Should PPS Number be used by banks,companies etc?

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Just wondering ... banks, insurance companies, telephone companies etc would love to use PPS as a reliable means of identifying their customers & consolidating information. This would lower their costs & the greater efficiency would be good for us all.

To do this however would require legislative change etc.

Would people be for or against (or disinterested) ?

CyP
 


TheBear

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
234
And try to be more accurate/less misleading in the titling of threads. If people know what it's actually about, you're more likely to have a decent conversation on the actual topic at hand.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
I'd be against.

But not because of any Freedom of Information issues, nor Data Protections issues, but on the basis, that anything which makes the lives of all those 3 industries mentioned harder, is fine by me.

Legalised robbers the lot of them.

Rant over (though I reserve the right to re-commence it at a future time)
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I think that banks yes but am not so sure about the others. The PPS no. would help frustrate attempts by criminals to hide their assets in bank accounts under assumed names.
 

TheBear

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
234
I have told you all, my friends, about the little game I play in trying to guess who started a thread based on its title (and increasingly based on the forum in which it has been (mis)posted :x). Now let me tell you about another game.

This one is called "Guess what the repetitive freak is going to say." (It's generally played early in a thread's life, after you've read the opening posts, and one of the in-house weirdos comes along and joins the argument.)

The title really says it all, folks. There's a reasonable thread, which is joined by a nutter, and you have to guess how they try to twist the topic round to their favourite ranting point. It's fun, honestly. I invite you all to play too.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Also it would enable consolidated reporting to the Revenue - currently many financial services firms are obliged to report transactions that could allow for capital gain. However to identify the client the use free-text name & address. The Revenue probably aren't able to match these back even when they are logically the same e.g.

Eamon Forde
Lugvanna
Sligo Town
Co Sligo

Eamonn Ford
Ballyfeckle
Co Sligo

(don't start on that Soundex etc would work)

Let alone when someone changes address etc.

But the government is currently a little afraid of this area, I wonder why , given that no one seems overly bothered by it ?

CyP
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Information aggregation can produce a very comprehensive picture of a given individual. At the moment, this is rendered more difficult by the variety of identification methods used. Rationalising those is difficult because of the variety and antiquity of the IT systems behind it.

The Revenue is an arm of Government, and legally required to maintain certain standards of transparency and security. There are also limits on what they can do with the data they obtain. Commercial entities do not suffer from these restrictions to the same degree, which strongly suggests that (a) aggregatable data will be used for profiling, and (b) the data will "leak", or be explicitly shared as most Internet-captured data already is.

At the moment, we have a de facto freedom from "profiling". Why we would want to legislate to lose that freedom I have no idea.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
TheBear said:
I have told you all, my friends, about the little game I play in trying to guess who started a thread based on its title (and increasingly based on the forum in which it has been (mis)posted :x). Now let me tell you about another game.

This one is called "Guess what the repetitive freak is going to say." (It's generally played early in a thread's life, after you've read the opening posts, and one of the in-house weirdos comes along and joins the argument.)

The title really says it all, folks. There's a reasonable thread, which is joined by a nutter, and you have to guess how they try to twist the topic round to their favourite ranting point. It's fun, honestly. I invite you all to play too.
Sounds like fun. More fun than anything else going on at the moment.

Fair play to RoC for inspiring it :wink:
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Libero said:
TheBear said:
I have told you all, my friends, about the little game I play in trying to guess who started a thread based on its title (and increasingly based on the forum in which it has been (mis)posted :x). Now let me tell you about another game.

This one is called "Guess what the repetitive freak is going to say." (It's generally played early in a thread's life, after you've read the opening posts, and one of the in-house weirdos comes along and joins the argument.)

The title really says it all, folks. There's a reasonable thread, which is joined by a nutter, and you have to guess how they try to twist the topic round to their favourite ranting point. It's fun, honestly. I invite you all to play too.
Sounds like fun. More fun than anything else going on at the moment.

Fair play to RoC for inspiring it :wink:
:shock:

:cry:
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Ok ok....

let me frame it in terms more acceptable to the users of P.ie.

I do not believe there is any justification for the private personal details of individuals to be handed over to commercial entities, based on the fact that this information could be gathered by themselves, for which they would have to pay their own economic cost.

Nor do I believe it is a function of the state to collate information, such as the register of electors (poor as it is), and then hand such information over to commercial entities, for the purposes of

1. causing annoyance to individuals by allowing said commercial entities to bombard the these individuals with mass marketing

2. Creating unasked for, and unwanted litter and waste through such mass marketing techniques.

And furthermore, I reject the term "in-house" wierdo, when it could much more correctly have been termed "indiscriminate" weirdo.

:evil:
 

PinkoLeftie

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
64
TheBear said:
I have told you all, my friends, about the little game I play in trying to guess who started a thread based on its title (and increasingly based on the forum in which it has been (mis)posted :x). Now let me tell you about another game.

This one is called "Guess what the repetitive freak is going to say." (It's generally played early in a thread's life, after you've read the opening posts, and one of the in-house weirdos comes along and joins the argument.)

The title really says it all, folks. There's a reasonable thread, which is joined by a nutter, and you have to guess how they try to twist the topic round to their favourite ranting point. It's fun, honestly. I invite you all to play too.
Bit FT hasn't mentioned immigrants yet..
 

michael1965

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
143
cyberianpan said:
Just wondering ... banks, insurance companies, telephone companies etc would love to use PPS as a reliable means of identifying their customers & consolidating information. This would lower their costs & the greater efficiency would be good for us all.
CyP
Why would it do these things for the banks? I can imagine the government (or the Revenue) wold like banks to do this, but I don't see what's in it for the banks.
 

zakalwe

Active member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
171
1. it'd make sense to have a govt standard for complying with the requirements of the money laundering act.

2. it'd make tax evasion much more difficult.

surely, ROC, any measure that would make it more difficult for the proceeds of crime or fraud to be laundered and more difficult to evade tax would be welcomed by SF. Especially as they are looking to increase tax if they get elected.

i don't understand how it could facilitate more sh"t coming through the letter box from banks etc than usual as the banks regularly send out marketing crap to every account holder. it may reduce the amount of marketing crap sent to your house thats meant for every tom, dick and harry who has lived in the place before you however. and that would be very welcome!

i fail to see how it could help the banks make more profits than they do at the moment. (aside, its interesting to see that 20% of AIB's profit came from non retail/commercial activities apart from the gain on the sale of the HQ in ballsbridge). its primary use would be validating the legality of accounts/loans etc.
 

Bullmccabe

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
10
Why would it do these things for the banks? I can imagine the government (or the Revenue) wold like banks to do this, but I don't see what's in it for the banks

well I guess.......
Easier for them to follow Government regulations regarding accounts, money laundering etc and therefore less hassle from the cab
 

michael1965

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
143
Bullmccabe said:
Why would it do these things for the banks? I can imagine the government (or the Revenue) wold like banks to do this, but I don't see what's in it for the banks

well I guess.......
Easier for them to follow Government regulations regarding accounts, money laundering etc and therefore less hassle from the cab
Ok, so the real benefit is to the state, but even then it only makes sense if there is actually a legal obligation to use the correct PPS number when you open an account. Though I suppose the banks can insist on seeing a P60 or similar kind of document.

Personally, I am in favour of this kind of thing, so long as suitable privacy protection is in place. For example, you could conceivably have different numbers issued to people for different purposes, and only the state would be able to link them back to the main PPS number (which itself would not be used or seen by the private sector companies).
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Bullmccabe said:
Why would it do these things for the banks? I can imagine the government (or the Revenue) wold like banks to do this, but I don't see what's in it for the banks

well I guess.......
Easier for them to follow Government regulations regarding accounts, money laundering etc and therefore less hassle from the cab
Yes and that is on interoperability - also I'd stipulate that never ever should information flow from the Govt to the private companies re PPSN. All the private companies would use the PPSN for would be as a unique internal identifier & reporting back to the Govt.

Internal Unique Identifier
Say a customer opens two products with a bank . These products are separate so legally wholly different, it requires say two different application/contract forms.

Then as per example above the feiccer uses the perfectly legitimate variations:

Eamon Forde
Lugvanna
Sligo Town
Co Sligo

Eamonn Ford
Ballyfeckle
Co Sligo


Aiegghhaaaaa ! At least if both times they supplied their PPSN it would be consistent & would allow for definitive consolidation of the two entries to create one profile.

The basis is that say a bank that offers diverse financial services products is obviously a single business & achieving efficiencies from doing these things alongside each other. Then say they have a "bad experience" on product2 - branch staff can be aware of this & alert to their history etc. Also collecting usage patterns is good both for direct marketing & product development based on customer segmenation & propensities towards certain types of products.


E.g. say you develop a brand new Health Insurance product that is very , very competitive on price. First off you only want to market that to customers that have shown a sensitivity / propensity towards lower priced products & a "switcher" inclination (believe me this is NOT everyone!).



CyP
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
michael1965 said:
Ok, so the real benefit is to the state, but even then it only makes sense if there is actually a legal obligation to use the correct PPS number when you open an account. Though I suppose the banks can insist on seeing a P60 or similar kind of document.
cyberianpan said:
The basis is that say a bank that offers diverse financial services products is obviously a single business & achieving efficiencies from doing these things alongside each other. Then say they have a "bad experience" on product2 - branch staff can be aware of this & alert to their history etc. Also collecting usage patterns is good both for direct marketing & product development based on customer segmenation & propensities towards certain types of products.
What exactly is the benefit to the citizen?

This is like watching sheep work out who benefits most from their decision to be self-shearing.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
ibis said:
michael1965 said:
Ok, so the real benefit is to the state, but even then it only makes sense if there is actually a legal obligation to use the correct PPS number when you open an account. Though I suppose the banks can insist on seeing a P60 or similar kind of document.
cyberianpan said:
The basis is that say a bank that offers diverse financial services products is obviously a single business & achieving efficiencies from doing these things alongside each other. Then say they have a "bad experience" on product2 - branch staff can be aware of this & alert to their history etc. Also collecting usage patterns is good both for direct marketing & product development based on customer segmenation & propensities towards certain types of products.
What exactly is the benefit to the citizen?

This is like watching sheep work out who benefits most from their decision to be self-shearing.

The State is a collection of citizens - fair & efficient collection of taxes is in all our best interests.

Companies sell products to interested consumers, improving internal efficiency of companies will lead to lower prices/progress. People already know or have to hand their PPSN number, it's just a consistent, universal , permanent identifier, the companies wouldn't be passed any of the govt info asscoiated with it, just be allowed to capture & use it.

CyP
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top