On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Rick Merrill wrote: > Guy Etchells wrote: > >>... > > There was a time when we all shared full information freely no many > > do not even acknowledge who they are. > > You know what has happened to those days! For the most part, one could actually leave their doors unlocked and NOT get robbed..... > > I was concerned when the UK government announced the proposal to > > change the registration system in this country from a paper based > > one to an online one, due to the restrictions placed on some > > records. > > How long are the UK census records kept sealed? (In the USA it is 72 > years.) > > > Now I await the new system with longing, every new birth marriage > > and death will be instantly online for all to access. ...Note that if the births and deaths are NOT matched together (where appropriate), one can still have the issue of a person "borrowing" the identity of an infant that died soon after birth and few to none would be the wiser. > > No longer will people fret that their birth details appear on a > > website we will have returned to a situation lost for the last 20 or > > so years a time of sense. > > > > In the UK there is nothing private about a wedding date, it is a > > public ceremony if fact, if it is carried out behind locked doors > > the wedding is not valid. > > Birth details are not private, for years proud parents and > > grandparents have taken out newspaper advertisements to advertise > > the births & baptisms, everyone has a right to purchase everyone > > else's birth certificates; why should we now be afraid of such > > things? > > > Have you ever heard of criminals "stealing" an identity (not to > mention a bank account)? Aside: "Identity theft" occurs more often in the U.S., while it is clear that the other person is from the U.K. Maybe one is not familiar with the events on the other's continent. > > Why is it acceptable to publish the pedigrees of the rich and famous > > but not the everyday people? > > The well known are actually better protected against ID theft simply > because they are well known! Unproven. Conversely, people who have the same name (or same except for the middle name where it is not used) as a famous person sometimes have a HARDER time proving who they are out of confusion with the famous person of the same name, thinking that they may have "borrowed" the name as a novelty. In that case, the only way to verify that there are two (or more) people with the same name is to have open access to all - and a search of "that" would return a result indicating that 2+ people do have the name. ["That" being the appropriate database or databases.] > > As for the myth of fraud etc., secrecy is the haven for fraud, > > openness is its enemy. > > "Myth"? Guy, you are still living in the 20th century, man. - RM Next thing, you'll be chipping everyone.