Except...
This won't generate an argument for their being compulsory. At present, there are things for which I need to prove who I am; and there's a range of ways in which I can do this. So there would seem to be no need for an ID card there.

The problem with a compulsory ID card is that it shifts the balance between the person and the state. At present, it's up to the state to give a reason to interfere in your life in any way: that's why you don't have to produce identification on spec. With a compulsory ID card, that changes: it's effectively up to you to prove who you are irrespective of whether you're accessing services or not. Were this not the case, there'd be no reason for the cards to be compulsory.

What you're talking about is a centralised database, which seems reasonable enough, as long as information is accessible on a need-to-know sort of basis (as it would be anyway).

I suspect that the sale of information is a lot less of a big deal than some have made it out to be: the Data Protection Act would apply here, and it's quite tight on what's allowed.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:11, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

ahem
I suspect that the sale of information is a lot less of a big deal than some have made it out to be: the Data Protection Act would apply here, and it's quite tight on what's allowed.

Tell that to the mofo'ing DVLA.
( djtrialprice, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:26, Reply)

Word
Rogue clamping is absolutely rife at the moment because few restrictions are placed on who can and who cannot access DVLA data.

From this past performance, I do not trust the government to safeguard my personal information.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:36, Reply)

But the DVLA doesn't clamp you, does it?
And it seems reasonable for agencies that have a responsibility for the roads to have access to at least some of the DVLA database. If you have a beef with a contracted-out clamper, that's quite different, and it has nothing to do with information gathering per se.

As for personal information: the government has nothing to do with it. There, your complaint is about a branch of the civil service. Again, you're misfiring.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:40, Reply)

It's a government agency
with whom registration is compulsary if you want to drive and they can and will sell your information to any company who wants it.

My point is (a) the Data Protection Act isn't going to help me and (b) the government can't resist the lure of monetising personal data.
( djtrialprice, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:56, Reply)

"they can and will sell your information to any company who wants it."
No they can't and no they won't.

And what's the evidence behind your claim about monetising personal data anyway?

EDIT: I sound like I'm out to defend the government. Really, I'm not out to defend anyone. I'm much more interested in attacking shoddy arguments and unsubstantiated claims. Substantiate the claims, and I'll move on.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:24, Reply)

Hmm....
"And it seems reasonable for agencies that have a responsibility for the roads to have access to at least some of the DVLA database."

Yes, agreed. But that isn't the point being made.

"If you have a beef with a contracted-out clamper, that's quite different, and it has nothing to do with information gathering per se"

The DVLA - A government agency if I'm not mistaken is making details available to an unregulated industry in return for a fee. As a result, people are being clamped and charged excessive release fees and being denied the opportunity to appeal. If the government had bothered to set clear guidelines, or ensured the industry regulated itself with consistency and transparency then I might be slightly more comfortable about the government ensuring that whatever personal information it has is treated properly.

Why am I misfiring for being indignant about that?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:29, Reply)

...
You're running together "government" and "government agency" - that's a category error.

Clampers, I'd've thought, could make a reasonable "need to know" claim for driver information: they don't clamp the car for fun, and everyone has an interest in the owner being tracked down. People being clamped does not result from data being made available - that doesn't make any sense at all. Moreover, it remains to be seen what the standard is by which you judge fees to be excessive.

How and whether clamping is regulated has nothing at all to do with the more general question of the availability of data.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:42, Reply)

According to the Times, they do
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6440803.ece

"Newline charged separate fees for clamping and removal, even though the BPA code states that only one fee can be imposed if the car is removed within three hours of being clamped.

The BPA has admitted that PCM and Newline breached its code but it is refusing to suspend or expel either company."

The DVLA has a responsibility to ensure the data it sells to private firms is used properly.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:51, Reply)

Nope.
It'd be possible to clamp without the information, and the availability of the information does not make it inevitable that there's clamping. That is to say: it might be that, sans information, there'd be no clamping; but that's simply because in some cases there'd be no way for the clampers to contact the driver. However, it doesn't follow from that that the clamping comes as a result of the information being available: we could imagine someone setting up a clamping company, getting access to the database, and then deciding to stay in bed all day.

Ergo my claim stands.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:01, Reply)

Have I missed something then?
Because, this information is being sold to private firms from a government agency.

Some private firms are flouting the accepted required code of conduct and fraud appears to be taking place. The clamper needs to present a certificate stating that it adhers to the BPA code of practice, however this does not seem to be enforced, nor is there sanction against those who flout the code. Indeed the Lib Dems Transport Spokesperson seems to agree with this view

"Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said: “The DVLA is betraying drivers who had entrusted it with their information.”

The government agency is not vetting whom it sells information to. Ergo I do not trust any government agency with my data in the absence of sanction against the agency making the data available in the first instance.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:15, Reply)

Right - but...
you've just admitted that the rules are being flouted, which represents quite a big shift in perspective. I'd like to see the evidence that the rules are being flouted, btw; I'm not inclined to take a newspaper story's word for it. "Some firms", "appears to be taking place" and "does not seem to be enforced" are shifty-looking formulations.

There's a huge non sequitur between your final and penultimate sentences, too. Finally, none of what you've said contributes to the wider question of centralised databases in abstracto.

Right. Work time.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:23, Reply)