Data Protection and DVLA

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

Why is this idea important?

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

I want my Country back you dont own it we the people do!

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

ANPR cameras

Restrict ANPR to secure areas and infratructure facilities and not on main roads and motorways.

Monitor origin and destination only and not whole journeys indesciminately

Destroy any unneccesayy data captured as soon as possible

Why is this idea important?

Restrict ANPR to secure areas and infratructure facilities and not on main roads and motorways.

Monitor origin and destination only and not whole journeys indesciminately

Destroy any unneccesayy data captured as soon as possible

Abolish the technology that enables tracking citizens’ movements nationwide

I am unsure whether this was ever actually introduced in legislation or whether it has just happened via 'technology creep' under Labour – if so then it certainly should NOT have been allowed!

As any driver will know, virtually every A-road and motorway in the UK is now covered by a very generous number of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras.

ANPR cameras were originally introduced as a simple, mobile, way for the police to identify tax / MOT / insurance 'dodgers' – to which I have no objection at all. However, there are now thousands (more likely tens of thousands) of these cameras at fixed installations throughout the country, whose primary purpose is clearly nothing to do with catching the aforementioned 'heinous criminals(???)' .

What is NOT generally publicised is that all of these cameras are linked back to a central database and, every time a car passes one of them, details of the date, time and location are logged (possibly with a photo of the front-seat occupants, but I have no definite knowledge of this). This effectively means that the police / HMG / anyone else with access to the system can track the location and movements of every car in the country and, by extrapolation, the movements of their owners.

This level of monitoring clearly has nothing whatever to do with 'tax dodgers' and can only have been set up with the explicit intention of being able to track the entire population's movements. No doubt introduced at the behest of the Police as part of the 'war on terror' – which was the previous Government's excuse for every piece of new legislation that reduced our privacy.

Why is this idea important?

I am unsure whether this was ever actually introduced in legislation or whether it has just happened via 'technology creep' under Labour – if so then it certainly should NOT have been allowed!

As any driver will know, virtually every A-road and motorway in the UK is now covered by a very generous number of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras.

ANPR cameras were originally introduced as a simple, mobile, way for the police to identify tax / MOT / insurance 'dodgers' – to which I have no objection at all. However, there are now thousands (more likely tens of thousands) of these cameras at fixed installations throughout the country, whose primary purpose is clearly nothing to do with catching the aforementioned 'heinous criminals(???)' .

What is NOT generally publicised is that all of these cameras are linked back to a central database and, every time a car passes one of them, details of the date, time and location are logged (possibly with a photo of the front-seat occupants, but I have no definite knowledge of this). This effectively means that the police / HMG / anyone else with access to the system can track the location and movements of every car in the country and, by extrapolation, the movements of their owners.

This level of monitoring clearly has nothing whatever to do with 'tax dodgers' and can only have been set up with the explicit intention of being able to track the entire population's movements. No doubt introduced at the behest of the Police as part of the 'war on terror' – which was the previous Government's excuse for every piece of new legislation that reduced our privacy.

Scrap the “failure to produce” law

We all know that with a quick tap on their computers the police can tell in a matter of seconds who owns a vehicle, if it's insured and if it has a valid MOT. They can also tell if the driver has a current, valid licence, what endorsements they have and if there are any outstanding warrants. Why then, if all of this has been confirmed, does a motorist have to endure the inconvenience of digging out all of the original paperwork and turning up at a police station with them within a limited time span? I can see no justification for this outdated law. A person stopped by police, even though they have committed no offence, can be asked to produce documents and failure to do so makes an innocent person a criminal.

Why is this idea important?

We all know that with a quick tap on their computers the police can tell in a matter of seconds who owns a vehicle, if it's insured and if it has a valid MOT. They can also tell if the driver has a current, valid licence, what endorsements they have and if there are any outstanding warrants. Why then, if all of this has been confirmed, does a motorist have to endure the inconvenience of digging out all of the original paperwork and turning up at a police station with them within a limited time span? I can see no justification for this outdated law. A person stopped by police, even though they have committed no offence, can be asked to produce documents and failure to do so makes an innocent person a criminal.

Controls On Mass Surveillance, e.g. ANPR System

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Controls on mass surveillance & ANPR system

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Regulate ANPR and end general surveillance of all motorists

There are around 10,000 Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras on British roads, they are run by ACPO, and a central database stores vehicles' movements for 2 years. No law governs their installation or use.

ANPR should be regulated. Mobile ANPR cameras should be permitted as part of police operations. Static cameras should normally not be permitted except where they serve a dual purpose (eg. London congestion charge cameras). Records on vehicles where there is no reasonable suspicion of crime should be deleted immediately (again unless there is a dual purpose, when data retention would not be by the police). ANPR for policing purposes should be operated by the police, or by some other body that is subject to proper oversight.

Why is this idea important?

There are around 10,000 Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras on British roads, they are run by ACPO, and a central database stores vehicles' movements for 2 years. No law governs their installation or use.

ANPR should be regulated. Mobile ANPR cameras should be permitted as part of police operations. Static cameras should normally not be permitted except where they serve a dual purpose (eg. London congestion charge cameras). Records on vehicles where there is no reasonable suspicion of crime should be deleted immediately (again unless there is a dual purpose, when data retention would not be by the police). ANPR for policing purposes should be operated by the police, or by some other body that is subject to proper oversight.