...
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, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

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)