Some UK Councils Barred From Using Gov't Vehicle Database

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..."

Comments

Why not?

[FaxeTheCat]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Xest]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Vulch]

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

Re:Why not?

[Mendy]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Gordonjcp]

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

Re:Why not?

[FireFury03]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Gordonjcp]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

this makes me trust them more

[detain]

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.

Re:this makes me trust them more

[demonlapin]

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.

Re:this makes me trust them more

[Johann Lau]

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 ^^

Re:Better idea...

[Spottywot]

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.