including the 2 million new ones) and 99.89 accuracy rate meaning that there should be 36,300 records wrongly opened, altogether, and if there are 8 million living people who were included on the register, the chances of one of their records being open should be 0.45%, i.e. if I picked 200 living life peers of England and Wales in the right age bracket, I would be expecting to find 1 of their records open. Hopefully someone at FMP understands statistics.
Kate, make sure you contact them before the 30 days is up. When did they release the 2 million names? I was thinking it was 9th Nov, but that was the GRO index stuff :o
kiterunner
22-11-16, 07:21
Thanks, Merry. I'll bear that in mind.
It occurred to me last thing last night that FMP can have no way of measuring the percentage of records which have been wrongly opened, so their quoted "accuracy figure of 99.89% on correctly opened records" must be referring to accuracy of transcription. They can't take a sample of recently opened records and check whether each person is alive or dead (or over 100, well, they can check that bit), can they? And they don't have access to the NHS numbers and NHS records to check that way.
I would question their % accuracy if it's for the transcriptions too!! For starters there are an awful lot of records that don't have the whole dob transcribed when there seems no valid reason for it not being 100% (ie nice clear handwriting).
kiterunner
22-11-16, 08:35
Yes, I agree.
Did you have to send them any form of "proof" Nell, or did they take your word for it? :D
No, I didn't. I said if they were making the record public the onus was on them to prove she was dead (which of course they can't do).
I spoke to Mum today and she remembered Eric Green, the boy living with them. He was evacuated from the East End of London but didn't stay long as his mother missed him too much.
Had an email today to say the records I told them about for two of my great aunts, have now been closed.
kiterunner
23-11-16, 16:58
They have said on FB that the 99.89% accuracy rate refers to "correctly opened records" and not to transcriptions, but I still can't imagine how they could calculate this figure? If they can identify that 0.11% of records have been wrongly opened, why can't they just close them? I wonder if they mean that they only get requests to close 0.11% of the opened records, but that doesn't mean there aren't loads more which shouldn't have been opened but which nobody has complained about.
I wonder if they mean that they only get requests to close 0.11% of the opened records
I would place a very large bet on that being exactly what they mean!
Are you still looking at the life peers?
kiterunner
23-11-16, 22:05
I think I'll have to stop looking them up now, Merry, because my sub expires in a couple of days! I looked up 100 of the living peers, all born after 1916 and before 1939, none who were obviously Scottish or Irish or stated to be born in countries other than England and Wales, also had to leave out one or two of the women where it didn't give their maiden names, but anyway, I looked up 100 of them, and found 4 of them on the 1939 Register, all showing as "new". I looked at those 4 images and there was enough information to be sure they were the same people as the living life peers. I didn't spend very long looking for each person, so there could well be others with opened records who I just didn't manage to find.
So if the records of roughly 4% of living people in the 78-99 age bracket have been opened in the newest update, say there are 5 million people in that age bracket (wild guess but I don't think it is as many as 8 million, though that is the number of closed records left), it would be 200,000 wrongly opened records, i.e. 10% of the most recent batch. I will see if I can get a better estimate of the number of people in the age bracket tomorrow, though of course plenty living in England and Wales now weren't born here, but then there are also plenty who were living here in 1939 who are now living in other countries to balance those out! I found some numbers which say 11.6 million over 65s in the UK, with just over half a million of those over 90, but that includes Scotland and N Ireland.
If you tell me where you got up to I don't mind looking at some more whilst you carry on with the statistics :D.
kiterunner
24-11-16, 06:43
If you really want to, but I thought 100 was a nice round number, plus I had got to a point in the list where most of them were born way after 1939. I have it on my laptop anyway, so will have to check where I was up to later and let you know.
Good point about 100. Whatever you think - I'm offering, but won't be offended if I don't do any! lol
kiterunner
24-11-16, 10:06
Thanks, Merry.
Having looked at a lot of statistics but none giving the exact breakdown of figures that I want, I now estimate there are about 3.5 million age 78-99 in England and Wales, so if 4% of their 1939 Register records have been opened, that would be 140,000 records, or 7% of the 2 million records recently opened. It will probably take me quite a while to write a post for FMP's Facebook page!
kiterunner
24-11-16, 11:51
I see that the figure of 99.89% accuracy of opened records has been removed from FMP's own posts on their Facebook page now, although there are still visitor posts referring to it! My post about the "living life peers" survey can now be a lot shorter than it was going to be!
kiterunner
24-11-16, 12:11
I have posted a reply on their FB page but not going into percentages, extrapolations, etc as they are obviously not sticking to their 99.89% accuracy figure any more.
Fair enough. I'm going to go and look at it now.....
maggie_4_7
24-11-16, 13:21
Guess what? :rolleyes:
They deleted it?
kiterunner
24-11-16, 13:25
I guessed that you couldn't find it, Merry, and I have PM'd you how to find it because I don't know how to post a link to FB visitor posts, if it is even possible.
kiterunner
28-11-16, 10:17
It seems that the terms of FMP's licence for the 1939 Register are confidential, so we can't check what it says exactly about living people's records being opened, but I have posted a comment on TNA's 1939 Register blog in the hope that they will reply to me since FMP don't seem to be in a hurry to do anything about it:
http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/1939-register-census-census/
Although the year isn't shown on most of the comments, it looks as though they replied to a comment which someone posted in September this year, so hopefully they do still check for replies.
kiterunner
02-12-16, 10:08
Nothing seems to be happening about this - two of the records which I told them about initially are still open (the ones who are not MP's or Lords) and the total number of open records has not gone down. I have had no reply to my most recent post on FB (from a week or two ago) nor to my comment on the TNA blog, but I have found a PDF with information about who is responsible for Data Protection at TNA, and it does say that living people whose records are included in the archives are covered by Data Protection in certain circumstances, so if I have heard nothing by next week I will contact the Data Protection person. Surely they will actually care about this?
kiterunner
02-12-16, 16:14
TNA have replied to my post on their 1939 Register blog as follows:
The National Archives takes the issue of data protection of living individuals very seriously. Findmypast have been working to open as many records as possible under the strict guidelines set out by The National Archives whereby they can use death data to attempt to match records listed in the 1939 Register. The stipulation is that the death data matching has to produce 100% unique matches in order for Findmypast to open the records. For example if two individuals have the same name and date of birth in the 1939 Register which match with a record in the death data Findmypast cannot be sure which record to open so they will not open either, hence the 100% unique match. We are confident that Findmypast are adhering to this methodology. On this particular issue which you have raised we are currently discussing and analysing the situation with Findmypast and will provide a more comprehensive update next week.
Good to hear that they are looking into it (and interesting to have some info on the rules which are supposed to be used to open records) but I still think the update should have been rolled back as soon as it became apparent that there was a problem, rather than leaving thousands of living people's records open while they decide what to do about it. I will be interested to see what they say next week, anyway.
I will be interested to see what they say next week, anyway.
Me too.
kiterunner
04-12-16, 11:28
The living people under 100 whose records I have been looking at are no longer marked as "new" (although their records are still open), so the big update must have been around the 3rd November. Just wanted to note this down in case I need to pass it on to FMP / TNA at some point!
Hm. I wonder if they linked the death of someone else, with my Mum's incorrectly transcribed date of birth?
kiterunner
04-12-16, 13:04
Maybe, but the records which I have been looking at have correctly transcribed dates of birth (and mostly correctly transcribed names too) and have still been wrongly opened.
That's that theory blasted out of the water then.
One of the 'new' records I found had been transcribed as James, male when it's Tamer, female which is what the image says. There's no death in the GRO under either her maiden or married name or for the supposed 'James' so I don't know what source FMP have used to open the record!
kiterunner
09-12-16, 18:25
TNA have posted a reply on their blog but it basically says that they go by how many requests they (FMP) get to close records, and gives the impression that they have no other way of checking the accuracy of which records are opened. They are certainly not admitting that there was something different about the early November update. The TNA people who replied to my post don't seem to be their Data Protection people.
kiterunner
13-12-16, 08:31
I have sent an email to Linda Stewart who is in charge of data protection at TNA, hoping she will look into it.
kiterunner
18-12-16, 15:57
Had a reply from TNA and they are looking into it, so hopefully we will hear that they are doing something about it.
Since my FMP sub expired, I have been reminded of just how much information you can get from the free search without even logging in - name, year of birth, area where they were living, the name of another person in the household, and if you are prepared to repeat your search a few times, you can figure out exact dates of birth. I find it quite frightening to think that "data miners", maybe using programmed bots to do the searching, could already have extracted this data relating to those living people whose records have been opened, and I do remember FMP said when the 1939 Register was originally launched that they believed that data miners were using the free search to extract data, and that was why they removed the TNA Reference Numbers from the display (although you can still search on it.)
kiterunner
18-12-16, 18:06
I've spent a while using Google's advanced search to search for various names on Findmypast and some of the 1939 Register entries have definitely been picked up by Google's search bots, and stored in Google's cache. The one I am currently looking at is done as a "Census, land & surveys" search with no name entered, just a placename, and it lists people at that place on various censuses including the 1939 Register (I clicked preview for one of the entries and it took me to the 1939 Register preview.) It shows name, year of birth and location.
Google's bots evidently haven't grabbed the whole of the index to the 1939 Register yet, only part of it, but I would imagine that the longer a record is open, the more chance Google will notice it.
I have also looked at Bing (Microsoft's own equivalent of Google) and its bots have also picked up some 1939 Register results in a similar way to Google's.
So if those sites' bots have collected 1939 Register entries just by chance with their web-crawling, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone is collecting them deliberately.
kiterunner
23-12-16, 15:23
TNA's data protection person has replied on their 1939 Register blog (see post #71 for link) and sent me an email with the same, which basically says they have checked and everything is fine, though they have said that they consider a 1.5% error rate to be acceptable, and that that is what they are getting (not 0.11% as FMP said at one time.) I'm not quite sure whether they mean that 1.5% of living people in the age range have had their records opened, or that 1.5% of the opened records belong to living people, but I think I shall wait till after Christmas to have another look.
They do say that FMP do not require ID proof to close a living person's record now, that just reporting it is enough to get it closed. Well, my aunt's record and that of the celebrity who I originally told them about are still open. But most of the people whose records have been opened will be unaware of it and will not have relatives who have viewed their records and know that they are still alive and report it.
Neither FMP nor TNA ever asked me for the names of the four living peers (one of whom has since died) whose records I found, and they have evidently not repeated my survey for themselves as those people's records are still open too.
One thing I was glad to hear is that they are not going to be doing any more matching against death records in future, just opening records as the birth dates get to 100 years ago.
So, after Christmas, will you go back to them and ask why they have not closed the records of the people you mentioned?
kiterunner
23-12-16, 15:49
Probably.
If your father was in the army he won't appear in the register.
Can I ask why not? It could explain why I can't find my grandad.
Quoting from the National Archives website:
Armed forces personnel
The Register was not meant to record members of the armed forces and the records do not feature:
British Army barracks
Royal Navy stations
Royal Air Force stations
members of the armed forces billeted in homes, including their own homes
However, the records do include:
members of the armed forces on leave
civilians on military bases
kiterunner
04-01-17, 18:59
Well, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am planning to reply to TNA's blog post / email but feel I should get some more figures first, although of course it is too late now to look for records marked "new" to confirm that they were opened in the November update. It just so happens that at the start of the new year, an updated version of "Who's Who" is released, and their online search allows you to search for living people born between certain dates, so I am working through their list of living people born between 1918 and 1938 at the moment, excluding Scottish, Irish, etc, and looking them up on the 1939 Register. I am planning to check at least 100 again, but sorry to say that having done 47 so far I have already found 7 matches, and one of those comes up twice. For those with matching records, I have checked other names in household to see if they match the parents' names from Who's Who, googled their name to make sure that their death hasn't been announced but not updated on Who's Who yet, and as far as I can tell, they are all still alive. So I find it quite worrying.
You are doing a grand job Kate. I suppose if they have made a complete mess of the update it's best if you find a good high percentage of mistakes in your batch of 100 to make them take notice.
Have they closed the ones you found open which you mentioned to them before?
kiterunner
04-01-17, 21:47
No.
kiterunner
04-01-17, 22:42
I was just wondering what FMP's Data Protection Act registration says about data they hold on living people in databases such as the 1939 Register, but it doesn't seem to be covered as far as I can see:
https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/Z6639808
unless they consider that it comes under "This data controller also processes personal data which is exempt from notification". But if so, why did they say that data protection rules required them to redact living people's records in the first place?
Anyway, I was interested to find while googling around for this, that the ASA upheld two complaints about FMP's advertising of the 1939 Register in June of last year:
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2016/6/Findmypast-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_341392.aspx#.WG2GyR1-ZTc
kiterunner
07-01-17, 19:04
I sent an email to FMP support asking whether the records of living people on the 1939 Register were covered by their Data Protection Act registration or were exempt, but I got a reply which wasn't related to my question. I did read through the Data Protection guidance for archivists but it was a bit confusing.
Anyway, the latest is that I have looked up 200 of the Who's Who people and found 23 matches (or 24 if you count the one with 2 records twice) and I will post on TNA's blog and email TNA and FMP on Monday, maybe look up some more names first.
kiterunner
09-01-17, 09:28
I have emailed TNA and FMP (though I had to send it to FMP's support email address, so they will probably ignore it) and posted on their blog:
http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/1939-register-census-census/#comment-896203
TNA usually seem to wait until a Friday to post replies.
kiterunner
10-01-17, 11:25
Got a reply from FMP support which showed that they had not read or understood my email. :rolleyes:
lol!!
I really must get back in touch with them over the problems I had with the 1939 Register transcriptions. A year and three months along and they still haven't done anything. The issue isn't as bad as the one you are trying to tell them about as with mine, though they are showing the names of plenty of living people in error, all the rest of the details for the individual belong to someone else.
Last time I reminded them they had done nothing about the mistakes I found they just said "thank you for your patience", but I hadn't known I was being patient!!
kiterunner
16-01-17, 17:35
I have had a reply to my post but they are still refusing to admit that there is a problem; they say that a sample of 100 or 200 is much too small and that my samples were unrepresentative because people who get into Who's Who or into the House of Lords are more likely to live to over 77 than ordinary people are. Although the only reason I looked those people up in the first place was because quite a few people were saying they had found their own living close relatives' records (not Lords or Who's Who people) had been opened. And I don't know how to get a sample of "ordinary people" to check! Their explanation of how the records are matched just can't be right if matches were found in the death records for the examples which I have, but of course we don't have access to the post-2007 death indexes to see how such matches could have been found. Well, apart from going to one of the libraries which holds them on microfiche, but I don't know whether those have them right up-to-date anyway.
kiterunner
16-01-17, 17:46
But anyway, my samples were of living people only, so I don't see how it could be relevant that people in their social class were more likely to still be alive over 77 than people in a lower social class? If I pulled samples of opened records and found out how many of them were still alive, yes, it would apply then, but I wouldn't have any idea how to do that.
Also, I would have thought their argument was invalidated by the fact that nearly everyone in Who's Who is male, and men die younger than women, on average.
I presume this reply is from fmp not TNA?
They are really showing how stupid they are in their responses to you. It is an insult to your intelligence and if they can't see that they are even more stupid. Could you construct another message to TNA regarding this response from fmp? It really is unacceptable.
So, they are saying they have death records that exactly match all these living 23 peers for name and dob? I absolutely don't believe that.
I see that TV presenter you mentioned once before still has his record open. So, who else has died using his name and dob???? I would like them to show us that!!
There is no excuse for all these errors.
kiterunner
16-01-17, 21:50
I presume this reply is from fmp not TNA?
They are really showing how stupid they are in their responses to you. It is an insult to your intelligence and if they can't see that they are even more stupid. Could you construct another message to TNA regarding this response from fmp? It really is unacceptable.
So, they are saying they have death records that exactly match all these living 23 peers for name and dob? I absolutely don't believe that.
I see that TV presenter you mentioned once before still has his record open. So, who else has died using his name and dob???? I would like them to show us that!!
There is no excuse for all these errors.
No, the reply is from TNA, sorry I didn't make that clear. They said they were going to post it on their blog but they haven't yet.
The 23 people were the ones in Who's Who, not the life peers, but yes, they seem to be saying there must be death records which match their names and dobs. I don't believe it either. When they post their reply on their blog I might post some specific examples and ask whether they are really saying that there must have been matching death records.
kiterunner
16-01-17, 22:03
Starting from the bottom of the list of living life peers and working upwards, just to find a few more examples, I now realise I should have gone through the whole list in the beginning instead of stopping at 100, since I see that the record of a former Deputy Prime Minister who is definitely still alive has been opened!
Edit - I have got through them all now and found six including the above, to add to the four I found in the first 100 plus Michael Heseltine, so 11 altogether. I didn't count how many I looked up altogether as it seemed pointless.
kiterunner
17-01-17, 09:28
Anybody who has requested a 1939 Register record to be closed should check both the index and the image to make sure that both have been done, since it seems that in many cases FMP either blank out the line on the image or delete the record from the index, but not both. If the name has been deleted from the index then you need to navigate to the image some other way to check, e.g. search for another name which was on the same image.
kiterunner
18-01-17, 09:44
TNA have posted a copy of their reply to me on their 1939 Register blog, but they seem to have closed it to new comments now. I suppose they want to have the last word!
I found out yesterday that my relative's record has been redacted on the image but is still in the index, same as the celebrity whose record I found, while the two politicians have been removed from the index but not redacted on the images. I originally brought these to FMP's attention via their Facebook page last November, and they asked me to email the details to their support email address, which I did, so yesterday I replied to support's old email reply, pointing out that the records hadn't been fully closed, and I have just had this reply from them:
Thank you for your email.
Please may I ask you use the " Close an open Record " option on the transcription.
I have asked you to do this because this is the correct why to close these records. I understand that you have just made us aware of these records in the past, however maybe this has led to the issues in question.
As such we should stick to the process. This will allow to track the closure and ensure it is done correctly. I am sure that you will want to fill in the form to ensure these records are closed.
In the form it will ask for evidence, however if you leave a short note stating why you wish these records to be closed.
Many thanks in advance of your co-operation.
I don't know why he is sure I want to fill in the form to get records closed when I only mentioned them in the first place to do FMP a favour, as I saw it. I did try filling in the form for my relative's record but it says I have to attach proof of their ID or it won't submit, so I guess the email is saying I have to type a note and attach it where the evidence would go? I will do that for that particular case but certainly not for the other records as it is not up to me to make sure they get deleted!
Edit - I copied his email into wordpad, saved it and attached it, but it says "Please upload an image file that ends in .jpg, .gif or .png" and still won't submit, so I will have to try again later. Does he want me to scan my "short note" in?!
Nell from TNA had previously posted this on that blog:
It is worth noting that at the present time Findmypast are not insisting on proof of identity being provided with any takedown request as originally planned. The process has been simplified: once notified Findmypast will remove the record regardless of proof of identity being provided; we have always been aware that could be problematic for older citizens who may no longer require a driving licence or passport. The revised process has still resulted in just a tiny number of requests, well within any anticipated margin for error and well within The National Archives’ accepted risk.
Requests for takedowns of identified living individuals should be sent to support [at] findmypast.co.uk
Seems to be contradicted by my experience. And the fact that the screen for submitting a request to close a record still asks for proof of ID and says nothing about this not being required will surely mean that most people who view the record of someone they know is still alive will not be able to submit a request, thus conveniently keeping down the number of requests.
I have contacted the Office of the Information Commissioner (previously the Data Protection Registrar) about the whole situation, and waiting to hear back from them but I would imagine it will take a while for them to investigate.
kiterunner
18-01-17, 11:10
Almost as soon as I left the house, I realised that I could attach a screenshot of Nell from TNA's post where it says I have to attach a JPG, so I have done that.
I was interested to see that the "takedown" form screen mentions the Data Protection Act at the top, so I guess FMP do consider that living people's records on the 1939 Register are covered by the Act, although I can't see where this is included in their Data Protection registration, which is up for renewal in June of this year.
Do you think, if you submit a request to "close an open record" but the record is only open on the image and does not appear in the index, there is any chance of them actually doing what you ask? I wouldn't hold out too much hope having read that message fmp sent you.
(I have just sent them a query about my outstanding issues with page 1616a 006 and the surrounding pages, asking how much longer I have to be patient - as they requested in their last reply in May 2016!)
kiterunner
18-01-17, 13:52
Do you think, if you submit a request to "close an open record" but the record is only open on the image and does not appear in the index, there is any chance of them actually doing what you ask? I wouldn't hold out too much hope having read that message fmp sent you. I wouldn't like to guess!
(I have just sent them a query about my outstanding issues with page 1616a 006 and the surrounding pages, asking how much longer I have to be patient - as they requested in their last reply in May 2016!)Hope they actually fix it this time round.
kiterunner
18-01-17, 15:19
I have had a reply from the support team saying that my relative's record will be closed in the next 72 hours:
Thank you for your query regarding closing a record.
All records of living individuals under 100 years of age in the 1939 Register should be closed.
Records opened in error are a result of one or more of the following:
a) Error in the date of birth field on the original record
b) Transcription error on the date of birth field
c) An incorrectly listed Death code in the postings column
d) A record incorrectly matched to a death record
I am however pleased to advise that the record has now been taken down as requested, it will removed within the next 72 hours in line with system updates.
I'm not sure why that "however" needs to be there? It means he is pleased to tell me the record is being closed, despite... what?
I keep getting emails from FMP Support asking me to review the site on Trustpilot: We would like to invite you to review Findmypast, as writing a review of your experience will help us improve customer satisfaction.
All reviews good, bad or otherwise matter to us, and will be visible immediately on Trustpilot
I am getting more and more tempted to do so!
Mary from Italy
18-01-17, 15:45
You might like to send the details to the guy who does the Lost Cousins newsletter, which seems to have quite a wide circulation.
kiterunner
18-01-17, 16:21
Mary, I have sent you a PM.
To me the 'however' meant the record they were closing for you did not fit in to any of their a-d catagories, but on reflection it may not mean anything!
I am looking forward to your review! :D
kiterunner
18-01-17, 16:40
To me the 'however' meant the record they were closing for you did not fit in to any of their a-d catagories, but on reflection it may not mean anything!
If so, I wish he had said what he thought was the reason for it being open then! I assumed it was a "d" as it was one of the 2 million.
Was it likely to be d)? Common name?
kiterunner
18-01-17, 19:02
Common name, yes, and it didn't have her married name on the 1939 Register, so I suppose it could have matched against someone with the same dob who ended up with her original surname. But I suppose I was interpreting d to mean "incorrectly opened as a result of the process of matching the closed records against death records" rather than that there was an actual death record which it actually matched against, if you see what I mean. If only we had access to those post-2007 death indexes so we could check!
If only we had access to those post-2007 death indexes so we could check!
I agree - so frustrating!
maggie_4_7
19-01-17, 07:15
Well there is 55% on Ancestry 2007-2013
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=60630
kiterunner
19-01-17, 08:31
Thanks, Maggie, but those aren't taken from the GRO index.
Also, many of the entries in that later database don't have dob recorded.
You might like to send the details to the guy who does the Lost Cousins newsletter, which seems to have quite a wide circulation.
I left lost cousins many years ago as the guy who runs it was breaching his customers privacy at the time and posting about it. I contacted him and he was quite abusive and then used my details to find out what he could about me. He may say FMP are wrong but he wont mean it.
Thanks, Maggie, but those aren't taken from the GRO index.
Where do they come from?
kiterunner
19-01-17, 11:44
Where do they come from?
Original data: GreyPower Deceased Data. compiled by Wilmington Millennium, West Yorkshire.
I found a blog post which says that "The data apparently comes from funeral directors and obituaries."
http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/1/22/new-collection-of-death-records-on-ancestry-2007-2013-from-v.html
maggie_4_7
19-01-17, 13:39
Original data: GreyPower Deceased Data. compiled by Wilmington Millennium, West Yorkshire.
I found a blog post which says that "The data apparently comes from funeral directors and obituaries."
http://elizabethwalne.co.uk/blog/2015/1/22/new-collection-of-death-records-on-ancestry-2007-2013-from-v.html
Thanks Kiterunner, I was just about to check; Ancestry doesn't give much detail.
I have found it useful but yes for your purpose it would have to have a GRO index reference.
Original data: GreyPower Deceased Data. compiled by Wilmington Millennium, West Yorkshire.
I found a blog post which says that "The data apparently comes from funeral directors and obituaries."
Thank you
kiterunner
23-01-17, 16:41
I came across the May 2016 TNA Advisory Group minutes online and was interested to see that they say that the required 98.5% accuracy rate was not met when the 1939 Register database was originally launched. I don't remember seeing that officially acknowledged anywhere else?
(para 6.3 of this PDF)
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/user-advisory-group-minutes-2016-05.pdf
Quote me:
(I have just sent them a query about my outstanding issues with page 1616a 006 and the surrounding pages, asking how much longer I have to be patient - as they requested in their last reply in May 2016!)
Quote Kate:
Hope they actually fix it this time round.
I have just had a reply telling me that Liam is looking in to what is "a complex problem" :D Maybe another 14 months?? :rolleyes:
I have just had a reply telling me that Liam is looking in to what is "a complex problem" :D Maybe another 14 months?? :rolleyes:
Please don't hold your breath. :rolleyes:
kiterunner
29-03-17, 13:55
I've had an email from the Information Commissioner's Office (formerly known as the Data Protection Registrar) in reply to my contacting them about this issue. Here is an extract from the email:
You are concerned that FMP have opened records without the consent of the individuals concerned despite it stating on FMP’s website that records are only opened if individuals are deceased or 100 years or older.
This raised data protection concern is in relation to the first principle, which says that processing must be fair and lawful. In order to comply with the fairness aspect of the first principle, organisations need to be clear about the way in which personal data will be processed.
In most cases this is achieved by providing fair processing information, typically in a Privacy Policy or in Terms & Conditions.
In this case it would appear as though Find My Past are not processing personal data in accordance with the 100 year rule they apply on their web site.
We will now raise this matter with Find My Past and ensure that personal data is being processed fairly and lawfully.
As your personal data does not appear to have been disclosed we will not contact you again regarding this matter however we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting us in improving data protection practice in the UK.
Could Merry get her mother to complain......?
kiterunner
29-03-17, 14:35
I don't think they are saying that they need somebody to complain about their own personal data, just that they don't need to report back to me on what happens when they contact FMP about it. I'm not certain what they mean by "it would appear as though Findmypast are not processing personal data in accordance with the 100 year rule", though. Hopefully they mean that is the conclusion they have drawn after looking at all the stuff I sent them? In which case we can feel vindicated!
Most certainly vindicated, but the only way we will know whether action has been taken is if names disappear - and will that be across the board, or on an adhoc basis?
kiterunner
29-03-17, 15:24
We'll have to wait and see, I suppose. Hopefully it won't be just the examples I sent them!
I was talking to a man in our local coffee shop and he was v interested in starting his tree. When I got home I looked for his parents on the 1939 register and found them........... and him as well!! lol
kiterunner
29-03-17, 21:45
Are you going to tell him, Merry?
I have printed out the page and OH will be giving it to him today, though I think he may just turn out to be excited to see himself rather than irritated the info is "out there"! We shall see.
Margaret in Burton
30-03-17, 10:46
Well done Kate on your persistence.
kiterunner
30-03-17, 10:53
Thanks, Marg.
I have printed out the page and OH will be giving it to him today, though I think he may just turn out to be excited to see himself rather than irritated the info is "out there"! We shall see.
He didn't turn up!
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.