ANPR - Have Your Say

ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

ddom

3,477 posts

12 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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.

Evanivitch

8,790 posts

86 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".
laugh Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text laugh

deckster

5,799 posts

219 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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".
laugh Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text laugh
Was that aimed at me?

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.

Countdown

30,240 posts

160 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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.
So you would be happy with ANPR if it was points only, rather than points + fine?

Evanivitch

8,790 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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".
laugh Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text laugh
Was that aimed at me?

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.
Article 4, point 1. Personal Data. Directly or Indirectly. Identification number. Does not say unique. Does not say "when combined with". Clear as glass.

‘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;

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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".
laugh Hard to have a logical discussion with people that can't read simple legal text laugh
Was that aimed at me?

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.
Article 4, point 1. Personal Data. Directly or Indirectly. Identification number. Does not say unique. Does not say "when combined with". Clear as glass.

‘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;
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


Evanivitch

8,790 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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
laugh I forgot this was "Explain Like I am Five"

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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
laugh I forgot this was "Explain Like I am Five"
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



Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57

Evanivitch

8,790 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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



Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57
Then I'm very worried because you don't understand the legislation and the context of police ANPR.

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.

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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



Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:56


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 13:57
Then I'm very worried because you don't understand the legislation and the context of police ANPR.

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.
I completely understand it as explained

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

Every day a journey

380 posts

2 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.

ddom

3,477 posts

12 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Countdown said:
So you would be happy with ANPR if it was points only, rather than points + fine?
It would never happen, because without revenue, there is little point it.

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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.......

bigothunter

907 posts

24 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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? scratchchin

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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? scratchchin
Yes, we do. We also want more funds for the NHS, Schools etc etc

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....

Pan Pan Pan

7,670 posts

75 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.
Define fast.
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.

Countdown

30,240 posts

160 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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.
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.
Define fast.
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.
Maybe I should have said "more than 10% over the posted limit" rather than simply "fast". I agree that "one person's fat is another person's slow" and that's why we have an independent body deciding what the appropriate limit is. That doesn't mean that the limit is always safe but it's a useful reference point.

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? confused

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

Evanivitch

8,790 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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

8,790 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.

Volvolover

518 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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.
Exactly as I said above....