Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Dizzy Thinks: Driver Identities, Can't give Them Away




Last Friday 19th which was something of a busy news day in the Tory blogosphere Dizzy rather buried bad news when covering the scandal of DVLA actually having the temerity to charge people for information.

Not a sensationally busy few days for this on the comments board, but tired of the soon-to-be-disappointed triumphalism of the Tory/SNP/Freemason bully boys cheering on Yates' brave dawn raid to apprehend the armed and dangerous, crime Baroness and flight risk Ruth Turner I eventually did make a comment:

"It's cost recovery. It's like MP's expenses or a professional's disbursements. Can be excessive but are not a profit centre. Except for fiddlers who use them to assist in political activity or under-employ but over-pay their rellies.

Is Dizzy arguing for not providing information - which I guess is to privatised parking control and the like - which might make them even less civilized in their operations.

Or possibly for renationalising them so it becomes a recharge and not a cash income from outside?

Or is Dizzy arguing for taxes to be applied pay for parking pirates to get our details so they can extort money from us?"


1/21/2007 12:10:00 AM

However, I have subsequently found out (a) the cost of obtaining a driver identification and full address from the DVLA. And (b) who is entitled to seek and receive this information.

Dizzy has missed the story: The answers are (a) a meagre £2.50 and (b) anyone who has £2.50. This is an ideal situation for any car rager who wants to stick crappy EDMs or indeed dog poo through a rival's letterbox.

6 comments:

dizzy said...

"Is Dizzy arguing for not providing information - which I guess is to privatised parking control and the like - which might make them even less civilized in their operations.

Or possibly for renationalising them so it becomes a recharge and not a cash income from outside?

Or is Dizzy arguing for taxes to be applied pay for parking pirates to get our details so they can extort money from us?"

No, no and errr no. My concern is one of information security leakage to private individuals.

dizzy said...

Again, just for clarity, the scandal is not that they are charging, the scandal is that they are selling individuals information through ameans which is blatently open to abuse and they have no record of how much or how often they do it.

Remember Chris, if you look at my site, I am in IT, and primarily I have as security minded head. The scandal is one of info leak. Only the other week we had the Information Commissioner pointing out how newspapers were exploiting these holes to get information.

Chris P said...

Hi Dizzy

My reading of your item was that it was mostly annoyed about the *selling* part and not the disseminating part. I completely agree with you about the latter and was amazed to find out the qualifications for obtaining this information i.e. none, but I can see the argument for not regarding charging a small fee as "selling".

Providing owner details to anyone whatsoever - whether selling or cost recovering - for just £2.50 is hardly the same as providing this in some kind of limited cases "required by the law".

Mr Ladyman is being disingenuous.

When I got a letter from a nearby specialist garage for my car I assumed they had nicked or bought a list off the main dealer I usually used to get it serviced by. But they wouldn't have to. Particularly if DVLA allow purchase of all addresses of a certain make of car in a certain area.

Do they do that?

Best w

Chris P

dizzy said...

I was annoyed with the fact that they sold it as well. But not for the reason of money, again simply for reason of information security.

Chris P said...

Fair enough. What will the Cameroonies do about all this?

Chris P said...

Hi Dizzy

I am hearing that approximately the current "all comers" arrangement has been in place for quite a long time. More than ten years? Do you know different?

Best w

Chris P