ANPR opt-out

[Rob S]

Hi XXXXX,

 

I will give you an example:

Say a person is stopped whilst driving for speeding, wouldn't the release of personal driver details to the police fall under part II section 10 as a fine/conviction would be both damaging and distressful for the driver?

 

 

You gave this as an example???

[danny_kiernan]

You gave this as an example???

 

There is a reason, but I'd rather not explain until I get a reply - I don't do anything without a clear purpose in mind - everything about the email is intentional, including the Huuuuge letters on schedule 2.

 

dani

[danny_kiernan]

Finally a reply:

 

Thank you for your e-mail of 10th October to the Drivers Customer

Services. Your query has now been passed to me as I am responsible for

the release of data from the Driver Register.

 

I have had sight of the previous correspondence regarding your initial

request invoking section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As

you are now aware, the Agency does not process personal data without the

licence holder's permission unless there is a legal obligation to do

so.

 

You have now asked for further clarification in respect of authorised

persons and compliance with the DPA. I should begin by explaining the

Driver and Vehicle registers are entirely separate. Different

legislation applies to each, therefore an authorised person for the

purpose of driver licensing may not be an authorised person for vehicle

matters.

 

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)

Regulations 2000 provides for information held on the vehicle record to

be released to police, customs officers, local authorities investigating

an offence or a decriminalised parking contravention, or to those who

can demonstrate "reasonable cause" for having that information made

available to him. This includes parking enforcement officials etc. In

addition to this various Government bodies have powers under specific

legislation to request data from DVLA, for purposes prescribed in that

legislation. Examples include HM Revenue and Customs and the Child

Support Agency.

 

Under section 10 DPA if an individual believes that a data controller,

(in this case DVLA), is processing personal data in a way that causes or

is likely to cause substantial unwarranted damage or substantial

unwarranted distress to them or another, that individual has a right to

send a notice to the data controller requiring him to stop the

processing ("the data subject notice"). An individual is not entitled

to serve a notice if any of the first four conditions of processing in

Schedule 2 apply. These conditions were listed in your second request

therefore I shall not repeat them all. In this instance the relevant

condition is that " processing is necessary for compliance with any

legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an

obligation imposed by a contract". It is due to a legal obligation (set

out in paragraph 4 above) that DVLA would release information to a

parking enforcement official.

 

This is also applicable to your example of a driver who is stopped

whilst speeding. The driver is required by law to provide his/her

personal driver details to the police. The driver has broken the law

therefore the punishment by fine or conviction is not unwarranted. Again

if a person parks on double yellow lines, enforcement action would not

result in unwarranted damage or distress.

 

I hope that the above is sufficient to answer your query and that you

are satisfied that the DVLA is operating in compliance with the DPA. If

you require anything further please let me know.

 

 

More emails to follow

 

Dani

[bandit8450]

remember this if your car is nicked and there is no anpr then you have little chance of getting it back....god almightly this site is full of people who

a) dont wanna pay up when they cock up

b) just slag everythink off

c) dont want any responsibility for anything they do wrong.

 

you all wanna grow up or move to the states, you'll fit in there

[patdavies]

Stolen cars were recovered before ANPR was available.

 

The law as regards parking is precise; equally the parts of the law that are used to enforce it are equally precise. It cuts both ways, both the parker and the enforcer must act within the law.

 

What is generally 'slagged off' on this site is the ever increase automated enforcement which does nothing to achieve the end result - it merely raises revenue.

 

If you don't like this site then you are very welcome to leave. Your post above does nothing to offer advice or support to others. It is not even in English.

[buzby]

I'm unaware of ANPR being used for the recovery of stolen vehicles. That would require a bit of intelligence (a phrase being used in the literal sense, than as a verb) on behalf of the agencies that receive feeds of ANPR data.

 

Your comment may seem reasonable for someone who has only recently joined, but when you see how easy it is for authorities and firms to use technology for their own purposes, YOU do not benefit in the slightest. ANPR is a case in point, if your car is stolen I guarantee it will never be of use as an aid to recovery. However it may assist HMR&C to know your are commuting when you are supposedly signing on, or that you are declaring a SORN on your vehicle yet using it.

[Rob S]

ANPR is a case in point, if your car is stolen I guarantee it will never be of use as an aid to recovery.

 

What nonsense! If a car that has been reported stolen goes through an ANPR system, it will set off a warning. Plenty of stolen cars have been recovered as a result of passing ANPR cameras.

[buzby]

Really? Prove it! (And I don't mean police PR-puff stories on how ANPR solves crime). All it can do is confirm a vehicle of that number - assuming it was even read correctly - passed a set point at a known date and time. You'll be telling us next the police sit behind billboards 1m further on to catch them as they drive past?

[Chesterexpress]

Really? Prove it! (And I don't mean police PR-puff stories on how ANPR solves crime). All it can do is confirm a vehicle of that number - assuming it was even read correctly - passed a set point at a known date and time.

 

Think you need to check your facts on this one buzby. ANPR can indeed be used to alert when a reported stolen vehicle goes through a checkpoint. Going by what you say, what would the point of ANPR be?

[buzby]

Think you need to check your facts on this one buzby. ANPR can indeed be used to alert when a reported stolen vehicle goes through a checkpoint. Going by what you say, what would the point of ANPR be?

 

I suggest you read what I said. OF course it can 'alert' unspecified agencies that a vehicle went through a checkpoint. As for 'facts' do YOU know who receives and process the ANPR data? What it does not do, is instantly show police (if looking out for a particular stolen car) where it has been - not where it is. Are you also aware of how many folk can access the TfL ANPR database?

 

That said, following the logic so far displayed by those complaining I'm incorrect, am I to assume that there are no stolen vehicles within the London 'C' zone? As this is what is being implied. Add to this the bleedin' obvious - that a fake plate fools ANPR every time as there is no automatic match to make and model.

 

I've not stopped laughing yet at the ANPR supporters who are the closest I've seen to flat-earth devotees....

[patdavies]

Forget the TfL ANPR - that has a separate function, and you can't judge them all from this.

 

Individual patrol card have ANPR now and they do sit at the side of the road. if they get a 'hit' they take off after it.

 

It is not at all uncommon here to have a Police ANPR operation underway, with a camera at the side of the road (or m'way bridge) and officers further down the road to tug the suspects radio's to them from the ANPR hits.

 

I got caught by one as a car that I had bought the previous week was still shown as SORN

[buzby]

These vehicles are the front end of the 'puff piece' PR I was referring to earlier. My local force has two vehicles fitted out with them (out of 36!) and the comments from the officers of the cars that DID use it cited a lamentable success rate due primarily to DVLA's carp data (when they get the data back), and long waiting times when ANPR requests are stacked and either due to data glitches (good ol' O2 Airwave) making the responses you described as the exception, rather than the rule.

 

There are more fixed camera ANPRs than vehicle mounted, so my comment remains quite valid - perhaps mobile ANPR will get better, maybe not - but my pal in Traffic told me they still get a greater success rate at pulling over one they think is a 'wrong 'un' by the look of it, not on what the DVLA database might think.

[Guest 10110001]

I give my experience on this and what action I took here: London Motorists Action Group Forums-viewtopic-ANPR Vehicles you might need to signup or login to read.

 

Moderators - please stop interfering with my posts.

[Rob S]

Really? Prove it! (And I don't mean police PR-puff stories on how ANPR solves crime). All it can do is confirm a vehicle of that number - assuming it was even read correctly - passed a set point at a known date and time. You'll be telling us next the police sit behind billboards 1m further on to catch them as they drive past?

 

The only stats that will be available will be from the police themselves. Obviously they won't convince you, so there is no way for you to be satisfied. ( I didn't expect any other response from you to be honest, given the nonsense you have spouted about ANPR).

 

As for your second point, police do use mobile ANPR readers backed up with vehicles ready to stop any vehicles that activate the ANPR.

 

Reports relating to stolen vehicles are nothing to do with DVLA. These reports are placed on the PNC by the police themselves, so the data relating to them is much more accurate than DVLA info.

 

Would you still guarantee that no stolen vehicles have ever been recovered because of ANPR?

[Rob S]

I've not stopped laughing yet at the ANPR supporters who are the closest I've seen to flat-earth devotees....

 

And that coming from the person who advised a poster,whose cat had been attacked by a dog, to contact DVLA to try and find out the dog owners details and to tell them to give the reason as a "insurable event on private property":D :D

[Chesterexpress]

Buzby, people were discussing the use of ANPR/Police and stolen vehicles, and not the use of it by Tfl or DVLA.

 

Rob, brick wall springs to mind where some people are concerned regarding what ANPR can and can't do.

[Rob S]

Rob, brick wall springs to mind where some people are concerned regarding what ANPR can and can't do.

 

Nail on the head there Chester.

[buzby]

And that coming from the person who advised a poster,whose cat had been attacked by a dog, to contact DVLA to try and find out the dog owners details and to tell them to give the reason as a "insurable event on private property":D :D

 

Not me. Another figment of your imagination?

[Michael Browne]

Porky pie, Post#60:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/89609-dog-mauled-cat-neighbours-3.html?highlight=DVLA#post774484

[pt2537]

i think its a melton mowbray one:D

[buzby]

Porky pie, Post#60:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/89609-dog-mauled-cat-neighbours-3.html?highlight=DVLA#post774484

 

Thanks for that - after 7 months I think I've had more than 1000 other posts to contend with. That said, the information is still ture and completely valid. My protagonist, like the Duracell bunny just goes on and on and....

[Michael Browne]

Thanks for that - after 7 months I think I've had more than 1000 other posts to contend with.....

No trouble, I had no idea whether it was true or not, but it only took 45 secs to find. which you could have done before issuing a denial

[buzby]

'Issuing a denial' FFS get a life! I did not recall it, but just because RobbieBoy thinks it germane, the information provided was both accurate and relevant. Also, it's irrelevant here.

[buzby]

Buzby, people were discussing the use of ANPR/Police and stolen vehicles, and not the use of it by Tfl or DVLA.

 

Rob, brick wall springs to mind where some people are concerned regarding what ANPR can and can't do.

 

 

Dear me - and where was this exclusion of TfL mentioned. ANPR is in use by many organisations. TfL (as I understand it) provide a data feed to the police to it is certainly relevant.

 

As I noted earlier ANPR is simply another technology that works within the parameters of 'sods law' - just as folk were fooled into believing the TV Detector Van myth, ANPR appears to be taking over as nobody with any objective view on data capture appears to be interested!

[Chesterexpress]

Dear me - and where was this exclusion of TfL mentioned. ANPR is in use by many organisations. TfL (as I understand it) provide a data feed to the police to it is certainly relevant.

 

buzby for once will you accept that you really don't know everything....I know that must be hard for someone like you, however it really is true.

 

It was stated that ANPR was used in the detection of stolen vehicles. you were the one who said it wasn't and then babbled on about DVLA, Tfl etc. It is a well known fact that the police do use it for the detection of many different crimes, and that includes checking vehicles and there owners.

 

Might I suggest buzby, that you learn to read what is being said and stop trying to twist it to suit yourself. Just a suggestion, but one that I am sure many on here would appreciate...