Sheffield Council to decide the fate of your ANPR data

[Planner1]

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

 

This is what you originally said:

 

"PM me the details of the man if you're not capable of raising the issue yourself"

 

As I've said on several occasions, the issue is, at my request, being discussed at the next steering group meeting.

 

The SYITS project manager is a member of the Forum and is aware of this thread and the concerns raised.

[hsb98c]

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

 

Carful...

 

Anyway, I agree with most of the concerns raised about being able to link details to the DVLA at some point in the future, and also the length of time the data is going to held for. I was raising strong concerns with RIPA before it's second coming (as I worked to stop the first, more open version) so fully aware of what the future might bring once up and running.

 

I just hope those who loose sleep over this at night have actually used their voice, rather than trying to hang draw and quarter people who are trying to help on here (both sides, as the suggestion about encryption is a good one!).

Edited April 27, 2009 by hsb98c

[garrence]

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

 

Yes, under RIPA. It may breach the individual's right to privacy under the ECHR unless one convinces themselves (with their fingers crossed behind their back) that keeping detailed logs of people's car journies isn't personal.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the Surveillance Commissioners think that recording individually identifiable journey details is very intrusive to individual's privacy.

 

If it's true that the council simply wants the data to report on journey times and plan road changes then there is no strong case for having that data. Therefore, they shouldn't morally have it.

 

So if they insist on keeping such data then I would be very suspicious about what they really plan to use the system for. This chap in America who designed one of the first such systems thinks the ANPR data on individual's journeys should be sold to marketing companies - I wonder if the company supplying Sheffield's system is equally gung ho.

 

Can you PM me the SYITS project manager's details please - I'll take up your suggestion of participating.

[garrence]

the issue is, at my request, being discussed at the next steering group meeting.

 

Thank-you - I appreciate that. I hope the discussion will be rigorous.

[sccsux]

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

 

Is that a statement of fact, or a question?

 

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.

 

Personalised plates are personal though (and - until transfered - stay with the owner). Therefore, the plate is (or can be) personally identifiable information.

 

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

 

So why introduce something that is potentially illegal?

[Planner1]

Personalised plates are personal though (and - until transfered - stay with the owner). Therefore, the plate is (or can be) personally identifiable information.

 

The argument goes that this is not the case if the system is never connected to the DVLA database.

Edited July 28, 2013 by esme
quote tags

[Planner1]

So why introduce something that is potentially illegal?

 

The scheme promoters and the system suppliers clearly don't believe that this is the case.

[brianthedog]

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.

 

Regardless of whether the link is made, it is still personalised. Data is being held which could be used to track the movements of property owned by an individual. Regardless of whether the connection is made, it is still personal data.

[WilburrUK]

The argument goes that this is not the case if the system is never connected to the DVLA database.

 

If that's the case, then the argument is seriously missing the point - because it's a very big IF especially when you put the word NEVER after it.

 

Afterall who, when they first registered to vote ever thought that the information they provided would one day be for sale to anyone who wanted it?

 

Is your bank account information personal data if your caring govermnment promises never to lose it ?

Edited April 28, 2009 by WilburrUK

[sccsux]

The scheme promoters and the system suppliers clearly don't believe that this is the case.

 

How's that. When you yourself have stated that the are "legally in a grey area not covered by currrent legislation":confused:.

 

BTW. Not being linked to the DVLA computer doesn't mean that someone can't access the data and the make the connections. This is made easier by the fact that the data will not be encrypted.

Edited April 29, 2009 by sccsux