ANPR - Have Your Say
Discussion
Countdown said:
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.
Between 2014 and 2018, some £472m ANPR-generated fines were issued. 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".
Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text Evanivitch said:
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".
Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text We're all still waiting for you to point to the part of the regulations that, as you claim, "very very clearly" state that VRNs are PII.
ddom said:
Countdown said:
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.
Between 2014 and 2018, some £472m ANPR-generated fines were issued. deckster said:
Evanivitch said:
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".
Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text We're all still waiting for you to point to the part of the regulations that, as you claim, "very very clearly" state that VRNs are PII.
‘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;
Evanivitch said:
deckster said:
Evanivitch said:
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".
Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text We're all still waiting for you to point to the part of the regulations that, as you claim, "very very clearly" state that VRNs are PII.
‘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;
I suggest you check the meaning of clearly state
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
Sorry but that doesn't clearly 'state VRN' as you claim and its for this reason ICO use this as their example i posted.
I suggest you check the meaning of clearly state
I suggest you check the meaning of clearly state
I forgot this was "Explain Like I am Five" I'll help you along, my job role is head of data and im a nominated data controller and also ISO27001 accredited for the last 15 years
So to the DVLA the VRN is PI as they hold registered keeper information
To a car park operator merely recording VRN and nothing else then the VRN isnt PI
hth
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57
Volvolover said:
If i process nothing but ANPR data and dont process any related data then the VRN is not PI https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...
I'll help you along, my job role is head of data and im a nominated data controller and also ISO27001 accredited for the last 15 years
So to the DVLA the VRN is PI as they hold registered keeper information
To a car park operator merely recording VRN and nothing else then the VRN isnt PI
hth
Then I'm very worried because you don't understand the legislation and the context of police ANPR. I'll help you along, my job role is head of data and im a nominated data controller and also ISO27001 accredited for the last 15 years
So to the DVLA the VRN is PI as they hold registered keeper information
To a car park operator merely recording VRN and nothing else then the VRN isnt PI
hth
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57
They have your VRN. That's time stamped and tagged to a location (which isn't disclosed), which means they can go so far as to know your home location, your work location and any other routes you frequent which are specific to you. That alone meets the threshold of PII without having to request further detail from DVLA.
That is why the Police themselves acknowledge it as PII. But you, the "professional" still can't understand that.
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
If i process nothing but ANPR data and dont process any related data then the VRN is not PI https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data...
I'll help you along, my job role is head of data and im a nominated data controller and also ISO27001 accredited for the last 15 years
So to the DVLA the VRN is PI as they hold registered keeper information
To a car park operator merely recording VRN and nothing else then the VRN isnt PI
hth
Then I'm very worried because you don't understand the legislation and the context of police ANPR. I'll help you along, my job role is head of data and im a nominated data controller and also ISO27001 accredited for the last 15 years
So to the DVLA the VRN is PI as they hold registered keeper information
To a car park operator merely recording VRN and nothing else then the VRN isnt PI
hth
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57
They have your VRN. That's time stamped and tagged to a location (which isn't disclosed), which means they can go so far as to know your home location, your work location and any other routes you frequent which are specific to you. That alone meets the threshold of PII without having to request further detail from DVLA.
That is why the Police themselves acknowledge it as PII. But you, the "professional" still can't understand that.
What i explained which you don't seem to grasp is that VRN alone is not PI and there are circumstances when it can be processed and it isn't, as made crystal clear by the ICO guidance I posted, if of course you can read simple guidance.
Your blanket statement of "VRN is PI and its clearly stated in the legislation" is pure poppycock and I have proved it as such with the ICO's own guidance, it depends on the other data processed by that organisation.
Thanks again for your (lack of) knowledge (and misplaced sarcasm)
Furthermore
it matters not one hoot if in the case of the police its PI or not as long as they state the purpose of processing.
Purpose Limitation
“1. Personal data shall be:
(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article 89(1),not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes.”
Thanks again
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 14:19
Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 14:23
bigothunter said:
Volvolover said:
So we all want more police resource across the board but don't like the fact people breaking the law are made to pay in fines.......
Do we? 
The point is we want the government to spend more money and we're moaning about fines for people breaking the law..... if you don't like it then opt out by not breaking the law....
Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s f
k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. I try to drive to the posted limits, since I don't see the point of using motorized vehicles, and then doing less, than the posted limits, vehicle type, and road conditions allow.
Within that, the issue is that some people`s fast is another persons slow. and of course we have the idiots who believe that if they are driving slowly, they are driving safely, when they are doing nothing of the sort.
Pan Pan Pan said:
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. k all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. I try to drive to the posted limits, since I don't see the point of using motorized vehicles, and then doing less, than the posted limits, vehicle type, and road conditions allow.
Within that, the issue is that some people`s fast is another persons slow. and of course we have the idiots who believe that if they are driving slowly, they are driving safely, when they are doing nothing of the sort.
The way i see is that there are certain rules that people need to follow in order to be allowed to drive. e.g. Have a licence, a vehicle that is taxed, insured and MOT'd and then observe the traffic laws. You can drive perfectly safely without any of those in the appropriate circumstances but I doubt any PHer would defend somebody driving without a licence/tax/Insurance/MOT or argue that it was just a money making exercise, but speeding is fine?
Apologies for rambling; we like driving fast because it gives us an adrenaline buzz. The government think driving fast increases risk and tries to get people to drive within limits by imposing deterrents. It's as simple as that IMHO, there isnt any profit motive
Volvolover said:
Your blanket statement of "VRN is PI and its clearly stated in the legislation" is pure poppycock and I have proved it as such with the ICO's own guidance, it depends on the other data processed by that organisation.
Which is what? A list of VRN with no contextual data that you sort and order for fun?No, ANPR is beyond that. It's time and location data. And with an undefined quantity of ANPR cameras (because they're not published) and data held for 12 months it is PII. And the Police know that, and their data controllers know that and acknowledge it.
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
Your blanket statement of "VRN is PI and its clearly stated in the legislation" is pure poppycock and I have proved it as such with the ICO's own guidance, it depends on the other data processed by that organisation.
Which is what? A list of VRN with no contextual data that you sort and order for fun?No, ANPR is beyond that. It's time and location data. And with an undefined quantity of ANPR cameras (because they're not published) and data held for 12 months it is PII. And the Police know that, and their data controllers know that and acknowledge it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff