Coastguard website

[NormanS]

I got assurance from Headquarters and am now passing that assurance on to you. CG66 details are used for Search and Rescue information only.

Bev

Good for you getting that assurance. Maybe if "Headquarters" were good enough to reply to me with that assurance, I might reconsider, and might again register with CG66.

In the meantime, I have no evidence to suggest that the MCA will treat CG66 information any differently from Part 1 Registry information, i.e. sell it on to third parties.

 

[rallyveteran]

In the meantime, I have no evidence to suggest that the MCA will treat CG66 information any differently from Part 1 Registry information, i.e. sell it on to third parties.

...except that they say on their website, and on the form itself, and in the FAQ, that the CG66 information will only be used for SAR purposes. Why would they waste time writing to you when you appear to be unable (or unwilling) to read?

 

[andygc]

NormanS

Absolutely no chance of my bursting a blood vessel. You don't make me cross, upset me or raise my blood pressure. You do, however, give me feelings of despair.

You post a message headed "Beware CG 66" and then allege that the MCA sells information. You then get an assurance from a MCA representative that the CG66 scheme is secure. You also get told that the Part 1 Registry and the SSR are publicly-accessible. When do you actually manage to engage your brain?

The Registries are publicly accessible. The MCA doesn't sell the data, the UK Ship Registrar complies with his statutory obligation to allow access to the Registries. There is a cost involved. Do you want the taxpayer to pay for the access, or do you want the insurance broker to pay?

If your boat is registered in Part I or Part III then your boat's registered name and your name and address are publicly accessible. If you don't want letters from insurance brokers don't register your boat. Alternatively, subscribe to the Mailing Preference Service.

Don't be a complete idiot and suggest that people should not make use of the CG66 scheme because you got a letter from an insurance broker which you could just chuck in the bin. What on Earth is your point? The CG66 scheme is about enabling the CG to have rapid access to information that could be important when a boat is in trouble.

Everybody else

Do use the CG66 scheme - you know it makes sense.

timbartlett

I work in a job which deals with sensitive personal data. I have had to register with the Office of the Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. I understand the Act. I have read it and the associated guidance. I understand that the Act is about the protection of personal data and not about protecting civil servants' backsides. I suggest that you make an effort to understand the Act before you start spouting your latest, ridiculous slant on conspiracy theory.

 

[NormanS]

andygc.

Now that you have descended to the level of personal abuse, I'm out of here.

 

[timbartlett]

timbartlett

I work in a job which deals with sensitive personal data. I have had to register with the Office of the Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. I understand the Act. I have read it and the associated guidance. I understand that the Act is about the protection of personal data and not about protecting civil servants' backsides. I suggest that you make an effort to understand the Act before you start spouting your latest, ridiculous slant on conspiracy theory.

I assume from your attitude to this that you are a civil servant. If so, and if you have actually read the Act itself, rather than someone's "interpretation" of it, then you are way ahead of most of your colleagues.

My comments are based on first-hand observation of the way the civil service conducts its everyday business with taxpayers, and some straightforward documentary research.

For instance, I recently had a prolonged exchange of correspondence with a government agency which refused to use email "because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act". In fact, the DPA was completely irrelevant in this particular context, and the spurious objection to email suddenly evaporated when a "Director" of the agency got involved!

I couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether some low-grade civil servant dislikes using email or not. What angers me is that she chose to lie about it. But the conduct of government involves so many lies -- big lies and little lies, and at every level -- that dishonesty has become the default mode. That particular individual tried to mislead me so many times, and on so many issues, that I seriously wonder whether she was able to distinguish fact from "policy".

 

[andygc]

I assume from your attitude to this that you are a civil servant.

Far from it, and if I was one, I suppose that I would be considered an "uncivil" servant. I am perfectly happy to criticise civil sevants where that is fair. You have your own grievance, but you unreasonably seem to extend it from the individual to civil servants as a whole. In all walks of life there are people good at their jobs and jobsworths. I have been lied to and given poor service by the private sector and by the public sector. I don't damn all banks for their customer service just because I have been messed around in spades by Barclays.

NormanS's contribution to this thread was to criticise a government department for something it could not have done. Despite being told by me, by EastYachty and rallyveterean - each of us giving him an aspect of chapter and verse - that his criticism was unfounded he just kept going. I think it perfectly fair to question his intellectual capacity.

In your case, your criticism of the Information Commissioner was unfair and unreasonable. He does call government departments to account and his department will look into and report on complaints from members of the public about data protection breaches by anybody - public or private sector. Where appropriate he follows up with penalties. However, he won't look at a junior civil servant who won't use e-mail, because that's not a breach of the Act.

 

[timbartlett]

You have your own grievance, but you unreasonably seem to extend it from the individual to civil servants as a whole.

How many rotten apples do you need to see? In this particular case, an "office manager" repeatedly lied to me. Her action was condoned by every layer of management up to and including the Chief Exec -- who had himself been described as "disingenuous" (i.e. a liar) by a parliamentary select committee. I'd say that was good grounds for assuming that dishonesty is pretty widespread in that department. And I've had similar experiences with plenty of others.

I don't damn all banks for their customer service just because I have been messed around in spades by Barclays.

Possibly not the best example of business probity! But at least you can change your bank. You can't change your tax inspector or buy your tax disc from someone else, or Compare the Meerkat to decide which National Insurance offers the best deal

NormanS's contribution to this thread was to criticise a government department for something it could not have done. Despite being told by me, by EastYachty and rallyveterean - each of us giving him an aspect of chapter and verse - that his criticism was unfounded he just kept going. I think it perfectly fair to question his intellectual capacity.

You told him that it was against the law. That isn't the same as "it doesn't happen" (Think of any crime you care to name, from parking on double yellows to murder -- they all happen!). And there are plenty of people who know for sure that it *did* happen.

In your case, your criticism of the Information Commissioner was unfair and unreasonable.

Perhaps it was. I confess that I was basing my judgement on other "independent" complaints assessors that I have come across.

However, he won't look at a junior civil servant who won't use e-mail, because that's not a breach of the Act.

Exactly. But the official that told methat the DPA prohibited the use of email was deliberately misrepresenting the Act for her own purposes. And if you remember, my original comment said nothing about the intention of the Act: it was about the way the civil service misuse it.

 

[andygc]

Tim

I don't have any big argument with what you say. I still think generalising from individual civil servants to "the civil service" is unreasonable. But

And there are plenty of people who know for sure that it *did* happen.

it's that bit that bugs me - there may be plenty of people that got letters from an insurance broker, but where's the evidence that the source of the boat names and owners' addresses was selling confidential data - the CG66 database - as opposed to a perfectly lawful access to the Ship Registry? We have a member of the relevant department having checked back with management and posting in this thread to say it didn't happen. Why is conspiracy and crime more likely than a lawful process?

If anybody "knows for sure that it *did* happen" then they should report it to the ICO with supporting evidence. If, however, they have no evidence other than scuttlebutt, then they shouldn't throw allegations about on web forums and, particularly in this case, run down a valuable safety activity by the CG.

I guess I have exhausted my contribution to this thread. Fair winds and sunshine.

Andy