|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
 |
|
 Poll
|
| Question: |
Do you think (as I do) that more recent census details should be made available
| Reduce the time to 50 years |
|
   33 (66%) |
| reduce the time to 20 years |
|
5 (10%) |
| make all census available now |
|
12 (24%) |
|
|
| Total Votes: 50 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Census and the 100 years rule (Read 2167 times)
|
RCB
RootsChat Member
Posts: 237
|
This isn't a Monmouthshire related post, but hopefully the moderator will leave it here for a while.
Here in recent posts there are people trying to find out details about people alive in the 1940's and 50's, some people have no idea who their grandfather was, and I guess with family groups staying together for far shorter periods than they did, divorce etc it is going to be harder for younger generations to build a family tree.
I have a problem, the subject of a recent post, where the 1911 census gives me no idea where my grandfathers brother and sister moved to. There are no local marriages which look likely, so they moved away, they may not have married, but by the time the next census is released I'll be 70, and I see no reason other than a stupid law/restriction why I can't look for the details I want in more recent census.
I asked about this at the 1911 site, and they quoted a 1920 act restricting access to this information, and pointed me in the direction of the public records office, who I plan to write too, and I wonder where you guys stand on this, hence the poll.
As I understand it I can't even view my own information, the first census I appear in does give some highly sensitive information, year 1951, Address - Wyesham Monmouth
dad - Fred age 35, a railwayman
mum - May 32
son - Harry 3
son - me age 1
Can you imagine the mayhem it would cause if anybody read that? God the financial crisis we've witnessed recently would soon be forgotten as the world spiraled out of control.
Yet we who are researching our family tree know perfectly well that we can buy for just £7 the birth, marriage, or death certificate of any Tom Dick or Mary from quite recently back to 1837. And from those certificates we can get more information than you get in any census, the situation is absurd.
If someone leaked me the information telling me where my dads uncle Albert was living in 1921 they would probably be hung under the official secrets act.
Identity fraud is a problem, but crooks aren't going to waste £7 on a certificate, or pay to view census, they'll just steal your mail from your rubbish bag. I'm recorded in 6 census, it's my information, a census is just a snapshot of a day, it's no detailed record. Yet we can access what was once classified information about the war, and we can buy best sellers spilling the beans about all sorts of goings on in government and peoples private lives, but details about uncle Albert, or aunts Lucy and Minnie, sorry sir can't go there, more than my lifes worth.
Sorry to ramble, but I bet there are a lot of you who are finished with 1911 and are wondering if you'll be alive in 2021. Ok this census release was early, but we should be able to go and search census at least up until the 1960's
I've had my moan cheers Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GOODDOG
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 58
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
how i agree with you Fred. i know i wont be around in 2021 ( hope i am actually ) why they came up with 100 years i don't know. there was no such thing as credit fraud in those days so it can't have been that. plus longevity was not really as big a thing then as it is now.
here is another who hopes the time is reduced to 50 years. fingers crossed
Michael 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger The Hat
RootsChat Member
Posts: 238
|
I'm afraid I can't vote in your poll because there is no option for leaving the current situation as it is.
I am not happy with the way institutions can seemingly easily access individual personal details at the moment, and I feel that making all censuses openly available will just help propagate that trend.
No thanks, 100 years is fine. For the sake of making FH research a little easier I'd rather hang on to what little privacy I have left.
Roger The Hat.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1100
|
To look at this from another point of view Fred .. and this is just an example, what if this, as you presumed it to look:
dad - Fred age 35, a railwayman
mum - May 32
son - Harry 3
son - me age 1
Was in actual fact this:
dad - Fred age 35, a railwayman
mum - May 32
dau - Jane 4
son - Harry 3
son - me age 1
Wouldn't you immediately question the appearance of an an older, but otherwise unknown to you daughter ?? I've seen things with regard to my family on census returns, which I'm sure they would never have disclosed if they'd thought that a few years down the line, their children would be able to view. How many people would complete the forms without the 100 year rule .. not that many I'm afraid. Pels.
If you look at the facts instead of the myths surrounding census returns you will find the 100 year rule did not occur until 1966.
There was no mention of 100 year closure on the census forms until 1981.
The answer to your question must therefore be yes they would have given that information.
The 1920 Census Act (the Act that covers all census from 1921 to date) did not mention 100 years closure neither did the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991
The average release period for English census information in the 20th century was 80 years.
In fact it is unlawful for any census information taken under the 1920 Act to ever be released.
Note ever not in 50 years not in 100 years not in 1000 years.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pels.
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 5411
|
But those are words of an expert on this subject Guy, how many people who are asked to complete these forms know the legalities, facts or myths?
The majority of the population aren't totally obsessive about data protection, but most value their privacy, especially with regard to what they consider personal information.
I was trying to give what could be seen as a crude example, of why it might not be helpful to Fred's parents and family, for him to see their details disclosed if he hadn't been aware of them. Just looking at the other side of the coin really ??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2864
|
The majority of the population aren't totally obsessive about data protection, but most value their privacy, especially with regard to what they consider personal information...........
I don't think you are in a position to speak for the majority of the population. How obsessive you are about data protection really depends on your personal circumstances, and (speaking as one who has already had their ID compromised), I'm very happy to keep the situation exactly as it is. Since that option is not available on this very biased vote, I will not be voting either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2864
|
Pels, there is really no need to take that tone..... you said "The majority of the population aren't totally obsessive about data protection....." and I merely pointed out that as an individual, you can't possibly know what the majority think. I was posting my own personal views on the issue, based on my own experiences of ID theft, and I do tend to be rather obessive about it, and if/when it happens to you, you will understand why. Crimes involving ID theft cost us all money, whether we have been personally affected or not, because the banks pass the cost of these crimes back to us in bank charges.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Pels.
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 5411
|
I wasn't aware this thread was intended to be about identity theft, my mistake. Neither was I aware when I replied in the first place, that it would be the rubbish I write, that's taken out of context.
My understanding, Fred wanted to vent his frustration about not being able to locate two of his grandfather's siblings during/following 1911. He then expressed his personal wish for census information to be released as late as 1961.
I am happy to leave things as they are, for reasons I thought I'd expressed earlier ??
So it might not be a bad idea to remain on topic, by reading the original post. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scottishmisty
RootsChat Member
Posts: 211
|
I'm afraid I can't vote in your poll because there is no option for leaving the current situation as it is.
I am not happy with the way institutions can seemingly easily access individual personal details at the moment, and I feel that making all censuses openly available will just help propagate that trend.
No thanks, 100 years is fine. For the sake of making FH research a little easier I'd rather hang on to what little privacy I have left.
Roger The Hat.
I am with Roger The Hat on this one
leave it 100 years
Cheers Jan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Paisley:Cowan,McFarlane, Neilston:Thorpe,Young,Edgar,McGraw,McDonald Strath:Grant,McClean,Chrisholm Houston:Whyte Ayrshire:McIlwraith,McCulloch Kirkcubright:Halliday,Blackloch Family Site: http://www.jcallan.co.uk/ |
|
|
les_looking
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 306
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
i also think the id fraud question isn't really relevant to 50-60 year old information,
someone who is going to scam, would be looking at new information, ie electoral roll, phone book, discarded information, you can get info' from dvla from a car reg etc etc,
lets not forget most id theft is created by the victims carelessness (not all before we start another debate lol)
when you think we can read state secrets after 30 years?
IF those who filled in the 1911-1921 census were told and i'm not sure if they were, that their information would be secret for 100 years, then maybe morally it should be kept to, but if this "law" has been created since, (i think the 100 year rule was introduced in the '60s) then it does not stack up against what public information is available, i would have loved my parents to have been alive to have seen the 1911 census and their parents as children,
the 1921 census being the last one for many years is going to be so important, after that many people in the future are not going to know what happened to their family for a good 20+ years,
next time you wander down the street and are followed the whole day by cctv, or filmed all day at work, your tracked by companies on your spending, i can check how much you sold your house for,
then wonder about the relevance of the 100 years, and not be blinded by smoke screens or other reasons why maybe it shouldn't be released earlier,
my personal opinion is maybe 50 years is to short, but i cannot see any reason to see a form i filled in, apply for and get your medical record when you want or countless other sensitive documents, but an 80 year old record or your family and where they lived and its no?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1100
|
The assurances on the census forms were as follows:-
Confidentiality assurances were given on all of the 1901-1991 census forms. Explicit references to the 100 year rule appeared on the 1981 and 1991 census forms.
The texts of the confidentiality assurances for 1901-1991 were as follows:
1901
"The Return is required for carrying out the provisions of the Census Act. The contents of the Schedules will be treated as confidential; they will be published in General Abstract only, and strict care will be taken that the Returns are not used for the gratification of curiosity or for other purposes than those of the Census".
1911 "The contents of the Schedule will be treated as strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on the reverse of the Schedule:
"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used for proof of age, as in connection with Old Age Pensions, or for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical Tables".
1921
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL"
1931
No English returns survive.
1941
No Census taken.
1951
"The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on the reverse of the schedule:
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL"
1961
"The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on a separate sheet headed NOTES and EXAMPLES:
"CONFIDENTIALITY--No information about any individual person, family or dwelling, will be given to anyone not employed on the Census".
1971
"The information you give on the form will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL and used only for compiling statistics. No information about named individuals will be passed to any other Government Department or any other authority or person. If anyone in the census organisation improperly discloses information you provide, he will be liable to prosecution. Similarly you must not disclose information which anyone (for example, a visitor or boarder) gives you to enable you to complete the form".
1981
"Your replies will be treated in STRICT CONFIDENCE. They will be used to produce statistics but your name and address will not be fed into the census computer. After the census, the forms will be locked away for 100 years before they are passed to the Public Record Office".
1991
"Your answers will be treated in strict confidence and used only to produce statistics. Names and addresses will not be put into the computer; only the postcode will be entered.
The forms will be kept securely within my office and treated as confidential for 100 years.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2864
|
lets not forget most id theft is created by the victims carelessness (not all before we start another debate lol)
I haven't forgotten, because it was never true.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
