MCA sells ships registry to all comers!

Have a look at their Data Protection Register entry. The seach page is here. Search for the registration number Z7122992.

Whether they have told us about it or not, they seem to be allowed to do pretty much what they want with the information, including disclosing it to Traders in Personal Data.
 
NormanS,
Your letter may constitute an FOI request-You do not have to actually invoke the FOIA in your letter- see my post above. MCA have 21 days including date of receipt. DPA timescale is longer-40days from memory.

Without seeing the text of your letter, cant say further at the moment what Act(s) apply.
Cheers for now
Dick T.
 
Thanks Thistle,
I'll have a little dig around as time permits over the next day or so and see what I can come up with/ find/do.

I thought I'd left the sleazy world of Govt, FOIA & DPA behind me, but this peddling or wholesale losing of data over the last two years by the box ticking plonkers my generation had to leave in charge is getting me riled-

I keep wanting to take my axe down from over the fireplace again and get stuck in; might keep me alive for a year or two longer, if not saner.

Common Sense is now an Very Uncommon Sense!

Night, Night, All /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Leaving aside the irritant of unsolicited e mails, I do wonder what you lot are worried about. Most of you will have your addresses in the phone book anyway, and what are you expecting as the consequence of the MCA flogging your data to an insurance company? Do you think they will pass it on to your local scrote who will see it as a recommended burglary candidate? Thats paranoia, cowering in the corner in case anyone finds your name and address.

Apart from unsolicited mail which is usually no more than a mouse click to deal with, I've had way more irritation from the way data protection is used to refuse information. For example, despite 40 years marriage I cant deal with my wife's bank accounts any longer because they refuse to even acknowledge she exists until they hear a female voice (any female voice) on the phone. I had a bike accident and plod wouldnt even give me details of the woman who hit me because of data protection.

I reckon we should go in the other direction, get rid of all this cr*p and make all info freely available.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I had a bike accident and plod wouldnt even give me details of the woman who hit me because of data protection

[/ QUOTE ] Probabaly nothing to do with the DP act. Probably his wife or GF, or another plod.
 
I had a phone call to speak to my son - no other details. He now has his own house, so I would have given the caller his number if they would tell me what and who it was they wanted to speak to him about.

They would not tell me, so impasse!!

"I cannot tell you what it is that I am phoning about, or who we are, as it comes under the Data Protection Act"

"If you don't tell me who you are, or what it is you want to talk to him about, I won't tell you where he is!" Total impasse.

Eventually, in a roundabout way (like a cross between 20 questions and yes/no), I was told who it was, and what they wanted to talk to him about - so they got his number. It was legit.
 
AFAIK The shipping register is a matter of public record like the electoral roll - for the princely sum of £9 an hour I can turn up and read it copy it etc - if I could be bothered to go to cardiff.... or £21 a record I can get a transcript. So unlike the CG66 where the DPA does apply and it specifically says on your application that it will only be used for SAR/SOLAS the registry is public - so like the electoral roll a fuss can be made to create a sellable list (which you can opt out of) and the actual registry.

Whatever happens like the physical Electoral roll, the physical registry and specific legal requests need to still be available for callers/requestors.
 
Some time last year the restriction on who was allowed to view CG66 info was relaxed, a small ripple in the papers, nothing much from what I remember but I was put of from registering a CG66.
After all what business is it of the other government agencies and it sounded more like anyone in a blue uniform (or dark glasses) has more info to poke around.
Not that I've got anything to hide, but would much prefer that we didn't live in what is turning more into a police state each week under the guise of prevention of terrorism.....
CG66 info was designed with the intent of helping a rescue, not sure what my e-mail address would have to do with it unless of course they thought I may send a Mayday by e-mail.
 
They take data protection very seriously at the MCA. This is how they share UK Ships Register Information according to the list - Police, Benefit Agencies, DEFRA, HMRC, and Local Authorities and other ensign registries for the purpose of registering vessels.

By which route they have passed my personal information to a commercially motivated third party I have yet to discover.

It irritates me that they charge an excessive amount to retain a list of registered vessels details but for reasons of safety I pay them their excessive charge to do so.

That they sell that information to anyone who asks is simply adding insult.

I feel I've been mugged.

Is anyone having criminal or other illegal activity in mind going to register?

Traffords Ltd were advised when the data was sold to them that they had to respect the data protection act which in this case they have not done nor has the MCA. Now the corrective action will perhaps start. Seemingly they have promised never to do it again. So that's all right then. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
I also thought the information was a matter of public record. One of the benefits of Part I regsitry is to be able to prove ownership to the world, or for a lender to be able to place a (publically searchable) mortgage on a vessel. I can only imagine the response on this forum if a prospective purchaser had tried to search the boat he was going to buy (in order to determine ownership / charges) and was told the information was covered by data protection!

MCA charges a fee for making the information public (search fees etc), and presumably they charge an additional fee to anyone who wants the information consolidated and sorted in a specific way.

But I do not think anyone who registers on Part I (or Part III) should have any expectation that the information they provide is going to be kept "private". I agree that it doesn't really pass the "smell test", but strictly speaking I don't see what is legally wrong with it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK The shipping register is a matter of public record like the electoral roll - for the princely sum of £9 an hour I can turn up and read it copy it etc - if I could be bothered to go to cardiff.... or £21 a record I can get a transcript. So unlike the CG66 where the DPA does apply and it specifically says on your application that it will only be used for SAR/SOLAS the registry is public - so like the electoral roll a fuss can be made to create a sellable list (which you can opt out of) and the actual registry.

Whatever happens like the physical Electoral roll, the physical registry and specific legal requests need to still be available for callers/requestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure I like the giving of my details out for commercial mailshots - however as some one said - just hit the junk/block button and you will never see it again. In the old days of Lloyds register, it was all published in a annual Lloyds list published each year with full details, so apart from email addresses I am not sure that the reality has changed at all.

Is this a fuss about something not worth fussing about? OR is it the thin end of a creeping wedge? To be honest, selling the info for commercial info is one thing - annoying but relatively harmless. BUT I do worry about the long term future when the government and police authorities have forgotten the purpose of an original law, and use it to prevent our rightful democratic rights to object. How this could be misused, I don't know, but I am sure that it will oneday...... perhaps I'll be pushing up the seaweed by then....
 
With a £21 charge to view an individual registry entry legitimate use is encouraged to some extent but when the data is sold at £93 per 1000 to commercial interests security of personal information dissolves before your eyes.

The purpose of registration beyond the matter of safety which can be achieved free of charge on CG66 is to prove ownership but when the personal information of the owner is made so freely available as has here occurred fraud is made simpler rather than being prevented.
 
I can undersdtand peoples resentment about this, selling of databases is not like allowing people to buy or read old published registers. Printed lists needed a lot of processing to be usable for mailing, but an electronic database can be recycled time and time again. In this case the data has gone to a marine insurer, whom a boat owner may or may not have an interest in. Who will they now seel that ;list on to, this is good quality data, all recently verified, it will have a further value in the market place.

Iam registered on the MPS (and TPS) but will this list come under that or will I get inundated with juk mail as a result.

There is a real need for the MCA to come clean on the precise conditions these details were sold under, and also what protection we will get from having our personal data hawked around to the highest bidder. After all we already pay the full costs of our registration so why is there a need for excess profit from this data.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Some time last year the restriction on who was allowed to view CG66 info was relaxed, a small ripple in the papers, nothing much from what I remember but I was put of from registering a CG66.
After all what business is it of the other government agencies and it sounded more like anyone in a blue uniform (or dark glasses) has more info to poke around.
Not that I've got anything to hide, but would much prefer that we didn't live in what is turning more into a police state each week under the guise of prevention of terrorism.....
CG66 info was designed with the intent of helping a rescue, not sure what my e-mail address would have to do with it unless of course they thought I may send a Mayday by e-mail.

[/ QUOTE ]

What restriction was relaxed last year?

Your email address is so you can receive a reminder to update your CG66 after 2 years/5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top