Website With Searchable Addresses Showing Owner's Names

Forums › Off topic › Website With Searchable Addresses Showing Owner's Names

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

2718 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3034476 10-Feb-2023 12:25

This is based off LINZ data, which is publicly available after signing up on a free form. IANAL but I use this data regularly out of curiosity, and it seems to me that as long as they keep the data up to date and respect correction requests.

That said it appears LINZ may have discretion to require the developers delete the data if they don't like the spirit of the application.

Because we don't have unique government ID numbers in NZ (e.g. US social security number), the only unique ID in the LINZ land records is the owners full name - which is typically unique, but clearly not always. The developers appear to be using the full name as a unique ID to identify multi property owners. This approach has been used before out of neccesity e.g. for the Stuff Mega Landlords series. That did involve manual processing, to deal with corporate entities and non-unique names.

Personally I don't see the big deal, as long as limitations with non-unique names are clearly laid out.

gehenna

8502 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034477 10-Feb-2023 12:25

udmada:
gehenna:

This is basically doxing

It is not. All information is publicly accessible via LINZ, Council and other publicly published information.

That's like saying it's not doxing to post someones phone number along with their name on social media, just because the number exists in the phone book. Doxing isn't just about the content, it's the act of putting the content into context and making it easily accessible.

wellygary

8323 posts

Uber Geek

#3034478 10-Feb-2023 12:25

Its basically a huge database to stalk holiday houses......

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3034482 10-Feb-2023 12:33

nickb800:
Personally I don't see the big deal, as long as limitations with non-unique names are clearly laid out.

If the tool is broken to the extent it is revealing the names of people beyond the stated intent of the exercise, which is identifying how many properties a landlord owns, then the tool either isn't ready or shouldn't be used for publically accessing that information. It's that simple. Arguably it doesn't even need to name names at all, unless the who of who owns what actually matters. So what is this actually trying to achieve? How many properties, or who is the person that owns them?

If there's an issue with the data which means they can't do that effectively, then just stating that's a limitation of the data and doing it anyway is insufficient, especially if it means disclosing the names of people who fall outside the stated aim of the exercise simply because someone, somewhere else, has the same name as them and also happens to own a house.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3034483 10-Feb-2023 12:35

alasta:

LINZ definitely sounds like the likely source as these people are probably too amateur to develop a tool that can link into the database of every territorial authority in the country. I would imagine that all this needs is a complaint to LINZ for what I assume would be a breach of the T&Cs of their API.

It looks like they're scraping Landonline, since it doesn't appear that there is a public API for Land Record Search (one assumes there actually is one for the use of Data Brokers). For some ghastly reason, scraping it to publish misleading violations of people's privacy does not violate the terms of use!

darylblake

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3034484 10-Feb-2023 12:45

This doesn't really change a lot.

Most landlords will have 1-2 rental properties.

And very small handful will have 10+. And anything somewhat large will be a business, it wont be owned personally.

It also contains a lot of mis-leading info as well which will stir controversy. My uncles name came up and it said he had a bunch of properties that he didn't, because he owns an apartment in a block... so it somehow assumed he owned the entire block.

I don't really know what the point of this whole exercise is. Admittedly landlords have had a fairly good run for the past 12+ years mainly reaping capital gains. But now with the brightline allowing even less and less tax able to be claimed against expenses/depreciation, (which will still reduce I might add) basically the properties will either be converted to commercial, so its not eligible, or they will sell or leave dormant.

I see where this is going.. eventually there will be a captial gains tax introduced at some stage...

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3034486 10-Feb-2023 12:49

nickb800:

Personally I don't see the big deal, as long as limitations with non-unique names are clearly laid out.

Context. The website is named "What Does My Landlord Own", not "What Do People Who Have The Same Name As My Landlord And May Or May Not Be The Same Person Own". They're not making the statement that "these properties are all owned by people with the same name", they're making the statement that all of those people are the same person. Nowhere on the home page, where you type in an address, does it warn you that the information is dubious. Nowhere on the list of properties owned by an individual (which, despite their claims that you cannot search by name, is a search by name page) is there a warning that the information is dubious. Actually, nowhere on the site at all does it claim that. The Privacy page certainly doesn't. The About page certainly doesn't. In fact the first reference you see to it is in a blog article on a WordPress site.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

nickb800

2718 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3034551 10-Feb-2023 13:10

GV27:

nickb800:
Personally I don't see the big deal, as long as limitations with non-unique names are clearly laid out.

If the tool is broken to the extent it is revealing the names of people beyond the stated intent of the exercise, which is identifying how many properties a landlord owns, then the tool either isn't ready or shouldn't be used for publically accessing that information. It's that simple. Arguably it doesn't even need to name names at all, unless the who of who owns what actually matters. So what is this actually trying to achieve? How many properties, or who is the person that owns them?

If there's an issue with the data which means they can't do that effectively, then just stating that's a limitation of the data and doing it anyway is insufficient, especially if it means disclosing the names of people who fall outside the stated aim of the exercise simply because someone, somewhere else, has the same name as them and also happens to own a house.

From their stated aim of ID'ing what your landlord owns, it certainly isn't achieving that in the cases of non unique names, cross leases, unit titles, family trusts. Agree.

That said, if they instead made a free tool called 'who owns that property?' where you could search an address and it would return the names of owner(s), whether they are multi-property owners or not, it would be okay as far as the LINZ terms and conditions for accessing the data. I suspect it would kick up as much, if not more opposition as whatdoesmylandlordown. Never mind that real estate agents and other property professionals pay $200/month for Property Guru or similar to do exactly that.

The name of the owner of a property isn't sacred - it's public record. So I disagree that if they can't do their stated aim effectively, that they shouldn't disclose any names at all. They are providing a pretty rubbish service, but it's free. If they were claiming to ID your landlord's other properties, and charging you $20 before giving you the results, then I would have issues with that, from a Consumer Guarantees Act perspective.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3034557 10-Feb-2023 13:28

nickb800:

From their stated aim of ID'ing what your landlord owns, it certainly isn't achieving that in the cases of non unique names, cross leases, unit titles, family trusts. Agree.

That said, if they instead made a free tool called 'who owns that property?' where you could search an address and it would return the names of owner(s), whether they are multi-property owners or not, it would be okay as far as the LINZ terms and conditions for accessing the data. I suspect it would kick up as much, if not more opposition as whatdoesmylandlordown. Never mind that real estate agents and other property professionals pay $200/month for Property Guru or similar to do exactly that.

The reason I'm so up in arms is that I'm listed as owning three properties by virtue of other people having the same name, and therefore I am considered a 'landlord', thus making my name viewable to literally anyone who punches my address into the search bar. If any of those other people have a run in with someone unsavoury and gets followed home and then searched by address, I get dragged into that net as if I'm the same person. It puts my safety and the safety of my family at direct risk through no fault of my own, even though I own one house.

There isn't any ethical wriggle room when it comes to 'oh it's allowed and we acknowledge it has a bunch of limitations but here's incorrect information anyway'.

Like I say, if this is truly about what they are stating the aim is, then there's actually no reason to even show the names of people, that returned information could be masked with 'Owner 1/2/3'. So if there is a need to show who owns what, what is it? It certainly isn't in line with the stated purpose, which is apparently to simply quantify the number of properties someone has an interest in - which it also can't do.

Having the same name as someone else who owns a house doesn't diminish my right to privacy or the rights of my family to a safe home environment. This website does both.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3034560 10-Feb-2023 13:41

Well this could open up an opportunity for a holding company that effectively then has trusts.

Some the ONE holding company is the reference for all rentals, then the owners of each rental are hidden and the properties are protected by a trust.

THEY like their privacy...cowards.

The holding company is effectively acting as an address for service.

dt

1152 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#3034564 10-Feb-2023 13:51

haha was just about to post the exact same thing.. bloody cowards

Silvrav

469 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3034580 10-Feb-2023 14:12

Ya, in my case our house use to have 2 titles/2 numbers so it picks us up as owning 2 properties, when in fact we only own the 1.

In the end, it doesnt really bother me as the info is publically available and one would think that people with some logic knows it search not by unique names, but hey going to be interesting to see how people react to this. Pretty sure the media will pick this up very shortly.

mwh

43 posts

Geek

#3034582 10-Feb-2023 14:13

Without at least a click-wrap agreement about how the end user is going to use the data it's pretty straightforwardly breaching the LINZ data terms, but it is pretty hard to see how it complies with the information privacy principles in the Act that it incorporates by reference anyway. They can't just handwave away ensuring "that the information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not misleading", like they acknowledge they have when collating by name, among other things.

It would be worth someone requesting to be put in touch with their appointed privacy officer, which they of course must have, to discuss those points. There is probably a legitimate and compliant version of this tool possible, but this isn't it, and the sort of bulk listing it's intended to do is one of the problems.

nickb800

2718 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3034592 10-Feb-2023 14:28

GV27:

nickb800:

From their stated aim of ID'ing what your landlord owns, it certainly isn't achieving that in the cases of non unique names, cross leases, unit titles, family trusts. Agree.

That said, if they instead made a free tool called 'who owns that property?' where you could search an address and it would return the names of owner(s), whether they are multi-property owners or not, it would be okay as far as the LINZ terms and conditions for accessing the data. I suspect it would kick up as much, if not more opposition as whatdoesmylandlordown. Never mind that real estate agents and other property professionals pay $200/month for Property Guru or similar to do exactly that.

The reason I'm so up in arms is that I'm listed as owning three properties by virtue of other people having the same name, and therefore I am considered a 'landlord', thus making my name viewable to literally anyone who punches my address into the search bar. If any of those other people have a run in with someone unsavoury and gets followed home and then searched by address, I get dragged into that net as if I'm the same person. It puts my safety and the safety of my family at direct risk through no fault of my own, even though I own one house.

There isn't any ethical wriggle room when it comes to 'oh it's allowed and we acknowledge it has a bunch of limitations but here's incorrect information anyway'.

Like I say, if this is truly about what they are stating the aim is, then there's actually no reason to even show the names of people, that returned information could be masked with 'Owner 1/2/3'. So if there is a need to show who owns what, what is it? It certainly isn't in line with the stated purpose, which is apparently to simply quantify the number of properties someone has an interest in - which it also can't do.

Having the same name as someone else who owns a house doesn't diminish my right to privacy or the rights of my family to a safe home environment. This website does both.

I don't follow the logic of your concern. If you are John Doe, and someone unsavory has a run in with another John Doe and follows them home, then wouldn't the unsavory person just (for example) punch the other John Doe on their doorstep right there and then? I don't see why they would then go around confronting John's landlord and/or tenants at other addresses?

Even if someone unsavory wanted to assault landlords for just being landlords and had been incited by this website - what are they going to do? Even when this website is doing what it claims to do, it doesn't tell you where a landlord lives, just what properties they own.

I just can't see how this information appreciably raises your personal safety risk above baseline levels. Even if you share a name with a prominent gang member, the White Pages presents the same sort of risk as this website for enabling a 'hit'.

I agree the website should do a better job explaining it's limitations, but I don't think the limitations are a reason for it to be taken down.

--

On a technical note - it appears the developers have connected LINZ's titles (which have owners connected) to LINZ Parcels, and LINZ Parcels to LINZ addresses. This is necessary to enable a street address search, as titles and parcels are not identified by address. LINZ's address database is a recent effort, and I suspect this accounts for some of the errors that users have identified (beyond common names, cross leases and unit titles). Old properties may have the wrong address mapped to their parcel. Properties on corner sections could be given an address on both streets.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3034601 10-Feb-2023 14:43

Silvrav:

Ya, in my case our house use to have 2 titles/2 numbers so it picks us up as owning 2 properties, when in fact we only own the 1.

In the end, it doesnt really bother me as the info is publically available and one would think that people with some logic knows it search not by unique names, but hey going to be interesting to see how people react to this. Pretty sure the media will pick this up very shortly.

The kind of people who will use this are probably the same calibre as anti-vaxxers

So I would guess a lot of innocent people may end up being targeted.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9