Sheffield Council to decide the fate of your ANPR data

[stimpy]

blue in the face yet planner?

 

I for one couldnt care less if my numberplate is read and tracked...... you see them everyday, you could follow someone everyday if you wanted to.

 

I'm still struggling to see how your car numberplate links to your bank details as suggested by someone way back on the early pages though.

[garrence]

The people running this project are acknowledged technical experts in their field and don't need me or you to tell them this stuff, so do give the condescending tone a rest please.

 

Hmm that's somewhat unfair IMHO. As you say, you're a transport planner - and clearly expert in your field. I notice that the people contributing on this thread are the forum's IT experts who have a strong understanding of the privacy issues. We're trying to help... It would be professionally remiss if we didn't.

 

(Although, some could be a little less confrontational with their help - please, folks!)

 

Yes, as usual, a handful people are concerned enough to bleat on Sheffield Forum, but has anyone actually done anything about their concerns? Like directly contacting the SYITS project manager, who's details I have offered to provide to anyone who wanted to contact him? Well no one has asked for them, so I think we know the answer to that one.

 

Hey now who's being condescending? Objecting to you guys building up a database of our movement where the invasion of privacy outweighs the small benefit to transport plannng (in my opinion...) is a valid concern in the interests of the people you serve!

 

Anyway...

 

Yes I'll have his details please. I'd also like the minutes of the steering group meetings and details of the next one if you have them to hand?

 

Thank-you.

Edited April 27, 2009 by garrence

[Cyclone]

As I said earlier, I already have.

 

From what you've said any 'raising' of the issue has been met with a token answer about being within the DPA and you think that's the end of it.

So, you haven't really raised the concerns that people have, nor apparently discussed the possible ways to mitigate them with the technical team.

I'm still waiting for that PM by the way. I'll be happy to write something to the head of the steering group.

[garrence]

I for one couldnt care less if my numberplate is read and tracked...... you see them everyday, you could follow someone everyday if you wanted to.

 

You could indeed tail someone. It would involve considerable effort and would give them a sporting chance of noticing that you are following them.

 

Now how about recording their every journey for at least 5 years (or 10, 20... they haven't decided)? For that you need a mass surveillance apparatus.

[garrence]

I'll be asking the operations people what, in their view, are the legal requirements ( because, as is often the case, it appears they are open to interpretation) and to explain how they are complying with them.

 

I think that shows our difference in approach. The steering group seem to be following the most tempting path for anyone who owns such a system - "let's collect as much data as possible so long as there's no law stopping us", perhaps there's a technical loophole about number plates not being personal data (although most people would consider them to be personal).

 

The way to safeguard privacy would be to resist that temptation - capture and retain the minimum necessary.

 

May I suggest this approach:

1. Check with the ops people that their anonymising function does indeed make it impossible toget back to raw number plates.
   
2. Work out what analysis would not be possible without raw number plates.
   
3. Weigh up what benefit that extra analysis would bring (small I bet) versus the benefit of not electronically snooping on the population of Sheffield, the benefit of not having to safeguard the data and the benefit of preventing function creep (really - that is a benefit).
   

 

Personally, I don't want the council to build a database of my movements - I would find that very creepy - and I accept that it might mean that your road improvements are only 98% as effective as they would otherwise be.

[garrence]

The Surveillance Commissioners were sufficiently concerned about this mass surveillance technology to bleat on about it in their report to the Prime Minister:

 

"14.3 If the camera is set up in such a way as to record any of the large number of vehicles which may, for one reason or another, be entered on the computer database, particularly if a link to the Highways Agency’s camera records were established, it is unlikely that the deployment could be authorised under RIPA or RIP(S)A. There may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up pictures of the movements of particular persons or vehicles."

 

So this council system is either illegal or legal but very dodgy and out of proportion with its humble goals - I'd assume the latter.

 

A system that properly enforced anonymity should reduce these concerns and still give the planners their exciting new toy for transport modelling.

[sccsux]

give the planners their exciting new toy for transport modelling.

 

Let's not forget their shiny, new Control Centre:|

[Planner1]

perhaps there's a technical loophole about number plates not being personal data.

 

One of the arguments I'm hearing is just that. The SYITS system just uses the plate data as a tag to track vehicle movements. The plate data is never linked to keeper details, so it isn't personal data.

[Planner1]

Let's not forget their shiny, new Control Centre:|

You got a problem with people having a decent working environment which contains the tools they need to do their job?

[Planner1]

The Surveillance Commissioners were sufficiently concerned about this mass surveillance technology to bleat on about it in their report to the Prime Minister:

 

"14.3 If the camera is set up in such a way as to record any of the large number of vehicles which may, for one reason or another, be entered on the computer database, particularly if a link to the Highways Agency’s camera records were established, it is unlikely that the deployment could be authorised under RIPA or RIP(S)A. There may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up pictures of the movements of particular persons or vehicles."

 

So this council system is either illegal or legal but very dodgy and out of proportion with its humble goals - I'd assume the latter.

 

A system that properly enforced anonymity should reduce these concerns and still give the planners their exciting new toy for transport modelling.

 

And they also said:

"14.4 The unanimous view of the Commissioners is that the existing legislation is not apt to deal with the fundamental problems to which the deployment of ANPR cameras gives rise. This is probably because the current technology, or at least its very extensive use, had not been envisaged when the legislation was framed.

The Commissioners are of the view that legislation is likely to be required to establish a satisfactory framework to allow for the latest technological advances.

The position is complicated by the fact that the current technology can be used in a variety of different ways and at different levels of effectiveness."

 

So, as far as I can see, they are basically conceding that ANPR is a "grey" area not covered adequately by current legislation.