More spying

[daz6215]

slowly boil a frog and he'll just sit and not notice whats happening, drop him in to boiling water and he'll jump right back out.

[brianhaddon]

slowly boil a frog and he'll just sit and not notice whats happening, drop him in to boiling water and he'll jump right back out.

Precisely - and I would say that the water is getting quite warm already.

[michael769]

And how many people can drive other people's cars quite legally on insurance that isn't regsistered to that car ?
If your intention is to track an individual's movements from a car, you need to know exactly who is driving it.

I don't deny that this would be a terribly unreliable means of tracking individuals.

My point is that for a significant number of vehicles it could be used to "track" where members of a given household goes. That would, or course be of little use in a criminal prosecution . But it is not just "the authorities" who are interested in data like this commercial organisations are putting ever greater resources into identifying the habits and interests of both individuals and of households, and they don't care if the data is not entirely reliable of accurate. Their experience is that "hit rates" of as little an 0.5% can bring huge commercial rewards.

The simple fact is that there is no legitimate need to collect this data on a day to day basis. But once it is collected someone (who probably has no moral right to do so) will figure out a novel and inventive use for it. And given that our government has shown that it is quite happy to sell the information they collect (the electoral registers, DVLA and HMRC all sell lists of names and addresses already), I doubt it would be long before we started getting letters inviting all regular shoppers at the toytown branch of Tescos to try the new Asda. I might not have anything to hide from the authorities or police, but I do have much to hide from the companies that employ aggressive telesales "executives" to call me while I am trying to enjoy a relaxing meal.

And could you really tell me hand on heart that if this information was available to officers investigating a crime that, even if it was inadmissible in court they would not sift though it if they felt that it might have something of relevance to their investigation?

Of course the courts England and Wales have always refused to convict innocent people on the basis of unsubstantiated and unreliable evidence in the past haven't they?

[Horse]

Although I might strongly disagree with such systems, the flip side could be linking it in to air bag triggering devices, so that the system has 'dialled 999' with your location before you've even stopped moving . . .

[MGF]

Of course tracking of individuals is possible if you want to imbed chips in everybody from birth, or as you say enforced carrying of trackable ID cards, but that's not what is being suggested.

It isn't necessary to track the movements of an individual to invade their privacy.

I didn't say it was.

I just said that you aren't tracking individuals (as is suggested) with what is proposed.

Had you left your technical distinction at the point you questioned Rog's belief that it was 'akin' to 'tagging' that might be credible. (Even though 'akin' doesn't mean identical to).

However even when Porker distinguished between personal tagging and monitoring people's travel you persist with the distinction.

They can monitor your traveling out of the country, they can't monitor 'your' traveling in the country, because they don't know it's you traveling.

I am sure Porker is well aware of that distinction from his earlier comment.

Oh, that's OK then. All my concerns are neutered in a trice.

The point is that for most people, monitoring the movements of their registered vehicle is tantamount to monitoring their personal movements insofar as invasion of privacy is concerned.

The technical distinction matters not to a concern for invasion of privacy which I thought was the subject of the thread.

And given that our government has shown that it is quite happy to sell the information they collect (the electoral registers, DVLA and HMRC all sell lists of names and addresses already), I doubt it would be long before we started getting letters inviting all regular shoppers at the toytown branch of Tescos to try the new Asda.

How is this information sold for marketing purposes without your consent? When I register on the electoral role I have a choice of opting out or in to this.

[Gareth]

How is this information sold for marketing purposes without your consent?

Just to add to this point ... whether or not it is for marketing purposes the information collected by government is clearly being sold - I'm thinking, for example, that DVLC information appears to be available to supermarkets who then send letters attempting to 'fine' their customers for staying too long.

[MGF]

The circumstances in which the DVLA 'sell' RK details are here

It seems to me reasonable that if you use your vehicle in such a way as to cause financial loss to another then that individual or organisation should be entitled to pursue you to recover their loss.

Isn't that consistent with the purpose of having a registered keeper?

Indeed Section 170 of the RTA requires you to disclose your personal details to the driver of a vehicle you have been in a collison with.

What is the difference between you being compelled to disclose this information and the DVLA doing it on your behalf?

[jont]

It seems to me reasonable that if you use your vehicle in such a way as to cause financial loss to another then that individual or organisation should be entitled to pursue you to recover their loss.

But what is the burden on that organisation to prove they have suffered financial loss before the DVLA gives up details? You might have overstayed an arbitrary time limit in a car park, but if the car park isn't full, it's hard to argue you are causing customers to go elsewhere.

[michael769]

How is this information sold for marketing purposes without your consent? When I register on the electoral role I have a choice of opting out or in to this.

I did not say it was without my consent.

But for that matter how is not ticking a box which uses obscure terminology like "do not include me in the abbreviated register" constitute giving consent? In my area someone comes round to the doorstep and fills out the paper work for me. In order to get the box ticked I had to specifically ask them which meant I needed to know it existed. I don't call not getting that box ticked "giving my consent"

And neither HMRC or DVLA have ever even offered an opt out let alone asked for consent. And I'm not talking about the DVLA giving out the keepers address to folks with a "reasonable reason" to need it. I am talking about the generic lists of names and addresses that they sell to advertisers. Again you need to know that they are doing this and figure out what address to write to in order to withdraw your "consent" in the case of HMRC - or in he case of the DVLA to apply to a Sherrif for an inderdict to prevent them doing so, following their persistent refusal to comply with Sections 8 and 11 of the Data Protection Act.

EDIT: This is so off topic it's not real. I'll shut up now!

[MGF]

It seems to me reasonable that if you use your vehicle in such a way as to cause financial loss to another then that individual or organisation should be entitled to pursue you to recover their loss.

But what is the burden on that organisation to prove they have suffered financial loss before the DVLA gives up details? You might have overstayed an arbitrary time limit in a car park, but if the car park isn't full, it's hard to argue you are causing customers to go elsewhere.

By parking on the supermarket's land you will probably be entering into a contract to pay a sum of money to them should you overstay your welcome. They would then be contractually entitled to that money and to recover it they would need to identify the driver of the vehicle.

No burden of proof is necessary for you to be legally required to give up your personal details in the event you are involved in an accident. It is merely a means for people to commence civil proceedings if necessary.

I imagine the supermarket would need to show some evidence of a record being made of the vehicle being parked in such a way as to give liability to a charge.

The supermarket would need to commence civil legal proceedings to recover any money you are not prepared to pay. In any event S172 only applies in the event your vehicle is implicated in the commission of an offence so as the RK you can just say you are not liable unless they can show you were the driver.

How is this information sold for marketing purposes without your consent? When I register on the electoral role I have a choice of opting out or in to this.

I did not say it was without my consent.

You can hardly complain about something you have consented to can you?

But for that matter how is not ticking a box which uses obscure terminology like "do not include me in the abbreviated register" constitute giving consent? In my area someone comes round to the doorstep and fills out the paper work for me. In order to get the box ticked I had to specifically ask them which meant I needed to know it existed. I don't call not getting that box ticked "giving my consent"

Well in your area they are doing it wrong. You must specifically consent to being included rather than excluded. Of course this indicates an unreliability in the system which you are right to be concerned about.

And neither HMRC or DVLA have ever even offered an opt out let alone asked for consent. And I'm not talking about the DVLA giving out the keepers address to folks with a "reasonable reason" to need it. I am talking about the generic lists of names and addresses that they sell to advertisers.

Do you actually have an example of this because I was unaware DVLA were disclosing details for marketing purposes? It is unlawful to do this without express consent from the individual.

[TripleS]

This may well be taking it to the extreme, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this sort of technology could be used to track the movement of the individual. It would only require the mandatory carrying of identity cards fitted with a chip holding the individuals personal details. If it could be tracked by satelite, and I dare say that it's possible, the government could track the movement of every individual in the country.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

....and no doubt when that facility becomes available to the government, they'll use it.

....except on me of course, because i will not be having an ID card, so where will that leave me?

No ID card, therefore:

my driving licence might be withdrawn from me?
I may not be able to use the services of the NHS?
i may not be able to use the public libraries?
my pension may not continue to be paid?
I may not even be able to walk to my local shop and buy food items, because they may not serve me without seeing my ID card?

Is this really the world I'm expected to live in in my years of retirement?

No, NO, a thousand times, NO. I, at least, am not going along with this!

....and whatever follows from that will simply have to follow.

The way this government is shaping up worries me far more than any risks I may face from criminal behaviour or terrorism, and that's a fact.

To most of us, suffering from acts of criminal behaviour is a tiny risk, and suffering from acts of terrorism almost zero risk. The damage to our quality of life - the feel of life - from the government will be permanent. It isn't worth it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

This may well be taking it to the extreme, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this sort of technology could be used to track the movement of the individual. It would only require the mandatory carrying of identity cards fitted with a chip holding the individuals personal details. If it could be tracked by satelite, and I dare say that it's possible, the government could track the movement of every individual in the country.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

Of course tracking of individuals is possible if you want to imbed chips in everybody from birth, or as you say enforced carrying of trackable ID cards, but that's not what is being suggested.

Yet!!

FFS, Von, when are you going to realise that this is a wholly unreasonable and completely unacceptable trend?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

slowly boil a frog and he'll just sit and not notice whats happening, drop him in to boiling water and he'll jump right back out.

I'm hot enough already, thanks - and not in the nicest way.

....but you're right: It's only a minor detail and of course it's all for our benefit....or so they'll say.

Bollocks!! There should be no negotiation on this. Government mis-use of technology will have to be stopped - by whatever means are available to us.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

It seems to me reasonable that if you use your vehicle in such a way as to cause financial loss to another then that individual or organisation should be entitled to pursue you to recover their loss.

But what is the burden on that organisation to prove they have suffered financial loss before the DVLA gives up details? You might have overstayed an arbitrary time limit in a car park, but if the car park isn't full, it's hard to argue you are causing customers to go elsewhere.

<nods head>

Hello, Jon.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Sru_1980]

This may well be taking it to the extreme, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this sort of technology could be used to track the movement of the individual. It would only require the mandatory carrying of identity cards fitted with a chip holding the individuals personal details. If it could be tracked by satelite, and I dare say that it's possible, the government could track the movement of every individual in the country.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

....and no doubt when that facility becomes available to the government, they'll use it.

....except on me of course, because i will not be having an ID card, so where will that leave me?

No ID card, therefore:

my driving licence might be withdrawn from me?
I may not be able to use the services of the NHS?
i may not be able to use the public libraries?
my pension may not continue to be paid?
I may not even be able to walk to my local shop and buy food items, because they may not serve me without seeing my ID card?

Is this really the world I'm expected to live in in my years of retirement?

No, NO, a thousand times, NO. I, at least, am not going along with this!

....and whatever follows from that will simply have to follow.

The way this government is shaping up worries me far more than any risks I may face from criminal behaviour or terrorism, and that's a fact.

To most of us, suffering from acts of criminal behaviour is a tiny risk, and suffering from acts of terrorism almost zero risk. The damage to our quality of life - the feel of life - from the government will be permanent. It isn't worth it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I'm with you Dave - I find it all very worrying, that we're already living in an increasingly "Big Brother" society, and being forced to have our every move scrutinised, yeah, great, and I don't think!