Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some UK Councils Barred From Using Gov't Vehicle Database

Posted by timothy on from the and-for-just-a-few-pounds-more dept.

Bruce66423 writes "A number of British councils are being banned from accessing the national Vehicle Database system. While sometimes this appears to be due to technical infractions, the banning of some 'permanently' seems to be as a result of more serious misdemeanours. Trust the government? Not a good idea..."

26 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Why not? by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trust the government? Not a good idea..."

    Why not? The government taking action where they find indications of abuse. Surely that cannot be a problem?

    The fact that there are users and user organizations making improper use of the data is how the world works. That is why "the government" check and ban those who abuse the data.

    1. Re:Why not? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 5, Insightful
      councils are local government - national government is banning local government from accessing the vehicle database. Not sure why any local government should have access to the vehicle database anyway. All taxation, etc, is done by national government.

      The data keeps getting sold to debt collectors, which may have something to do with it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Why not? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not really suprising either, having worked in local government it's about the most unaccountable workplace you could imagine so to hear employees are abusing systems is not a suprise.

      If you have a problem with a council you can refer it to the ombudsman, but guess whose in charge there? An ex council chief.

      Nice to see the DVLA taking unilateral action on this, as there would be no hope of the councils sorting it out unless there was some kind of root and branch change in the way councils are run and managed to make them accountable organisations.

    3. Re:Why not? by Vulch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Parking enforcement is dealt with at local level which is wh they have access in the first place.

    4. Re:Why not? by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

      Local government has control over local on-street parking management, so access to DVLA is not unreasonable in the first instance...

      On the other hand, as I live in Brighton and the local Green council have fucked the parking costs, I'm delighted that B&H have been blocked...

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    5. Re:Why not? by Mendy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sure why any local government should have access to the vehicle database anyway. All taxation, etc, is done by national government.

      The council I used to work for had access to identify the owners of abandoned cars. We didn't have access to identify fly-tippers or people who might be disposing of trade waste at household sites which I understood would have made that job easier or indeed possible so some of the violations could have been through this kind of temptation or ignorance about the limitations.

      Technically it was quite a secure system - access was done from a private, locked room via a dedicated ISDN line whose number was registered with them and then several levels of authentication by users who had had to sign an agreement. They were very strict about the paperwork being up to date so I can believe the comments in the article about some having lost their access temporarily due to not getting the renewal forms back in time.

    6. Re:Why not? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      It's a little early to be arguing anarcho-capitalism, and since the database is an important tool for crime and traffic violations prevention, and since it's not outrageous - for most people - to require some personal information before allowing one to drive around in public space in a machine that can apply millions of newtons to a third-party body or property, that line of reasoning is completely irrelevant and somewhat silly.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:Why not? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not? Because it wouldn't allow timothy to post another anti-British story.

    8. Re:Why not? by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, as I live in Brighton and the local Green council have fucked the parking costs, I'm delighted that B&H have been blocked...

      Parking prices across the whole of the UK seem to have gone nuts over the past few years as councils have found it an easy way to make money. The council is there to provide services to residents, so IMHO shouldn't be in the business of profiting from them - charge the running costs of the carpark and nothing more please.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    9. Re:Why not? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, that's just it - it *isn't*, it's an example of government working well. "Oh sorry, you dicked about and broke the rules, now you don't get to use the DVLA data". Simple.

      What I'm getting at is that every story timothy posts about the UK has his unique brand of editorialising on it, trying to paint this country as some sort of Orwellian hell-hole. It makes me wonder what horrors he's trying to distract his followers from in the US.

    10. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what you're saying is we should live with assholes who say things like "I've paid my tax so I can park wherever the fuck I want!"? Yeah, great plan. Well done you.

    11. Re:Why not? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The information held by the DVLA is what you use to identify the people who are parking illegally so you can prosecute them.

      As someone whose city is stuck with unfortunately weak transport infrastructure for historical reasons (Cambridge) I can tell you that parking "illegally" all too often comes with a "dangerously" attached, too. If there's no sensible justification (such as dealing with a medical emergency, or a vehicle that has broken down and is awaiting recovery) then I have no problem with penalising those people.

      This story seems like exactly how the system is supposed to work to me: some parts of government (councils, and even at least one area's police force according to TFA) are trying to overstep the authority they were given for one good reason to use the same facility for other less good reasons, and another part of government that is guardian of sensitive personal data (the DVLA) is telling them to take a hike.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Why not? by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      The local councils don't "profit" from parking charges, the money from charges and permits goes into the funding pool to help pay for everything the council does like street sweeping etc.

      The problem in many places or at least Copenhagen were I used to live, is that the city will reduce the number of legal parking places, and increase parking costs and tickets, so instead of using the money to expand the service for those they tax, they use the money to destroy the service for those they taxed, for the purpose of "earning" more tax.

      It did help bring down the local income taxes though and make the city a very handy surplus, last I checked the parking related revenue was more than 25% of the total revenue of the central Copenhagen munincipality. I still consider it overall bad and blatently wrong.

    13. Re:Why not? by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 2

      No, the legal process of handling illegal parking has been delegated to councils and does not require police involvement.

      However, more concerning is the fact that there are a lot of private parking enforcement contractors operating on private land. The DVLA also offers a service to these private companies, whereby the DVLA provide drivers' identity details from a plate number, in exchange for a fee. Technically, this service is open to any party who can provide a legitimate reason for wanting it.

      Hence, if I were to park at a supermarket car park, and overstay the 2hr free-parking period, I might "implicity agree to a contract where I pay £100 per 24 hours to park", as stated in the small print on a sign by the entry road. A private contractor can then contact the DVLA with my plate details, and the DVLA will provide my name, address, DOB and other details.

      I recently tried to do the same, because a driver was repeatedly parking on my land and obstructing access to it by my own vehicles. He failed to respond to notes on the car, and he kept late hours, so never saw him in person. I contacted the DVLA (and paid their fee) with the plate details and explained that I needed the details to send formal notice of impending legal action for trespass. The DVLA refused, stating that I did not have legitimate grounds to request this privileged personal information.

  2. this makes me trust them more by detain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government is itself good but the people in it are not always worth our trust. Whats important here is that people in greater power are doing something that seems to be in the best interest of citizens and regardless if some people were abusing the system or not steps are being taken to resolve that.

    --
    http://interserver.net/
    1. Re:this makes me trust them more by Spottywot · · Score: 2

      FTA

      Mr Pickles said: "Concerns about the DVLA database have been voiced for several years, but it is remarkable that in just three years nearly half the country's councils have been suspended from looking at motorists' information.

      "One key issue that still has not been resolved is whether someone could be sent to prison for deliberately abusing the databases they have access to and that deterrent is badly needed."

      Not inspiring any confidence from me. The article also suggests that councils are using information on the DVLA data in some cases to save money in comparison with accessing the same information from the correct/appropriate sources, and in the worst cases may be selling data to journalists. This makes me trust them less.

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    2. Re:this makes me trust them more by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government is itself good but the people in it are not always worth our trust.

      The second part of that statement is why so many of us want it limited - more powerful government attracts nastier people, because you can use it to do nastier things more often. Why do you think of the government as "good"? Necessary, perhaps, but it's like insurance - you need to have enough to protect yourself, but diminishing returns and exponential price increases set it really quickly if you try to turn that protection into a bulletproof cocoon.

    3. Re:this makes me trust them more by Johann+Lau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think of the government as theoretically, ideally "good" because it's a mutual social contract between all citizens. At least in theory government is simply people organizing themselves. If all people simply cooperated peacefully and honestly without coercion, then that decision of them would be what governs them and how they interact. You might as well ask what cooperation or self-restraint are useful for... isn't it obvious?

      While I agree that "our" (this is true in most industrialized countries I'd assume, I don't mean a specific country here) political system is kinda bonkers and not even *trying* to be that structured expression of self-governance and mutual responsibility -- but if people buy into the whole "us vs. the government" mentality they're kinda fucked. THESE PEOPLE are where governments derive their justification from in the first place. You cannot let someone take your mirror image away and talk with and about it like it's not you. That's fucking crazy. Just because it's widely accepted to be sane doesn't make it less crazy.

      In the sense of self-governance and mutual cooperation a "strong government" simply means a healthy society. Not that every single bit is regulated; ("the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state") but let's say if someone commits an utter atrocity, punishment (or even better, repair) will be sure and swift. Aha!

      The opposite of that would be... oh I dunno, societies split up in parties and groups who constantly bicker about who is utterly perfect, or who is to blame -- instead of simply agreeing we all are derps at heart, and seeing where we can go from there. Maybe it would even have lots and lots of mass media which constantly churn out trivial distractions or even fabricate blatant lies (by omission or otherwise). While a bunch of shark smile poopyheads use this disarray to stuff their jerkfaces full of delicious pie! Now that'd be a weak state of self-governance. Surely we must not let it come to th-- oh shit.

      Anyways, freedom isn't the complete absence of all restraints, that'd just be entropy and death. It's rather the quest for a set of rules (not final, but quested for... let's go all out and call them "living agreements", which are confirmed constantly and gladly by those who enjoy their fruits, how's that for something warm and fuzzy) that allows all humans to thrive and live in peace, while still being free to do their own unique things, insofar that is possible without restricting the others.

      But to just say "fuck it, everybody do what they consider best, without organizing that at all", that'd be naive at best. To moan and whine about government all day (I don't mean you, I mean the general hipness of it) without lifting a finger to improve it is actually playing into the hands of much more sinister forces who would love to shed all these pesky regulations. As pitiful as our laws and our political practice may be, they're better than the abyss below them.

      If the world was a village of 50 peeps, and the majority would allow 3 people to rule them who take food and work, and give lies and poison, while raping the women and beat the dudes -- and all of that works via words and obeying orders -- then they'd be just as, if not more guilty of what is going on than those 3 self-appointed, and tolerated, rulers. They're actually, literally, using our hands for it. The mind asplodes! /rant ^^

    4. Re:this makes me trust them more by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Eric Pickles is the type of ignorant fuck that should be banned from politics.

      Hey, Eric. Read the Computer Misuse Act. You can indeed prosecute people for abusing the databases to which they have access.

      So don't go creating yet another badly written law to try and create a deterrent to something that's already illegal.

      Fucking politicians.

    5. Re:this makes me trust them more by khallow · · Score: 2

      I think of the government as theoretically, ideally "good" because it's a mutual social contract between all citizens. At least in theory government is simply people organizing themselves. If all people simply cooperated peacefully and honestly without coercion, then that decision of them would be what governs them and how they interact. You might as well ask what cooperation or self-restraint are useful for... isn't it obvious?

      One could in theory think of government as a unicorn barter system or an unobtainium-formulated soap bubble manufacturer. When you don't have to consider reality, then theory can diverge a lot.

      But to just say "fuck it, everybody do what they consider best, without organizing that at all", that'd be naive at best. To moan and whine about government all day (I don't mean you, I mean the general hipness of it) without lifting a finger to improve it is actually playing into the hands of much more sinister forces who would love to shed all these pesky regulations. As pitiful as our laws and our political practice may be, they're better than the abyss below them.

      And who does that? A few anarchists at best.

      I consider government a necessary evil, not an ideal good (though perhaps in your theory, the two are equivalent), because government is a self-organizing phenomenon in the presence of a) greater advantage of cooperation, even forced cooperation (such as slavery) than individual action, and b) power differentials where some people have more power than others. I believe a) and b) hold for the entirety of human existence (at least as long as there are groups of people) and hence, we're kinda stuck in having governments of some sort.

      But past that, I don't buy that we need the current levels of government that we see all over the world. One doesn't need a vast publicly funded and government run "social net" to have a government capable of keeping society from falling apart. One doesn't need a huge military in order to have such a government. Or vast public expenditures allegedly for R&D. I think there is considerable advantage to devolving most government functions down to the people who are governed. And it curtails one of the most notorious and powerful ways for man to exploit fellow man.

      But it requires a willing citizenry to maintain this relationship, including rising up to address crises and conflicts that the government itself can't manage. I see that as a serious flaw with current minimal government schemes (for example, the Libertarian approach).

      For example, the bizarre behavior of people who grant their governments considerable power merely because they are allied with the current government and who give no thought to what will happen when, not if, their political or ideological foes gain access to that power. Those people need more governance and frankly, don't seem ready for democracy much less a minimal government.

    6. Re:this makes me trust them more by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Eric Pickles is the type of ignorant fuck that should be banned from politics.

      Hey, Eric. Read the Computer Misuse Act. You can indeed prosecute people for abusing the databases to which they have access.

      So don't go creating yet another badly written law to try and create a deterrent to something that's already illegal.

      Fucking politicians.

      Hey Cederic, Read the fucking article.

      Then you might realise that the "Mr Pickles" mentioned here is not Eric Pickles, but Nick Pickles, from a privacy-focussed watch group.

      Fucking slashdot "readers".

  3. Better idea... by jonwil · · Score: 2

    Don't allow councils to have access to the vehicle registration database in the first place.

    1. Re:Better idea... by Spottywot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe, or maybe we hold our councillers a bit more accountable in general. Enforcing fines for fly tipping, littering, dog fouling and fly posting were all suggested as legitimate uses of the databases. Having lived in several council districts in the UK I can say that I've not seen much evidence that any of these things are enforced particularly well.

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    2. Re:Better idea... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The significant difference is that those are enforced at significant cost via the real criminal justice system, with that pesky presumption of innocence, the fines go into central government coffers, and prosecution costs are only haphazardly awarded.

      Parking and many moving violations go via the Kangaroo Kourts - PATAS and TPT - with a presumption of guilt. Most victims cave in and pay up early doors, and the money goes into the council's pocket, via their outsourced muggers.

      Parking is a racket, it has been for decades, and despite the occasional token reverse, it looks like continuing in that vein.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. They shouldn't have access in the first place by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Data Protection Act only allows disclose for the purposes of "prevention and detection of crime". With parking enforcement now run as a cash cow, outsourced to Parking Pataweyo, and overseen by the Kangaroo Kourts, the DVLA shouldn't be handing out our personal information to any mugger with a lettehead who pays their access fee.

    The Information Commissioner needs to be sinking his teeth into this racket, hard.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. people not government by fuliginous · · Score: 2

    The Government is not at fault it is made up of people and the people are at fault. Government would probably be much better if we remembered that.