Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[simon&jan]

 

how do we get this record of our boat sightings ?

 

Could someone be kind enough to provide a link for us ? I have looked on CaRT website and can only find the license checker (captain)

[jenlyn]

Sarina.young@canalrivertrust.org.uk

[cotswoldsman]

how do we get this record of our boat sightings ?

 

Could someone be kind enough to provide a link for us ? I have looked on CaRT website and can only find the license checker (captain)

customer.service@ canalrivertrust.org.uk

Or Sarina Young hehe

[GUMPY]

 

 

Really?

 

Some of you must really struggle with day to day life if you don't like being watched.

 

Cameras and npr are everywhere, why worry. Same with GPS, your phone tells people where you are at all times you have it on your person. Is it really a problem? I think not.

Your's might mine doesn't, my phone makes phone calls and that's it.

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

I presume from that remark you haven't had an AIS transmitter fitted on Naughty Cal

 

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

Rubbish

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

Oh Yeah!

 

For anyone that believes that because they don't have a smart phone they can't be tracked you are being very naive!

The networks know where every phoneis whilst it is switced on.

The police can use this data to find you if need be. I know someone that tried to commit suicide a few years ago he however txted his brother to say goodbye, brother had the wit to dial 999 and report it the chap was found within minutes by using the tracking from his phone parked in a layby and was saved.

[jenlyn]

For anyone that believes that because they don't have a smart phone they can't be tracked you are being very naive!

The networks know where every phoneis whilst it is switced on.

The police can use this data to find you if need be. I know someone that tried to commit suicide a few years ago he however txted his brother to say goodbye, brother had the wit to dial 999 and report it the chap was found within minutes by using the tracking from his phone parked in a layby and was saved.

My mate said he could hear the carrots screaming when pulled from the ground ;-)

[jenlyn]

I have no idea what queries or reports are automatically available in their system, and I accept someone may have told you this.

 

it is highly unlikely though that all the data is not held in a database that can be queried with SQL. Either two trivial queries could be used , (one to establish on what dates between the 3rd and 29th they recorded boats, and another to show what boats were there on those days), but anyone with even the most basic grounding in SQL could easily combine both into a simple query.

 

The simple answer is they surely could find out if they wanted to, but it might take a couple of minutes for someone to query the underlying database directly.

 

i used to specialise in databases as the day job for many years, so have seen some atrocious database design and supporting software, but even if we allow for this having been done by an incompetent software house, you would struggle to "design" anything that would make such queries impossible to do.

Your yet again missing the fact that the system does not collect the info you assume it should.

For gods sake Alan, think back to the SEVM meetings! Stop arguing for the sake of it.

[Sabcat]

All a mobile phone company can tell about a phone that's switched on is which cell it's currently in. If the phone has gps enable and is sharing that gps data it can be pinpointed.

 

If you're so inclined it's not hard to communicate below the cops radar and it out and about where you'd be less than happy about the police knowing (and not necessarily because it's illegal) just leave your phone turned on and at home. Use that PAYG phone, the £10 job from Tesco that you never turn on or off near your personal phone.

[GUMPY]

All a mobile phone company can tell about a phone that's switched on is which cell it's currently in. If the phone has gps enable and is sharing that gps data it can be pinpointed.

 

If you're so inclined it's not hard to communicate below the cops radar and it out and about where you'd be less than happy about the police knowing (and not necessarily because it's illegal) just leave your phone turned on and at home. Use that PAYG phone, the £10 job from Tesco that you never turn on or off near your personal phone.

Not pnly which cell its connected to but the relative strengths of signal from cells its not directly using, this enables them to pinpoint within a few metres. Try using google maps on a smartphone with GPS off you will be surprised mine has me (with gps off) just the other side of the pub car park rather than on the boat a distance of less than 25metres.

[Paul G2]

It seems like there is a pretty pointless argument debate going on here, with the techy side saying one thing and those that question the value of the CRT system saying something else. The techy people are right insofar as what they saying about the data and how it can be searched, but they seem to be ignoring that one basic axiom of all data systems, "Garbage in = garbage out."

 

Tony's original question was if the CRT system was fit for purpose, not if the data could be queried in various ways. No one is arguing if the data can queried, what is being argued is that, no matter how you query the data it is going to give results that don't prove diddly squat.

 

If CRT wants to be able to PROVE, in the manner that real evidence has to be proved in a real court, then this system is not the way the do that. I would go so far as to say that the system is a total, complete and unequivocal waste of time and money, nothing more than a farce. In a real court of law, with real judges who care about the law and real attorneys who know how to argue cases, CRT would probably find themselves sanctioned for abuse of power. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, if you want to prove how long someone or something was in a certain place or doing a certain thing that it requires constant monitoring, not some haphazard hit and miss We check every two weeks if the weather is nice kind of system like they have now.

 

For CRT to try to use the system they have in place now to take a person's home away from them is a travesty and a blatant abuse of the powers given to them. If CRT wanted to have a test case they should have given Tony a nominal fine, knowing that he would contest it. But to try and take away his home, and to use false evidence to do so, should really be cause for anyone at CRT who participates in this abomination to lose their jobs.

 

Just reading the recent posts on this thread, it's easy to see that CRT will bring their computer experts into court to testify much the same as the techies on this forum have. While their testimony will prove nothing, it will be confusing enough to confuse the judge who will then rule in favor of CRT. What Tony needs to do is to get a reputable statistician to either testify or give a sworn statement that the system is not qualified to do anything other than to make note of the fact that a certain boat was in a certain place at a certain time, and nothing more. Trying to argue with the computer geeks is pointless because they refuse to address the garbage in, garbage out axiom, instead simply repeating the mantra that the data is there for all to see, regardless of how relevant the data is to the case at hand.

[NigelMoore]

Well I am prepared to give you the customary accolade for that appraisal, while reminding people of the other pertinent comment you made earlier, that even on accepted facts, what is of the essence is whether Tony’s boating use is, given the basis of his licence, against the law.

[Paul G2]

Well I am prepared to give you the customary accolade for that appraisal, while reminding people of the other pertinent comment you made earlier, that even on accepted facts, what is of the essence is whether Tony’s boating use is, given the basis of his licence, against the law.

 

Thank you, Nigel.

 

When is the hearing? This week isn't it? It will be interesting to see if Tony can stay focused enough to stay on point. It would be something if CRT put on a dog and pony show for the court and then Tony just said something to the effect of, "The facts are not in question here, I have done as they allege. The only question is if I have broken any laws by doing what I did." then shut up and sat down. CRT's attorneys would probably be dumbfounded and wouldn't know what to say.

[Alan Saunders]

I have many years experience in IT and 'amateur' ability with databases and SQL queries. Sufficient knowledge to believe that a competant person, as others have said, could extract the information that Tony D believes he needs from the CRT database. The term 'system' must include the total process, automated or manual, input, processing/analysis and interpretation of reports.

 

OTOH, apologies for repeating this, Tony D has not denied mooring in one 'place' for more than 14 days. The flawed CRT evidence indicates that he always had a valid, permanent mooring even if it indicates an incorrect location. The fact that the 'home location' in that report is obviously incorrect does not prove that the 'sightings' are similarly invalid. This is a test case. CRT intend to prove that, as I long believed, a 'boat with a home mooring' may not repeatedly moor for more than 14 days on the towpath or other restricted 'place' unless they return meanwhile to their registered mooring.

 

My poor attempt, above, is a good example of how difficult it is to clearly define rules, regulations and law.

 

Tony, if you did you actually moor for more than 14 days or more than allowed on a visitor mooring your best defense is that you and many others believe that is allowed by the relevant acts.

 

Alan

 

I agree with Paul G2 above, this case appears to rely on a point of law.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Alan Saunders

[NigelMoore]

It is, of course, no new thing for the canal authorities to keep close tabs on exactly where every boat was on the system. Arguably, the old paper/phone system was far more precise – as it needed to be when organising who was available to carry a particular cargo from one place to another at a particular time.

 

I looked up the old B&W movies today, where I had seen the wall charts upon which they kept tabs on the boats using something reminiscent of the old wartime scenes of central control shoving symbols around a map. This isn’t the one I had remembered, but it shows the same thing –

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6Bll3DEchU

 

 

[mayalld]

Strangely, your last comment does nothing to instill confidence. Especially as you seemingly use evasive tactics.

I am not being evasive.

 

The system collects data. That data could be queried by either boat or location.

 

At the very least that means that the system CAN produce a report that shows any intermediate dates when you were NOT there (admittedly we can only do this from the sightings table if at least one boat was sighted on the intervening date).

 

If the database has a table showing where logging took place then we can do it even with no sightings.

 

And I don't need to instill confidence. I have a job that depends on me actually knowing this stuff and they are very confident in me

[alan_fincher]

The techy people are right insofar as what they saying about the data and how it can be searched, but they seem to be ignoring that one basic axiom of all data systems, "Garbage in = garbage out."

I'm not making, (nor intend to be making), any comment about data quality.

 

I'm simply challenging the statement that CRT can't know "what boats were at place Xxxx on date DD/MM/YYYY".

 

This is highly unlikely to be the case, whatever anybody has been told, nor is the query required to do it likely to be anything other than trivial.

 

If someone is recorded at one location, many days apart, but not at all anywhere in the intervening period, that in itself proves absolutely nothing, and I can't imagine CRT being daft enough to suggest it does. Recording someone in this way is not "garbage in / garbage out" - it is an accurate description of what CRT recorded - the data is not in itself garbage - if someone concludes from it that someone has overstayed, that may be a garbage assumption, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the data held.

 

However CRT may well have recorded boats at that location in the meantime, and not noted that boat as present on an intervening date. Provided they make intelligent use of the "not present", along with the "present" recordings at that location, they would know that the boat had not been there continually.

Just reading the recent posts on this thread, it's easy to see that CRT will bring their computer experts into court to testify much the same as the techies on this forum have. While their testimony will prove nothing, it will be confusing enough to confuse the judge who will then rule in favor of CRT. What Tony needs to do is to get a reputable statistician to either testify or give a sworn statement that the system is not qualified to do anything other than to make note of the fact that a certain boat was in a certain place at a certain time, and nothing more. Trying to argue with the computer geeks is pointless because they refuse to address the garbage in, garbage out axiom, instead simply repeating the mantra that the data is there for all to see, regardless of how relevant the data is to the case at hand.

Actually I didn't read to the end before replying.

 

This frankly is itself garbage! There is no "geekery" here. Nothing complex at all. You don't need to understand data or relational databases to be able to follow the quite simple arguments that could occur. You need to be able to do simple logic - computer geekery is not required.

[Tuscan]

I would have thought all the defence have to do is call any one of the several boaters on the K&A who have received letters showing that there data shows they have not moved far enough which have subsequently been withdrawn when the boater has proved he has moved to several locations but not recorded. Not saying this is the case here but it's not just the technology

[Quinafloat]

Tony is far from the first person to be accused of misdemeanors on the waterways. There are lots of section 8 cases every year, and the occasional high profile case. I would have thought that by now CaRT would have a standard set of reports to support their cases. The fact seem to be that they do not, and the reports they have presented with their hieroglyphics internal codes and cryptic headings are considered good enough for evidence is, in fact, evidence of a complete shambles in their IT endeavours.

 

These reports may be useful internally but are not fit for external consumption by people accused by CaRT, their legal representatives. or the judiciary.

 

There is no point in trying to analyse which point is the failure point. If the output is not readily and easily understood by it's audience, it is a failure.

[Sabcat]

I am not being evasive.

 

The system collects data. That data could be queried by either boat or location.

 

At the very least that means that the system CAN produce a report that shows any intermediate dates when you were NOT there (admittedly we can only do this from the sightings table if at least one boat was sighted on the intervening date).

 

If the database has a table showing where logging took place then we can do it even with no sightings.

 

And I don't need to instill confidence. I have a job that depends on me actually knowing this stuff and they are very confident in me

 

That's a pretty big if, don't you think? If that table doesn't exist in the table then all that lovely data is pretty bloody useless for the purpose of enforcement. You'd think someone designing the system might have picked up on it.

[NigelMoore]

Tony D has not denied mooring in one 'place' for more than 14 days.

 

Tony has NOT accepted that he has stayed more than 14 days in any one spot other than occasions when he both had a reasonable need to do so, and had CaRT approval on that basis. it was only following his challenge on the point that the legal department agreed but claimed that even so, he couldn't just move elsewhere briefly and then return for another 14 days. As Stuart Garner and others wrote, the T&C requirement to "cruise" when away from the mooring, equated to the CC guidelines for the requirements of "bona fide navigating".

 

What occurred to me today, was to query the role and authority of CaRT’s Head of Legal in all this. In NABO’s current newsletter issue, she is quoted as writing: “If the boater in question has a home mooring in the marina, they will not be subject to the bona fide navigation requirement under section 17(3)( c )(ii). However they will be subject to the Trust’s licence terms and conditions and will be required to cruise and only moor for short periods of up to 14 days in any one place whilst cruising away from their home mooring.” [my bold]

 

Yet her underlings are writing to customers and to the court, claiming that boaters with home moorings ARE subject to the bona fide navigation requirement when off their mooring.

 

Her promotion earlier this year saw a title upgrade to “General Counsel”, who, the press release announced, “will henceforth report direct to Richard Parry”.

 

[ https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4822.docx ]

 

The question I asked myself earlier was: just who could possibly over-ride CaRT’s General Counsel and authorise those under her to submit arguments to the court that contradict her own published understanding of this point of law?

 

Put another way: was it the good thing we thought it was at the time, when Mr Parry announced that he would be taking a personal oversight role in all cases dealing with liveaboard boater evictions?

[jenlyn]

And I don't need to instill confidence. I have a job that depends on me actually knowing this stuff and they are very confident in me

Hmmmm, and the national health service is in a hell of a state too.......

[jenlyn]

I'm simply challenging the statement that CRT can't know "what boats were at place Xxxx on date DD/MM/YYYY".

What was Jeff whyatt's reply when he was asked to supply evidence to justify the need for 48hr moorings at the SEVM meetings in 2013?

Think carefully before you reply!.....

[Paul G2]

I'm not making, (nor intend to be making), any comment about data quality.

 

I'm simply challenging the statement that CRT can't know "what boats were at place Xxxx on date DD/MM/YYYY".

 

This is highly unlikely to be the case, whatever anybody has been told, nor is the query required to do it likely to be anything other than trivial.

 

If someone is recorded at one location, many days apart, but not at all anywhere in the intervening period, that in itself proves absolutely nothing, and I can't imagine CRT being daft enough to suggest it does. Recording someone in this way is not "garbage in / garbage out" - it is an accurate description of what CRT recorded - the data is not in itself garbage - if someone concludes from it that someone has overstayed, that may be a garbage assumption, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the data held.

 

However CRT may well have recorded boats at that location in the meantime, and not noted that boat as present on an intervening date. Provided they make intelligent use of the "not present", along with the "present" recordings at that location, they would know that the boat had not been there continually.

Actually I didn't read to the end before replying.

 

This frankly is itself garbage! There is no "geekery" here. Nothing complex at all. You don't need to understand data or relational databases to be able to follow the quite simple arguments that could occur. You need to be able to do simple logic - computer geekery is not required.

 

You're missing the point. In regards to it's value as evidence in court, to be used to try to prove how long one person was in one place, the data is pure garbage and nothing more. "Garbage" in this context does not mean that they added 2+2 and came up with 5, it means the value of the data as it relates to enforcing mooring regulations. There are rules of evidence and the garbage that CRT is providing to the court doesn't comply with those rules by any stretch of the imagination.

 

If CRT brings people to court to testify about the computer printouts that they submitted as evidence, chances are pretty good that they will bring computer people, or "geeks" in modern vernacular. The last person they would bring is someone with a logical bent, as logic dictates that the information they claim is evidence is actually nothing but garbage.

[cotswoldsman]

What was Jeff whyatt's reply when he was asked to supply evidence to justify the need for 48hr moorings at the SEVM meetings in 2013?

Think carefully before you reply!.....

As I was not there I can not answer but presumably Alan would have said "all you need do to is go to the boat logging data press a few buttons and you will be able to show us how many boats were on any VM on any day that your checkers were there. If you are not able to do that give me a few minutes and I will show you how to do this. Once I have extracted all this information we can stop this consultation as I will have shown there is no problem with VM" or words to that effect Edited September 1, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[MtB]

An important point/question needs resolving. Maybe it has already, but I think not.

 

It has been mentioned in passing the CRT data loggers only record the presence of a boat, not whether it is moored. Do we know this is a fact?

 

If it is true that the database contains sightings only, and no information about whether the boat was moving or moored, then I cannot think of a way in which the database can be queried to produce evidence of overstaying. Crusing patterns perhaps, but not overstaying at a given VM or towpath mooring.

 

So, do we know what data fields a data logger puts into their machine or phone?

 

 

MtB

[costalot]

As I was not there I can not answer but presumably Alan would have said "all you need do to is go to the boat logging data press a few buttons and you will be able to show us how many boats were on any VM on any day that your checkers were there. If you are not able to do that give me a few minutes and I will show you how to do this. Once I have extracted all this information we can stop this consultation as I will have shown there is no problem with VM" or words to that effect

Provided the checker did their job properly, the system will have that information. But the system can't provide a report for every day of the year unless the VM is checked every day. So there could be a problem with overcrowding/overstaying on VM's, but it would not be identified on the days they were not checked.

 

The only way to achieve 100% compliance monitoring and accuracy would be to electronically gps tag every boat.