dash300
Well-Known Member
Indeed; my boat has grown 2 inches !!
Jim Shead boat listing
- Thread starter Gumpy
- Start date
Indeed; my boat has grown 2 inches !!
EugeneR
Well-Known Member
As someone involved with online data protection and regularly engaging with lawyers in various EU and other jurisdictions on this, perhaps I can share my observations:
1) Legally, personally identifiable information may only be used for the purposes for which it was collected. It should be made clear, when the data is collected, how that data may be used. Therefore, unless the stated purpose for which the data was collected is compatible with it being shared with a 3rd party to be published online, doing so would be in breach of data protection requirements.
2) Personally identifiable information should only be retained for as long as necessary to meet the original purpose. I would be surprised if publishing it online, where it might remain forever and without the individual having the ability to change it and/or have it removed, would be compatible with the purpose for which this type of information is typically collected.
There is a good argument about whether this is, in fact, personal information - after all, it's only details about a boat and so on. In short, if it can be linked to an individual (regardless of whether the agency has the data to be able to do so), and the individual considers it to be of a personal nature, then it is.
It would be interesting to know the stated purposes for which this information was collected by the agency - probably in the T&C's or information provided with some kind of licensing application? Could someone share it perhaps?
1) Legally, personally identifiable information may only be used for the purposes for which it was collected. It should be made clear, when the data is collected, how that data may be used. Therefore, unless the stated purpose for which the data was collected is compatible with it being shared with a 3rd party to be published online, doing so would be in breach of data protection requirements.
2) Personally identifiable information should only be retained for as long as necessary to meet the original purpose. I would be surprised if publishing it online, where it might remain forever and without the individual having the ability to change it and/or have it removed, would be compatible with the purpose for which this type of information is typically collected.
There is a good argument about whether this is, in fact, personal information - after all, it's only details about a boat and so on. In short, if it can be linked to an individual (regardless of whether the agency has the data to be able to do so), and the individual considers it to be of a personal nature, then it is.
It would be interesting to know the stated purposes for which this information was collected by the agency - probably in the T&C's or information provided with some kind of licensing application? Could someone share it perhaps?
teddington_lock
Well-Known Member
It comes from the annual license application that is payable to the Environment Agency for a river Thames licence.
watson1959
Well-Known Member
He's made a complete molehill of himself.
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
Eugene, you're obviously not qualified, despite your 'involvement'
Data protection relates to an individual, not a boat.
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
From the information in Jim Sheads list, you could not identify Tim Mountain as the owner of Harpagon, nor any information about him come to think of it. All this information can be obtained by looking at the boat when it's moored, or in a lock, simply as it's on public display.
I am qualified, by the way, annually...
Data protection relates to an individual, not a boat.
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
From the information in Jim Sheads list, you could not identify Tim Mountain as the owner of Harpagon, nor any information about him come to think of it. All this information can be obtained by looking at the boat when it's moored, or in a lock, simply as it's on public display.
I am qualified, by the way, annually...
Last edited:
byron
RIP
You can of course find the owners name here if they have a VHF. http://www.itu.int/online/mms/mars/ship_search.sh
Brayman
Well-Known Member
mersey
Well-Known Member
Usually yes, but not if it's a portable VHF, registered to the individual rather than the boat.
Glad you're back.
Glad you're back.
EugeneR
Well-Known Member
It would have been more constructive if you could point out where you disagreed and, ideally, presented a coherent counter argument. FWIW, my involvement includes responsibility for compliance and security of large amounts of personal data covering a wide range of activities and, whilst not legally qualified myself, I am supported by an in-house team of privacy lawyers for this purpose.
It relates to the protection of data that can be associated with an individual. In this case, information about a boat that can be associated with an individual through records held by the licensing authority and which, clearly, this particular individual did not want to be shared publically.
Correct. The licensing authority, as the data controller who collected data, meets the criteria in (a) and (b) above and therefore is subject to the act; if you read further, you should see that the they can only use the data for the purpose for which it was collected. So, unless it was part of the stated objectives for collecting the data, they cannot share it with a 3rd party for the purposes of publishing it online, which is the first point I made.
EU directive 95/64/EC defines an identifiable person as "one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors". Unlike the UK act, the EU directive's text does not require the data to be in the possession of, or likely to come into the possession of, the data controller. In fact, the proposed 2012 version makes the point even clearer, saying "a natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by means reasonably likely to be used by the controller or by any other natural or legal person". As such, on the basis that the licensing agency can make the link between the data and the individual, the website data is still considered personally identifable data for the purpose of the directive's text.
Just like you argue that you cannot look up Tim's identity from the records published, so do website owners argue that they cannot look up a user's identity from an IP in their usage logs. The directive, as I quoted above, says that if a link between the data and the individual can be made - regardless of who can make that link e.g. the user's ISP - then the data is personally identifiable. It follows that web logs are caught by the directive which is why, for example, web analytics is causing legal headaches headaches for many site operators. Notice how many now cover this in their privacy policies etc.
The fact that you can see something does not mean you can store it in a database without having to comply with the data protection law. Why do you think Google had to remove number plates from Streetview? Would you consider CCTV footage taken in a public place, where everyone could see what was being recorded, to be subject to the data protection act?
Back to my main point, I am not asking whether the website is right or wrong or whether Tim can be identified from it or not. I am suggesting that the licensing authority, which I think is clearly caught by the act you quoted, should not have given the data out to be published online unless said publishing was compatible with the purpose of it collecting that data in the first place. I have not seen the license form - would be good if someone could provide it - but suspect that it is not.
Just curious, which qualifications are you referring to?
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to spend twenty minutes trawling through that lot mate! 
But a few points:
Google were not 'forced' to remove any streetview information relating to number plates by law in the UK. They originally blurred out most faces and number plates on a voluntary basis (This was part of the original agreement a few years beforehand) as there were people parked outside/leaving strip clubs, vomiting in the street etc, which were controversial however. This was given the green light by the ICO in 2009, despite them accepting there may be a few risks of breaches. Bear in mind some of these number plates would have been in driveways of marked addresses, these could have identified people, via a simple 118 check (linking a registration number to an address, therefore a name!) Thats different.
Anybody looking at the Jim Shead information would not be able to identify any person. It is not personal data!! IP details could do, as some are registered to peoples names via a WHOIS query. Thats different.
I work for Mercedes Benz, whose obsessive behaviour makes me undertake many ridiculous courses every year, with a relevant certificate to fill a huge folder full of certificates, Data Protection is one they take seriously, and it does highlight the limitations of the act.
It relates to people. Jim Sheads is up and running because it doesn't contravene it.
Of course, this doesn't stop weird legal types trying to make a few quid out of it all, but thats whats spoiling the whole world these days isn't it?
But a few points:Google were not 'forced' to remove any streetview information relating to number plates by law in the UK. They originally blurred out most faces and number plates on a voluntary basis (This was part of the original agreement a few years beforehand) as there were people parked outside/leaving strip clubs, vomiting in the street etc, which were controversial however. This was given the green light by the ICO in 2009, despite them accepting there may be a few risks of breaches. Bear in mind some of these number plates would have been in driveways of marked addresses, these could have identified people, via a simple 118 check (linking a registration number to an address, therefore a name!) Thats different.
Anybody looking at the Jim Shead information would not be able to identify any person. It is not personal data!! IP details could do, as some are registered to peoples names via a WHOIS query. Thats different.
I work for Mercedes Benz, whose obsessive behaviour makes me undertake many ridiculous courses every year, with a relevant certificate to fill a huge folder full of certificates, Data Protection is one they take seriously, and it does highlight the limitations of the act.
It relates to people. Jim Sheads is up and running because it doesn't contravene it.
Of course, this doesn't stop weird legal types trying to make a few quid out of it all, but thats whats spoiling the whole world these days isn't it?
EugeneR
Well-Known Member
Under 95/64/EC, someone can, and therefore it is. Not going to argue that further - we disagree but, as we quoted, the EU directive and UK enactment do not exactly agree either. What you haven't responded to, is the licensing agency sharing information contrary to the purposes it was collected for. I might get a privacy lawyer to look at this and follow up as appropriate.
It seemed like the site was back up because it was wrongly taken down for copyright infringement, not data protection. So, not entirely relevant unless I observed wrong. Also, the MARS system - that gets your data because when you apply for a VHF license, you agree to it being provided to the MARS system for search and rescue identification - it's on the 1st page of the form, under "data protection".
FWIW, I don't agree with Tim's approach to dealing with this and would like to see the information back up - minus that of people like Tim who do not want their data to be included. I think it's sad that so many people chose to attack people personally rather than working towards a constructive outcome - Tim and others here included.
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
95/64/EC applies to Sea going vessels under 100 tonnes, and specifically excludes inland waterways.
How does that apply to this information then!?
How does that apply to this information then!?
Last edited:
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"FWIW, I don't agree with Tim's approach to dealing with this and would like to see the information back up -"
Whats he going to do about 2m people who watched Three Men in a Boat on TV and the video of same on Youtube ?
Whats he going to do about 2m people who watched Three Men in a Boat on TV and the video of same on Youtube ?