Boat sightings

[dmr]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I doubt if checkers know (although they may suspect) that a specific boat has no home mooring until they log it (even then, do they have access to that info?).

 

The only reason for throwing away data, which is always expensive to collect in any system, is to comply with GDPR. In general, it is cheaper just to accumulate (and buy more storage) than to cull. One is automatic and the other usually is not.

 

Remember that if the sightings data is to be used meaningfully, it will be reviewed a number of times: initially by the Licence Support Officer and, if it then progresses to legal action, by senior staff and legal bods. During that time, any outliers will be spotted (hopefully!) and explanations offered. Otherwise there is a good chance of it undermining a perfectly good court case which has already cost a load of dosh. Any evidence that it breaches GDPR will be seized on by defence lawyers, I bet!

 

When we have been told off for not moving enough, due to inadequate sightings, CRT have backed down without question when we have spoken to them.

I would suggest that the current system is much better at spotting static boats than it is at spotting moving boats, as this is as it should be.

I note from our spotting record that we are still spotted when on our home mooring but the location is the name of the mooring not the location ccode.

[MtB]

8 hours ago, Tony1 said:

 

I had a look at my sightings yesterday, and was amused to learn that my boat was spotted near Nantwich and also halfway along the L+L, on the same day last year.

Even the Haggises can't do that sort of speed. 

 

 

Sounds to me as though someone has cloned your boat name and reg number, to save them buying their own license.

 

 

[Peanut]

On 13/09/2023 at 22:20, MtB said:

 

Sounds to me as though someone has cloned your boat name and reg number, to save them buying their own license.

 

 

Or they have found a way to conceal the identity of a stolen boat. They are, after all, basically dishonest people.

 

If someone could put a photo of it up, then it might be recognisable despite a quick paint job.

[Tony1]

On 13/09/2023 at 22:20, MtB said:

 

Sounds to me as though someone has cloned your boat name and reg number, to save them buying their own license.

 

 

 

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error...

It'll be a mistake by the checker. 

It's the one sighting on my list that I know wasn't me. If it really was a boat using a false license plate, there would be lots more of it on my sightings page.

 

[MtB]

7 hours ago, Tony1 said:

 

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error...

It'll be a mistake by the checker. 

It's the one sighting on my list that I know wasn't me. If it really was a boat using a false license plate, there would be lots more of it on my sightings page.

 

 

Good point as it's just one aberrant sighting.

 

You appear to have slightly mangled "Hanlon's Razor" though. 

 

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 

 

P.S. Do you still have your "Sightings" tab available to view? You write as though you have! 

 

 

[Tony1]

24 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You appear to have slightly mangled "Hanlon's Razor" though. 

 

P.S. Do you still have your "Sightings" tab available to view? You write as though you have! 

 

 

It was not my intention to accurately quote anybody's 'razor', but rather to convey the gist of an idea. 

I was fully aware that 'stupidity' was within one of the original versions of this sentiment, but I felt that 'stupidity' was too strong a word to apply to a clerical error made by a person that I don't know, and who clearly hasn't made very many of these errors (or so it would appear).

 

Sadly I don't have the sightings tab available, but whilst it was working I took the precaution of taking screenshots of all of my sightings, just in case CRT decided that it was no longer 'helpful' to display this information.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Tony1

[Mike Todd]

I have been assured that the feature will return soon,  after a short pause whilst they figure out what to do with those folk who once railed against being logged but now complain that they have not been logged enough! I think it is recognised that it will encourage those who move occasionally but not enough, to aim for minimal compliance , at least every 14 days, 20 mile range and genuine progression.

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have been assured that the feature will return soon,  after a short pause whilst they figure out what to do with those folk who once railed against being logged but now complain that they have not been logged enough! I think it is recognised that it will encourage those who move occasionally but not enough, to aim for minimal compliance , at least every 14 days, 20 mile range and genuine progression.

Innocent until proven. A lack of sightings does not prove that you have not moved

[David Mack]

On 12/09/2023 at 18:42, Mike Todd said:

It does not seem clear whether the checkers log moving boats or not. In any case, there is not a clear case under GDPR for doing so, legally. In the case of moored boats it is much clearer as there are restrictions on mooring but not, in general, no requirement o do a minimum or a maximum number of hours cruising.

There is a legal requirement for boats without a home mooring to not remain in one place... Not remaining in one place necessarily involves travelling, so I don't see how recording a boat when travelling is in breach of GDPR.

If it was illegal how would authorities up and down the country be permitted to record road vehicle number plates using cameras and automatic number recognition?

Edited September 17, 2023 by David Mack

[TheBiscuits]

It's still there, they've just removed the menu link.

 

https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Boat/Sightings

 

 

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There is a legal requirement for boats without a home mooring to not remain in one place... Not remaining in one place necessarily involves travelling, so I don't see how recording a boat when travelling is in breach of GDPR.

If it was illegal how would authorities up and down the country be permitted to record road vehicle number plates using cameras and automatic number recognition?

 

I was told a number of yars ago by a blue light driver that ANPR cameras not involved in collecting tolls are not routinely used.

 

They are there in case a particular vehicle needs to be tracked for example during a terrorism alert. 

 

Obviously things like congestion charge and ULEZ will be routine but out in the sticks when there is an ANPR camera and you are not speeding this device will not be monitoring your movements. 

 

Might be true. 

 

13 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

It's still there, they've just removed the menu link.

 

https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Boat/Sightings

 

 

I wonder if this is a way to get more people to log in to their CRT online account. 

 

See how fast the knowledge that this function exists spreads. 

[cuthound]

24 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

It's still there, they've just removed the menu link.

 

https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Boat/Sightings

 

 

 

Interestingly my sightings only go back 2 years, despite the boat being moored at its current location for 10 years...

[David Mack]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I was told a number of yars ago by a blue light driver that ANPR cameras not involved in collecting tolls are not routinely used.

 

They are there in case a particular vehicle needs to be tracked for example during a terrorism alert. 

 

Obviously things like congestion charge and ULEZ will be routine but out in the sticks when there is an ANPR camera and you are not speeding this device will not be monitoring your movements. 

The information is recorded. Whether it is subsequently looked at is another matter. If a vehicle suspected of use in a crime is identified then I think it is normal practice to interrogate the ANPR data for the area to see if that vehicle's movement can be tracked, but data for other vehicles on the road at the same time will not be looked at.

 

Back in the early days of my career it was standard practice for traffic surveys to record main road/motorway traffic on video from cameras mounted on overbridges. The resulting video was manually viewed and all the legible number plate data recorded on computer. By comparing the data logged at various sites on the same day an estimate could be made of the volume of traffic for different origin-destination movements, and this information was used to help calibrate traffic models. This was long before GDPR, but I would have thought that ANPR data could achieve the same result, but much quicker and cheaper and with wider area coverage and over longer periods of time, meaning much more useful data would be available for modelling.

[magnetman]

I think the data might be anonymised. 

 

It does seem to be a privacy breach otherwise but then nobody cares about privacy these days do they. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by magnetman
software automatically deletes words for somr reason

[David Mack]

Your boat registration number, as with your car number plate, is permanently on public display. Neither is however attached to any publicly accessible personal information about the owner. So recording the number does not in itself give rise to any GDPR issues, whereas releasing personal information, such as the name of the owner of car or boat number XXX would be a breach.

In the case of boats this was confirmed some years back when a boatowner objected to Jim Shead's website displaying his boat details, obtained from BW/EA under Freedom of Information, and he tried to get Jim's website taken down. Ultimately the Web host accepted that the data was legitimately in the public domain and allowed the site to remain. That data is now hosted by canalplan.

[magnetman]

Yes I recall the issue with the shead / canalplan boat list but I thought it was because the engine type was specified and the owner objected to this part. Thinking about it there is no need to mention the make of the engine(s) so perhaps my overactive imagination yet again. 

 

It seems odd nobody else appears to have got hold of this boat listing data and put it online. 

 

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes I recall the issue with the shead / canalplan boat list but I thought it was because the engine type was specified and the owner objected to this part.

 

But is it? 

 

Without looking, my memory is the engine power is recorded, but not the type.

 

[magnetman]

I did mention that after the bit you quoted

 

Also on generic boats if you quote the maker and the engine power it is quite easy to figure out what the engine model is. 

 

For some reason I think it was a Sealine sport cruiser owner and everyone knows they are about as generic as you can get on water. 

[Momac]

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

For some reason I think it was a Sealine sport cruiser owner and everyone knows they are about as generic as you can get on water. 

How can something with a brand name be described as generic?  

Surely "generic" refers to unbranded goods?

 

[Lily Rose]

Since October 2021 (earliest available data) my boat has been sighted 7 times in the marina and just 3 times elsewhere. 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I think the data might be anonymised. 

 

It does seem to be a privacy breach otherwise but then nobody cares about privacy these days do they. 

They do if they are an earnest lawyer seeking a loophole defence.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I think the data might be anonymised. 

 

It does seem to be a privacy breach otherwise but then nobody cares about privacy these days do they. 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure its even a privacy breach, as the boat number is not the person. 

 

 

[Rob-M]

GDPR is about personal information that links data to an individual such as email address, unless the sightings data has boat owner information with it I don't see how it can be a GDPR breach.

[magnetman]

I was referring to the ANPR cameras on roads being used for routine data collection. 

 

Off topic.

 

5 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

GDPR is about personal information that links data to an individual such as email address, unless the sightings data has boat owner information with it I don't see how it can be a GDPR breach.

 

Are you saying the CRT don't know who owns which boat ?

[Rob-M]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Are you saying the CRT don't know who owns which boat

No, I thought it was being said that displaying sightings data was a potential breach of GDPR.