
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

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.
( , Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:01, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

Because, this information is being sold to private firms from a government agency.
Some private firms are flouting the
"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.
( , Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:15, Reply)

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.
( , Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:23, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread