ANPR - Have Your Say

ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
944 Man said:
Volvolover said:
944 Man said:
Be quite, you bore.
The massive intellect has spoken. Quite
Loud-mouthed, newbie, petty-aggressive little nobodies like you are ten-a-penny on PH. You will leave soon, and no one will care.
Read back and see where the abuse started moron

While you’re at it try articulating your view rather than just shouting the same thing louder. You STILL can’t explain why more ANPR would make my life as a law abiding motorist worse.

As said happy to be convinced

Aitch H

163 posts

37 months

Monday 1st March
quotequote all
There’s lots of talk about holding data on us and using it wrongfully or to control us more and more etc etc in this discussion. Which is all fair and I’m not saying it’s wrong to discuss it, but my issue with the use of, and increasing reliance on ANPR, is the fact that less and less police traffic cars are seen on the road as ANPR cameras catch the uninsured, untaxed or speeding vehicles. But what ANPR doesn’t catch is the dangerous driving that’s not speeding. Overloaded lorries that would never stop in time as their brakes can’t cope with the extra load, or poorly loaded lorries and vans that sit lop-sided, bald tyres, headlights/tail-lights not working and general poor driving that can cause accidents etc. Before I get shot down by someone pointing out that it went on before ANPR was introduced, I know, but there were more police traffic cars out and about that did catch it. Now you very rarely see a police traffic car, even on the motorway as that’s left to the traffic Wombles as Clarkson called them, so this goes unnoticed and undetected, and as a few have already said, put false plates on and drive in an abhorrent manner, speeding or illegal parking etc that the cameras do pick up on and you’ll very likely never get caught as the fines will go to someone else.

ddom

3,662 posts

13 months

Monday 1st March
quotequote all
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.

Evanivitch

9,060 posts

87 months

Monday 1st March
quotequote all
Olivera said:
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
Indeed, it's a highly regulated activity (due to safety concerns) conducted on state infrastructure. It's therefore very dissimilar to other free market activity. The privacy concerns are infinitesimally small compared to that of say internet ad-tracking or social media.

Edited by Olivera on Friday 19th February 12:14
Couple of issues.

Number Plates are personally identifiable information under GDPR, so your argument is legally null and void that they are only "recording their property".

My issue isn't that they capture the data, it's how they do it. The poor excuse is that publishing ANPR locations would make the system avoidable. Currently the system is unaccountable.

Also, data is recorded on everyone for 12 months. Again that is personal information held on innocent people for far longer than is necessary. How many people wait 12months to report a missing car? Why 12 months for VED/insurance? The system should cross check against a suspect list only.

vonhosen

37,323 posts

182 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Olivera said:
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
Indeed, it's a highly regulated activity (due to safety concerns) conducted on state infrastructure. It's therefore very dissimilar to other free market activity. The privacy concerns are infinitesimally small compared to that of say internet ad-tracking or social media.

Edited by Olivera on Friday 19th February 12:14
Couple of issues.

Number Plates are personally identifiable information under GDPR, so your argument is legally null and void that they are only "recording their property".

My issue isn't that they capture the data, it's how they do it. The poor excuse is that publishing ANPR locations would make the system avoidable. Currently the system is unaccountable.

Also, data is recorded on everyone for 12 months. Again that is personal information held on innocent people for far longer than is necessary. How many people wait 12months to report a missing car? Why 12 months for VED/insurance? The system should cross check against a suspect list only.
The fact the number plates come under GDPR & as a consequence of that, that the state has responsibilities in relation to how it handles data in relation to the plates doesn't alter the facts that
1) The plate is & remains the property of the state, they can withdraw it after all.
2) That the plate doesn't record who was in the vehicle & therefore the movements of individuals, the plate is instead assigned to (& can be moved from) a vehicle, it isn't assigned to the driver or passengers.

eg.
I was driving my wife's (registered to her) car yesterday. ANPR was not recording her movements & it had no idea it was me in the car. It was recording the state owned plate's movement on the state funded network.

When Joe Bloggs was driving Fed Ex's truck at work, ANPR didn't know it was him driving it, it was recording the plates movement.

When the bugger that cloned my car's plates and drove the car they put them on through a speed camera last year, they weren't recording my movements or aware of who was driving it, it was the plate's movement that was being recorded.

The ANPR didn't give them an identifiable individuals movements, it gave them a line of enquiry should they require it.

The identifiable for GDPR is the registered keeper (not the driver or passenger's movements) & that requirement in relation to VRM data exists even if ANPR didn't.


Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 2nd March 02:07

Pit Pony

4,326 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
944 Man said:
Be quite, you bore.
The massive intellect has spoken. Quite
I thought the predictive text probably should have said

Bee quiet, you bear.



Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
It’s safe to say a vehicle registration on its own is not PI you could not link this data with any PI unless combined with DVLA datasets containing registered keeper information or any other systems containing both PI and registration data such as police data.


Evanivitch

9,060 posts

87 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
It’s safe to say a vehicle registration on its own is not PI you could not link this data with any PI unless combined with DVLA datasets containing registered keeper information or any other systems containing both PI and registration data such as police data.
Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.

It's hilarious that people in this thread are trying to argue otherwise laugh

Pixelpeep Z4

6,486 posts

107 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
944 Man said:
Maybe we should just start RFID chipping everyone at birth?
Cracking plan!
Don't worry, we got Bill on it now smile

Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
It’s safe to say a vehicle registration on its own is not PI you could not link this data with any PI unless combined with DVLA datasets containing registered keeper information or any other systems containing both PI and registration data such as police data.
Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.

It's hilarious that people in this thread are trying to argue otherwise laugh
Out of interest can you direct to the specific quote that states that?

I can only see

[B]"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"

EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Article 4 ('Definitions') Paragraph 1, p.33[/B]


On its own a VRN does not fit this definition


However the ICO say this

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...

Its just not explicit IMO


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 11:26

Pan Pan Pan

7,741 posts

76 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.

Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.
Any data to back up this theory? Do we know how much revenue generation is underpinned by Police operated ANPR And how this has changed with the prevalance of ANPR?


RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat

12,192 posts

60 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
I've no problem with ANPR being used for traffic flow monitoring and enforcement of traffic offences. I do have a problem if it's used for wider purposes (including use as supporting evidence for other crimes). We are not property of the State and it's only in very limited circumstances the State is entitled to ask or know where we are and what we're doing. It is literally none of their business.

It makes sense that if automated methods can be used to detect and enforce traffic offences, we use them. If the facility is used to store information 'just in case', that's gone beyond a traffic regulation purpose and is now general surveillance. Whilst we accept CCTV in private and public hands, this is distinguished from ANPR by its general inability to track individuals and store where they've been and what they do in a joined up way (facial recognition notwithstanding, which has its own ongoing moral argument in much the same way as ANPR). We can also typically choose where we shop, whether we accept cookies, use Nectar cards and similar.

My position is that the State does not hold the right to know where I have been in my car and needing to know 'just in case' is insufficient reason for that to change.

Evanivitch

9,060 posts

87 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Out of interest can you direct to the specific quote that states that?

I can only see

[B]"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"

EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Article 4 ('Definitions') Paragraph 1, p.33[/B]


On its own a VRN does not fit this definition


However the ICO say this

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...

Its just not explicit IMO


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 11:26
There's no specific quote because anyone with any knowledge of GDPR can understand it.

Otherwise your IP address (computer not a person) , email address (multiple users) , home address (multiple residents) , even your NI number (also government property) would not be considered under GDPR.

The police even acknowledge this any try to justify a 12 month duration for holding data and using the specific exclusion that allows them to keep locations unpublished under law enforcement aspects permitted under GDPR.

ddom

3,662 posts

13 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Any data to back up this theory? Do we know how much revenue generation is underpinned by Police operated ANPR And how this has changed with the prevalance of ANPR?
Not only the Police

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/global-a...

Of course, all for purely 'safety' rofl

the internet said:
Market segment by Application, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) can be split into
Traffic Management
Law Enforcement
Electronic Toll Collection
Parking Management
Access Control
How many of the above are not revenue streams?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6...

the internet then said:
Between 2014 and 2018, some £472m ANPR-generated fines were issued

deckster

5,845 posts

220 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
There's no specific quote because anyone with any knowledge of GDPR can understand it.

Otherwise your IP address (computer not a person) , email address (multiple users) , home address (multiple residents) , even your NI number (also government property) would not be considered under GDPR.

The police even acknowledge this any try to justify a 12 month duration for holding data and using the specific exclusion that allows them to keep locations unpublished under law enforcement aspects permitted under GDPR.
There's probably a good argument for VRNs being considered PII under GDPR - but your exact statement was "Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.". That is somewhat at odds with "well it's obvious, innit".


Pan Pan Pan

7,741 posts

76 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.
Any data to back up this theory? Do we know how much revenue generation is underpinned by Police operated ANPR And how this has changed with the prevalance of ANPR?
Have you not heard how much cash some speed cameras have generated, whilst providing little real increase in road safety?
I don't have much of a problem with ANPR or speed cameras for that matter, but I do with some of the ways they are (mis) used.

Countdown

30,338 posts

161 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.
The accusation that "it's all about revenue" is a re herring IMO. if the Police/Guv'mint scrapped the fines and simply imposed points "we" would still be unhappy because the main thing is we don't want anybody to stop us from driving fast.

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.
The accusation that "it's all about revenue" is a re herring IMO. if the Police/Guv'mint scrapped the fines and simply imposed points "we" would still be unhappy because the main thing is we don't want anybody to stop us from driving fast.
That is the elephant in the room really.

It's the same as the argument against automated enforcement. People want more cops (than cameras) to be available to investigate whatever it is they personally have an issue with, but for those same cops to not be around whenever they want to blaze past someone else's house, etc.

See also: discretion - it's only valid when it goes in their favour, otherwise it's oppression (?)

Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
deckster said:
There's probably a good argument for VRNs being considered PII under GDPR - but your exact statement was "Except VRN is PI information in law. Specifically GDPR. It's very, very clearly stated as such.". That is somewhat at odds with "well it's obvious, innit".
Exactly and I’m entirely correct saying that vrn on its own is not pi, the ico’s own example says it has to be combined with other data...but that’s why they consider it such.