CCTV warning notices NOT compliant with data protection laws – ICO The government must take action to ensure that signs used to warn motorists that CCTV cameras are being used to monitor for parking offences are compliant with UK data protection laws, a watchdog has said. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said that there are "deficiencies" in the information displayed to motorists …
they would already be fining the mobile parking "enforcement" cameras for parking illegally.
If I could get a DfT London license to fine parking companies for parking illegally I could turn quite a decent profit. They are not exempt from those laws, but behave like they are.
I did here of one case where a the driver of a mobile enforcement van was ticketed, but only after a member of the public photographed the van and complained. However the problem is that the enforcement vans never film themselves.
My question is why would a mobile enforcement would need to park.
European governments will only rest when everyone's riding a bike to work.
Meanwhile, town centre shops wonder why shoppers prefer to shop online or in retail parks.
The shops can't pay their rates and go out of business...
So local government must find other revenue streams...
So they increase parking charges and issue tickets more aggressively...
So motorists stop going to town...
What's wrong with this picture?
Motorists stopped driving into town years before the crack-down on parking started. When we drive to the shops we don't faff about on the High street we go straight to a supermarket where everything is in one place and we don't have ot worry about our kids running ito the road.
If people are genuinely interested in revitalising High Streets they should look at places such as Horsham and Lewis, where the local authorities have limited vehicle access during the day and made it a pleasant place to be on a Saturday afternoon.
If people are genuinely interested in revitalising High Streets they should look at places such as Horsham and Lewis, where the local authorities have limited vehicle access during the day and made it a pleasant place to be on a Saturday afternoon
If by "people", you mean local government, you've proved my point with your comment - they don't want cars in towns.
If local government was genuinely interested in revitalising High Streets they'd stop making it so difficult for town centre businesses to earn a crust.
Nothing says "this town is a shithole" like ten boarded-up shops in a row...
Nothing says "this town is a shithole" like ten boarded-up shops in a row...
From your link:
However, there are still more than 50,000 empty shops in town centres.
The North West is the worst hit with more than 17% of shops empty - more than double the percentage in London.
The data also shows the increasing impact of large shopping centres and retail parks and their dominance of the retail landscape.
Analysis of the 12 biggest shopping centres found most of the surrounding weaker towns and High Streets continue to decline, raising questions over their future direction and viability.
Which part of the above am I supposed to take comfort in?
To sum that report up: if you're trading in or around that there London, things aren't too bad. Otherwise things are pretty shit...
"we don't have ot worry about our kids running ito the road" your kidding right? supermarket car parks are the most dangerous places in the world.
And what is it about when you park as far away from the supermarket as possible, empty parking spaces all around, with absolutely no cars parked any where near your parking space, to avoid the most dangerous drivers in the world hitting your car, when you get back even ten minutes later there are bloody cars(badly) parked all around you but the car park is still less than half full!
@Salts
I'd love to see a study done on that. Had a lengthy discussion with a work colleague about it way back. I was of the opinion it was a subconscious clumping/herd instinct whilst he thought it was because most people can't park properly without lining up against something. In retrospect I think we're both right.
After all, just look at the haphazard mess when there's some snow on the ground.
<rant>
Why on earth will people elect to park near a long wheelbase van miles from the supermarket entrance but they do. You can't reverse it out because you're doing it blind so it's into the forward spot. Come back to find you can't get the rear doors open - some fool has nosed up to the back. Pair of cars either side. If you're lucky you can squeeze the trolley down to the side door but chances are the gap is too narrow. There'll be a slope so you need your partner to stop the trolley wandering off while you traipse back & forth.
</rant>
I nearly got barred from Asda because I took to parking diagonally across six slots. That does work. No-one will park near you.
The decline of the High Street owes more to changing shopping habits, specifically late night shopping and Sunday opening, than the lack of somewhere to park.
The High Street is a local facility, one that most of its users walk to. If the locals cannot be bothered to walk the couple of hundered yards to the shops and back they are not going to jump into their cars and go there.
I went to town a couple of evenings ago. Because Sainsbury's, the only place within walking distance likely to have what I wanted, didn't. That was 6pm. All that was open in town was Tesco (and Sainsbury's Metro?), some restaurants and...no.that's about it. Even Starbucks and Costa were shut! It's taken a few years but I finally decided I need to move back to London.
However, the reason above all I mostly shop online, apart from better prices and 99% of the time rapid delivery, is the crappy range in High St. shops. Internet shopping was liberation. And the same applies to when supermarkets began to displace the High St. I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't choosing to shop where you only really used to because you didn't have much, if any, choice.
The decline of the High Street owes more to changing shopping habits, specifically late night shopping and Sunday opening, than the lack of somewhere to park.
I don't agree with you, sorry. The report somebody else linked to earlier is saying that towns are dying thanks to retail parks and mega shopping centres. Maybe you know more about retail than the people who wrote the report?
The High Street is a local facility, one that most of its users walk to. If the locals cannot be bothered to walk the couple of hundered yards to the shops and back they are not going to jump into their cars and go there.
You're thinking of some kind of fancy pedestrianised High Street that doubles as a farmer's market a few mornings a week...
In a lot of small towns, the one available supermarket is on the High Street. You telling me it's feasible for someone to carry their weekly shop home on foot? Or if I want to support local business and buy a new telly from the guy I went to school with, I should haul it home on the bus?
Thank you for agreeing with me, those fancy pedestrianised High Streets with farmers markets etc are doing better than the average. It works because it makes the High Street a desirable place to pass time and spend money
I don't think that the High Street can compete with large supermarkets for the weekly shop, so carrying a week's shopping home is a red herring. Instead the High Street scores on customers making small purchases several times a week.
Yes, life must be great for those farmer's market traders. It's a lot easier to break even when you can set up in a different pace every day and not have to pay rent, rates,etc.
Anyway, i haven't agreed with anything you've wrote so far - dunno where you got that idea. Keep throwing stuff out there though, something might stick...
Until about a year ago, I lived in a quiet street in a small town just south of Coventry. It was a delight to be able to walk into town (about 10 minutes pleasant stroll), and choose from several local shops, a Co-op, Waitrose, or Sainbury. Less than five minutes away was a brilliant baker who, though only open 3 mornings a week, always had a shop full of people. There were three or four pleasant pubs in walking distance, and a range of eating places from small independent cafes and restaurants to a Loch Fyne. Parking was available in sensible places that did not interfere with the pedestrian access, and reasonably priced. People *did* walk into town at all times of the day because it was possible and pleasant to do so, and there were reasons to do so. Part of the reason was because the town centre was not far from (and indeed included) residential properties, so the two were part of the same entity.
However, this is definitely unusual in this day and age, and trying to find the same here in Scotland (at least in the bit I'm tied to for now) is almost impossible, and certainly so for the prices we can afford.
My point? It is possible to make town centres pleasant and useable, but the key seems to be integrating living and business properties.
For those of us fortunate to have a car & un/fortunate enough to not live within half a kilometre of the town centre, driving into town to drop the dry cleaning off, visit the butchers and bakery, pick up some flowers for the lady and buy a paper could all be achieved within 30 minutes on a Saturday morning when you could park outside the shops. Now they want you to park and drudge past all the shops you don't want to go to for the few items you wanted. All those shops mentioned above have now gone from my town centre since the parking restrictions, replaced with bargin booze, kebabs and gambling shops.
I personally hate the crowds in the supermarkets and would readily go back to the high streets if i could park free/cheaply and get what i wanted. I've got more interesting outdoor pursuits to do rather than hiking in and out of town.
Whilst I agree with your point about the difference between the DPA and being fined for contravention, surely the issue is that they can not use the data (images from CCTV) to prove you were in contravention because the data is not held legally. They can only fine you by processing the data, but as the signage is incorrect or non-existent, they can not legally process the data and take action (fine someone - in contravention of parking regulations or not) without opening themselves up to my logging a case (pointless, I'm sure) with the ICO for misuse of data and contravention of the DPA.
Or have I got the wrong end of the wrong stick here?
"surely the issue is that they can not use the data (images from CCTV) to prove you were in contravention because the data is not held legally"
This wouldn't be possible. The images aren't being held illegally in themselves, it is only the authority's compliance with the DPA that could be deemed illegal. Even so, they are unlikely to be in illegal breach of the DPA even without the information on the sign.
The DPA is very open ended and non-specific. Most of putting the DPA into practice is from 'guidelines' issued by the ICO not by actual case law. Hence why none of these councils are being prosecuted they are just being advised.
The detail doesn't need to be readable while you drive the car, but something like a web address and a QR code on the sign seems something of a no-brainer. Might not even need to be on the actual sign, surely a durable stick-on marker could be put on the post.
The way the timetable fades at the bus-stop across the road, a similar durable marker letting us get the timetable via a smartphone would be a good idea.
There have been a couple of bus timetable websites which struggled to get timetable updates from local authorities and bus companies, but I doubt they had a contract, they just searched other websites. There's some long-running local roadworks which keep changing location on travelnews websites: it's still the same railway bridge. I wonder whether any system we see set up for information ever gets an adequate maintenance budget. And then there are a myriad of advertising funded sites, with obsolete data, which flood Google searches.
There is no requirement for opting out for most parts of the DPA.
It is to ensure that personally identifiable information is stored and used lawfully. However you don't have an automatic opt out right.
You do however have the ability to correct any information which is incorrect or be allowed to see it at any time. If you really wanted to cause issue you could get very large numbers of people to request that they are given access to see the video of them - as long as you give a reasonable amount of information to allow them to find that information (e.g. approximate time, date and identifying details).
IIRC CCTV is one of the exceptions to that right. Unless something has changed, you have no right to request access to the video that includes you.
The justification was a combination of two things, as I recall. One being the difficulty in locating the video, but the real killer was that the video would likely contain others and their 'personally identifiable information' (i.e. their image) would be being leaked to you.
"IIRC CCTV is one of the exceptions to that right. Unless something has changed, you have no right to request access to the video that includes you."
You remember wrongly. There is and has never been an automatic exception to a Subject Access Request.
The difficulty in locating the video is handled by you giving approximate time and location and something to identify you by. If it is still deemed too difficult to find you without good reason (e.g. data overwritten,disks failed) after that then they would be in breach of the guidelines as they don't have a reasonable reason to store the images if it is not possible to retrieve them on request.
If passing you the images would interfere with the privacy of others then a method would need to be found to protect that individual(s).
An anomaly, you may be surprised at, is that you are not allowed to use low quality cameras that can't record people's faces or similar if you are using them for the prevention and detection of crime (the usual class for CCTV). If the images stored are not suitable for actually being used in evidence for a prosecution then you shouldn't have them there at all , you should be using dummy cameras (or at least not recording).
...who seem relatively content to do the grand total of fuck all when some large institution/cpmpany allows thousands of pieces of information to be lost and/or compromised want to crack down on local governments that are already having budgets cut to the bone.
As one comment above said - just print some QR codes and stick them to the signs.
Yep - it's the latest silver bullet phrase
"Low-hanging fruit"
AKA - always go for the soft targets, the captive market and those who can't fight back.
It's just a bit ironic that the ICO - the single most useless piece of government bureacracy since the ministry of silly walks - is now targetting other bits of the machine which actually have some degree of relevance in the real world.
And I heard a (nasal, whiney) voice in the midst of the four beasts. And I looked, and behold a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was Mr Braithwaite, and forms in triplicate followed with him.
And what exactly makes you think a person should have to own some equipment capable of reading a QR code before they can be made aware of information that has to be legally communicated to them? I know most people own a smartphone...but i didn't think it was actually a requirement for you to function in society!
What about *all* CCTV cameras? If you're recording me, my actions or my movements, even passively, then surely I should have a right to know who you are and what you are doing with my data? Or does this fall under the same "Expectation of Privacy" rules we apply to photographers?
I fear we can't have this both ways....
"...If you're recording me, my actions or my movements, even passively, then surely I should have a right to know who you are and what you are doing with my data?..."
If I write down your movements by following you covertly and taking notes in a notepad with a pen/pencil, you do not have the right to know under the data protection act.
If I film you with an old analogue video recorder on to VHS tape (or similar) you still have no right to know.
The anti-establishmentarians raise their voices in unison...
Idiots!
Please imagine a world in which everyone was allowed to just park wherever they fancied parking. Knowing just how many selfish c***s there are out there, I suspect it would not be long before navigating our roads would become almost impossible.
You try to make out it's about privacy rights, but nobody can have an expectation of privacy in a public street - that's just ridiculous. What you really resent is that you've less chance of getting away with it.
Please imagine a world in which everyone was allowed to just park wherever they fancied parking. Knowing just how many selfish c***s there are out there, I suspect it would not be long before navigating our roads would become almost impossible.
Do you hyperbole much?
Nobody's suggesting that you should be able to park as long as you want, wherever you want.
Idiots!
The pot calls the kettle black...
They tried removing all the traffic wardens from Aberystwyth, it did cause chaos and after a year they brought them back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152638/Aberystwyth-lifts-traffic-warden-ban-time-Jubilee-free-chaos.html
BTW - for any non-UK residents reading, that place name is Welsh, not made up!
The problem with "stick on" QR codes is that very quickly some little smart-arsed punk is going to start printing out their own, redirecting to either questionable or potentially trojan-loaded content (or worse, pointing to the _actual_ wanted information rather then the 30+ page-scrolls of bullshit that don't actually contain the right or up-to-date info that the council will post on the real target page).
Also, this could raise the interesting issue of being stopped by the Police for using your mobile while driving (sitting in the driver seat of a stopped car constitutes "driving" if you have the keys!), and being slightly befuddled by the response of "I was just exercising my legal right to decide if I wanted to park here, based on how they would use my information" - do they:
a) penalise you for using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle;
b) leave it because you are exercising a legal right; or
c) wrench you out of your car and throw you in the slammer under the Terrorism Act because you were "photographing locations of official surveillance equipment or indicators of the positions thereof"??
everyone need to stop being whiny bitches. Why do we even need signs?
Just take it for granted that a warden or a camera might be around and so DONT PARK ILLEGALLY.
Use your brain when you pull up, check if its ok to park there and get on with it.
Its the lowest common denominators that demand the signs and so more tax payers money is wasted with more unsightly signs.
humanity is heading for the gutter with the 'don't blame me' attitude. No responsibility or honour any more.
The Klingons would be disgusted.
The problem is, even if im parked legally, why should i or my car be recorded on video by some government department that is just yet again greedy for money to keep their numbers up? Unless my parking there is going to bring the town to a standstill then you should be allowed to park there, in most cases for free. In cases where this is not so, are where double yellow lines are on the road or its designated as a red route. Anything else is pure bureaucratic nonsense.
Oh do shut up AC.
In my local town centre, parking charges have doubled every 2 years since they introduced them. In addition, all (charged) parking is capped at 2 hours, which when you have a 2 mile long central high street, means that you cannot ever do all those chores in one go. The post office is at one end, and the pharmacy is at the other, which might not be a problem had the coffee shop not been right in the middle of the two, and you all know we're caffeine addicts here.
Shop owners are livid at the council, because people can't leisurely shop, as they're always having to go back to their cars. I don't particularly see why I should have to race around on my weekends due to greedy councils wanting to tax the motorist some more on addition to the VAT they pay on the car, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, VAT on fuel duty, with parking charges, which in themselves include VAT!!?! At what point does it end?
And yes, we have plenty of boarded up shops in our high street, directly due the greed of the council in business rates and parking restrictions. In addition, once they became responsible for parking (i.e. once the meters were installed) there was a 1400% increase in traffic wardens. If it really wasn't due to the money, why would they be so keen to invest so much in that particular area at the same time they're being asked to cut all public services? It's not about bad parking, it's about ripping us off.
Agreed. Our local council did a similar thing - from 50p per hour, to 70. Then less than a year later to 80. Shopping visitors dropped so over that following Christmas, they made it £1 all day and had a record Christmas.
When charges we're reintroduced they were £1 an hour. All within less than two years. I think it's about £1.20 now - I don't go there very often. I don't mind paying to park, per se, but when the spaces are inevitably so narrow that passengers have to get out before you are fully in the space, and my car is inevitably damaged by other car doors, and the council won't accept any liability but expect us to have had a near 300% price rise in such a short period of time, it galls me.
When did it become legal to use ANPR for this purpose too? Surely that's some kind of breach of privacy? I remember a few years ago a bloke successfully sued a credit card company for sending him a statement when he'd opted out of paper and his wife read it. Upon realising he'd been having an affair she filed for divorce. Could a similar thing happen with this? Or is it like software EULA's where by using the car park, you explicitly agree to all the terms and conditions?
I agree though - it's greed that drives most of the decisions, and car owners are an easy target.
I've said before on reg forums - bin the parts of the DVLA handling excise duty. Bin excise duty. Add 5p per litre onto fuel and include third party insurance in that. You save on bureaucracy. No one can dodge paying as it becomes pay-as-you-go. No one can drive uninsured and it's fairer because the more you use the roads, the bigger the share you pay. And then use some of it to repair our crumbling, third world roads.
Sorry...pet hate. Off the soap box now.
@Brenda McViking
In addition. Our councils are all for throwing the green costs our way but take no responsibility for the side-effects. Traffic calming measures locally have increased my fuel consumption 20% for the simple reason I'm forever accelerating instead of feathering the throttle at a constant speed. Heck, last I heard ours was even charging churchgoers to park Sunday mornings.
I don't grab a cheapo lunchtime-deal pizza Friday from Pizza Hut any more. £1.50 to park in council carpark nearby for a £4 pizza. All the other work-local shops miss out on my trade because of it. Nationwide shut their branch. Yellow lines went up all over to force people into the car parks.
The Data Protection Act also says - one of its key rules - is that data should only be used for the purpose for which it is collected ("... and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes").
If it's collected for parking enforcement, then there's a mechanical, presumably 100% automated, process that goes from "car being parked too long/in the wrong place" to "car's registered owner gets a ticket in the mail". Once the ticket is paid (or a court declares that it doesn't have to be, for whatever reason), then the record should be destroyed. Records that aren't relevant to parking tickets - e.g. any footage of pedestrians, or anything showing who was in the car or what they were wearing or what they were doing - should be destroyed immediately. (Again, all this is according to the rules laid down in the DPA itself.)
It's not clear to me where in that process "privacy" becomes an issue.
The very fact that it is an issue, then, suggests that that's not what's going on here. So the data ostensibly collected for "parking enforcement" is, in practice, being mined/repurposed for other things as well. That's the real abuse, that's what needs to be stopped.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
