Maybe we are talking about a different case, because the video I saw didn't have the reg blurred out
Either way, I think it's a bit rich to moan about TVL people being identified, when TVL plaster their envelopes with statements that imply, to anyone who happens to see them, that you owe them money.
And let's not forget their "There are 38 houses in ***** Street, without a TV Licence" billboards.
So you agree with a persons identity being illegally obtained from the DVLA?
Getting his address from DVLA sounds slightly illegal.
Not just slightly if it was obtained by someone abusing their access to the DVLA computer system.
Depending on exactly what was done it is potentially
Computer misuse - using it for a reason not authorised by the employer/for personal reasons.
Misconduct/potentially gross misconduct - it's almost certainly against the terms of employment to use the system for personal reasons (regardless of the law).
That's if it was a DVLA employees.
Breach of the DVLA T&C for access (if it was obtained by someone who had access as say a parking enforcement officer working for one of the companies the patrols the likes of Tesco's carpark), which in theory could result in the company whose system was abused losing their automated access to the DVLA (meaning they'd have to pay a lot more for the information).
Possibly even classed as theft, if it was a third part company - iirc it costs per access.
Data Protection breach regardless of who did it, if they did not have a legitimate (as defined in law) requirement to access the details of the vehicle in regards to tracking them down for a crime, or motoring reason (what's the maximum fine for DPA breaches these days? quite a lot from memory).
It's funny how it's fine for the "TVLA resistance" or whatever to use methods that they certainly have zero legal right to to further their agenda, but it's not ok for the TVL people to use the limited powers they have to enforce a legal requirement.
Not just slightly if it was obtained by someone abusing their access to the DVLA computer system.
Depending on exactly what was done it is potentially
Computer misuse - using it for a reason not authorised by the employer/for personal reasons.
Misconduct/potentially gross misconduct - it's almost certainly against the terms of employment to use the system for personal reasons (regardless of the law).
That's if it was a DVLA employees.
Breach of the DVLA T&C for access (if it was obtained by someone who had access as say a parking enforcement officer working for one of the companies the patrols the likes of Tesco's carpark), which in theory could result in the company whose system was abused losing their automated access to the DVLA (meaning they'd have to pay a lot more for the information).
Possibly even classed as theft, if it was a third part company - iirc it costs per access.
Data Protection breach regardless of who did it, if they did not have a legitimate (as defined in law) requirement to access the details of the vehicle in regards to tracking them down for a crime, or motoring reason (what's the maximum fine for DPA breaches these days? quite a lot from memory).
It's funny how it's fine for the "TVLA resistance" or whatever to use methods that they certainly have zero legal right to to further their agenda, but it's not ok for the TVL people to use the limited powers they have to enforce a legal requirement.
Yes, it's funny, isn't it?
Anyone would think the usual 5 or 6 posters only had one issue in life.......
No, but I still think it's a bit rich, for people to moan about it, given the way TVL treat LLF households.
There is an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right.
There is also the very slight legal difference, in that the TVL have a duty imposed upon them from the government to check and enforce the licence fee.
That is slightly different to a vigilante type action abusing their access to computer systems (potentially in serious breach of their terms of employment, let alone the law).
It's the sort of thing that can easily come back to bite someone in the butt, as the DVLA should be logging every request for data, in which case it's a fairly simple case for them to in theory find out every access for a particular driver or registration mark, giving them the access method and who (or what organisation) accessed it.
If the system has a proper audit trail* it would probably take an admin a matter of minutes to find out whose account was used.
*But it's a government IT project so it probably doesn't have any of the best practice for data security systems implemented.
There is also the very slight legal difference, in that the TVL have a duty imposed upon them from the government to check and enforce the licence fee.
Do they also have a duty to imply, to my postman, etc., that I'm watching TV without a licence
And has it occurred to you, that postmen occasionally put mail through the wrong door
Hence why I said "my postman, etc.".
Suppose one of those letters were to be mis-delivered, and end up on the doormat of one of my neighbours.
Howe long do you think it would be, before my being a TV Licence "evader" was common knowledge
again, I'm not sure why you think your neighbours are too dim to appreciate what's going on, or that you live in a neighbourhood of such judgemental people.
but I think you're really scraping the barrel with this argument.
I'm not sure why you think your neighbours are too dim to appreciate what's going on, or that you live in a neighbourhood of such judgemental people.
I think you have a somewhat naive idea of human nature.
If you weren't clued up about what TVL letters actually mean, and THIS or THIS landed on your doormat, addressed to a neighbour, can you honestly say you wouldn't think your neighbour was watching TV without a licence
Which is why they don't claim they have right of entry so please stop your usual word games trying to imply there is something unlawful going on when there isn't.
I'm not trying to imply anything - and your response suggests you haven't read the post I was responding to.
They are enforcing the licensing system which includes the licensing laws.
There is (in law) no licensing system. And there is only one "licensing law".
There is nothing to take responsibility for as there is nothing unlawful going on. The spin you apply is hilarious!
fair enough - although i'd say that the site more specifically revolves around a commonly held desire to take action against a specific thing, compared to, say, DS.
i did find it slightly amusing to read that Sao Paulo had been - presumably permanently - from the other Resistance, and so joined / formed a splinter faction. very People's Front of Judea.
The other forum is a little slower and more studious than the one run by Sao Paulo. I think they both have their place.
i did also read a comment by yourself about how what prevents serious debate is the likes of myself, Mossy, mikw.
And do you think that's unfair comment?
however, i'd say what actually stifles prevents serious debate is the attitude and posting style of various members of those sites, who quite openly encourage each other to bait and troll on DS.
Isn't this a public forum? If you object to the tone / content of a particular post, then the mods can take action.
OK - i just wondered if the Resistance had a particular code of practice.
I'm pretty sure there is no "Resistance" outside of a few people participating in an on-line forum. If there is, I'm not a member, nor have I ever been invited to join.
that given his apparent views, he would seem the sort of person who might well be a member of The Resistance?
And yet, he's not a member of the forum, at least not by that name. Didn't stop you from implying he was, though.
sounds more like a public threat of actual bodily harm more like.
Youtube should remove it, then. Perhaps they are satisfied that it is a mis-judged attempt at irony.
OK - its difficult to tell amongst all the childish banter about BBC scum, BBC loving scum and the paranoid nonsense about who apparently works for the BBC.
It's a lively forum, and some people are clearly angry. As I said, my views are some way left of the consensus, there, so I really wouldn't want to comment on any particular detail, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
i don't know if its an over reaction - it certainly did sound threatening. an idle threat from someone behind a keyboard no doubt, but an threat nonetheless.
I'm not going to defend it. My whole issue with "TVL" is their lack of respect for the law.
especially as they'd gone as far as tracking down, and publicly posting the guys name and car registration.
There is an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right.
There is also the very slight legal difference, in that the TVL have a duty imposed upon them from the government to check and enforce the licence fee.
No they don't. There is no such legislation, nor any text in the Charter to support your assertion.
As I've said several times in the past: I would have thought that any such written remit would prove fairly decisive to this debate. And yet, it's never been posted. The obvious conclusion (supported by various other bits of evidence) is that it doesn't exist, and "TVL" is the mis-judged, messy and shameful result of the BBC "trying it on".
And for the pedants on the forum: yes, I still believe it to be unlawful.
That is slightly different to a vigilante type action abusing their access to computer systems (potentially in serious breach of their terms of employment, let alone the law).
It's the sort of thing that can easily come back to bite someone in the butt, as the DVLA should be logging every request for data, in which case it's a fairly simple case for them to in theory find out every access for a particular driver or registration mark, giving them the access method and who (or what organisation) accessed it.
If the system has a proper audit trail* it would probably take an admin a matter of minutes to find out whose account was used.
I think you're making the somewhat unwise assumption that the person did actually have the "TVL" person's address. It seems more likely that it was another bit of mis-judged bravado.
... but it's not ok for the TVL people to use the limited powers they have to enforce a legal requirement.
Limited powers - and what would they be? They have no special powers beyond those of a normal citizen (save for the Search Warrant stuff that they don't routinely use).
The other forum is a little slower and more studious than the one run by Sao Paulo. I think they both have their place.
i'm not convinced a forum where the regular posters seem to do little more than talk about BBC scum, post paranoid rants about how people who disagree with their views must work for the BBC scum, and generally encourage and applaud fellow members for trolling other forums has that much of a place.
what (constructive) place do you feel it has?
And do you think that's unfair comment?
yes, i do actually.
given that myself, and others you choose to mention, post reasonable, politely and fairly articulately, i do think it unfair for you to say that that stifles debate.
especially given the attitudes, posting style and self confessed trolling of some posters on the other side of the discussion.
Isn't this a public forum? If you object to the tone / content of a particular post, then the mods can take action.
it wasn't the tone i was objecting to per se. i was objecting to where you choose to lay the blame for a lack of constructive debate.
I'm pretty sure there is no "Resistance" outside of a few people participating in an on-line forum. If there is, I'm not a member, nor have I ever been invited to join.
my mistake - i assumed the Resistance was some kind of actual Resistance. so is it simply a forum for people to vent their spleens about BBC scum?
And yet, he's not a member of the forum, at least not by that name. Didn't stop you from implying he was, though.
given that the guy said this :
'The BBC Resistance movement work hard behind the scenes to find out the names and addresses of these trespassers. This guy was very easy to find because we have members who work for the DVLA.'
i'm finding it disingenuous of you to suggest that i cynically tried to suggest something that wasn't so.
if you want to conclude that he isn't a member, just because he has a different username, that's up to you.
Youtube should remove it, then. Perhaps they are satisfied that it is a mis-judged attempt at irony.
perhaps they are.
It's a lively forum, and some people are clearly angry. As I said, my views are some way left of the consensus, there, so I really wouldn't want to comment on any particular detail, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
I'm not going to defend it. My whole issue with "TVL" is their lack of respect for the law.
nonetheless, its difficult to take any serious points raised there when they're surrounded by, essentially, paranoid rantings of the puerile and childish.
the second looks like the sort of thing that people will only receive after ignoring earlier letters.
And, because someone has ignored earlier letters (actually one earlier letter - that was the very next one, after the "Important Reminder) it's OK to imply, completely without evidence, that someone is breaking the law
if you think they publish misleading adverts, what was the whole fake invoices thing all about?
It was suggested that misleading adverts don't matter, if nobody falls for them, so I asked if the same would apply to fake invoices, ie. does it matter if I send them, if nobody falls for them
Comments
Why does it matter how many
Surely the fact people are being mislead, with a view to them buying one, is enough
Do you think it would be acceptable, for me to send out fake invoices, provided nobody/a tiny number fell for it and paid them
So you agree with a persons identity being illegally obtained from the DVLA?
No, but I still think it's a bit rich, for people to moan about it, given the way TVL treat LLF households.
Not just slightly if it was obtained by someone abusing their access to the DVLA computer system.
Depending on exactly what was done it is potentially
Computer misuse - using it for a reason not authorised by the employer/for personal reasons.
Misconduct/potentially gross misconduct - it's almost certainly against the terms of employment to use the system for personal reasons (regardless of the law).
That's if it was a DVLA employees.
Breach of the DVLA T&C for access (if it was obtained by someone who had access as say a parking enforcement officer working for one of the companies the patrols the likes of Tesco's carpark), which in theory could result in the company whose system was abused losing their automated access to the DVLA (meaning they'd have to pay a lot more for the information).
Possibly even classed as theft, if it was a third part company - iirc it costs per access.
Data Protection breach regardless of who did it, if they did not have a legitimate (as defined in law) requirement to access the details of the vehicle in regards to tracking them down for a crime, or motoring reason (what's the maximum fine for DPA breaches these days? quite a lot from memory).
It's funny how it's fine for the "TVLA resistance" or whatever to use methods that they certainly have zero legal right to to further their agenda, but it's not ok for the TVL people to use the limited powers they have to enforce a legal requirement.
Yes, it's funny, isn't it?
Anyone would think the usual 5 or 6 posters only had one issue in life.......
There is an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right.
There is also the very slight legal difference, in that the TVL have a duty imposed upon them from the government to check and enforce the licence fee.
That is slightly different to a vigilante type action abusing their access to computer systems (potentially in serious breach of their terms of employment, let alone the law).
It's the sort of thing that can easily come back to bite someone in the butt, as the DVLA should be logging every request for data, in which case it's a fairly simple case for them to in theory find out every access for a particular driver or registration mark, giving them the access method and who (or what organisation) accessed it.
If the system has a proper audit trail* it would probably take an admin a matter of minutes to find out whose account was used.
*But it's a government IT project so it probably doesn't have any of the best practice for data security systems implemented.
Do they also have a duty to imply, to my postman, etc., that I'm watching TV without a licence
It matters, IMO, because it's a complete red herring to bang on about the possibility of people being misled if no-one actually is being misled.
Iain
Has it occurrd to you that your postman might actually be smart enough to grasp what it is that tvl are actually doing?
Iain
And has it occurred to you, that postmen occasionally put mail through the wrong door
Hence why I said "my postman, etc.".
Suppose one of those letters were to be mis-delivered, and end up on the doormat of one of my neighbours.
Howe long do you think it would be, before my being a TV Licence "evader" was common knowledge
So it'd be OK for me to send out fake invoices, provided nobody falls for it and pays them
again, I'm not sure why you think your neighbours are too dim to appreciate what's going on, or that you live in a neighbourhood of such judgemental people.
but I think you're really scraping the barrel with this argument.
Iain
Firstly, tvl don't send out fake invoices.
Secondly, people would recognise tvl as a known organisation.
what would your fake invoices be for?
Iain
No, they publish misleading adverts instead.
I think you have a somewhat naive idea of human nature.
If you weren't clued up about what TVL letters actually mean, and THIS or THIS landed on your doormat, addressed to a neighbour, can you honestly say you wouldn't think your neighbour was watching TV without a licence
the second looks like the sort of thing that people will only receive after ignoring earlier letters.
Iain
if you think they publish misleading adverts, what was the whole fake invoices thing all about?
either way, which adverts, how are they misleading, and what consequences are you aware of resulting from this misinformation?
Iain
There is (in law) no licensing system. And there is only one "licensing law".
There is no spin. The facts speak for themselves.
And do you think that's unfair comment?
Isn't this a public forum? If you object to the tone / content of a particular post, then the mods can take action.
I'm pretty sure there is no "Resistance" outside of a few people participating in an on-line forum. If there is, I'm not a member, nor have I ever been invited to join.
And yet, he's not a member of the forum, at least not by that name. Didn't stop you from implying he was, though.
Youtube should remove it, then. Perhaps they are satisfied that it is a mis-judged attempt at irony.
It's a lively forum, and some people are clearly angry. As I said, my views are some way left of the consensus, there, so I really wouldn't want to comment on any particular detail, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
I'm not going to defend it. My whole issue with "TVL" is their lack of respect for the law.
Or was the registration taken from a video?
As I've said several times in the past: I would have thought that any such written remit would prove fairly decisive to this debate. And yet, it's never been posted. The obvious conclusion (supported by various other bits of evidence) is that it doesn't exist, and "TVL" is the mis-judged, messy and shameful result of the BBC "trying it on".
And for the pedants on the forum: yes, I still believe it to be unlawful.
I think you're making the somewhat unwise assumption that the person did actually have the "TVL" person's address. It seems more likely that it was another bit of mis-judged bravado.
Limited powers - and what would they be? They have no special powers beyond those of a normal citizen (save for the Search Warrant stuff that they don't routinely use).
Oh, come on, surely you can understand them?:)
i'm not convinced a forum where the regular posters seem to do little more than talk about BBC scum, post paranoid rants about how people who disagree with their views must work for the BBC scum, and generally encourage and applaud fellow members for trolling other forums has that much of a place.
what (constructive) place do you feel it has?
yes, i do actually.
given that myself, and others you choose to mention, post reasonable, politely and fairly articulately, i do think it unfair for you to say that that stifles debate.
especially given the attitudes, posting style and self confessed trolling of some posters on the other side of the discussion.
it wasn't the tone i was objecting to per se. i was objecting to where you choose to lay the blame for a lack of constructive debate.
my mistake - i assumed the Resistance was some kind of actual Resistance. so is it simply a forum for people to vent their spleens about BBC scum?
given that the guy said this :
'The BBC Resistance movement work hard behind the scenes to find out the names and addresses of these trespassers. This guy was very easy to find because we have members who work for the DVLA.'
i'm finding it disingenuous of you to suggest that i cynically tried to suggest something that wasn't so.
if you want to conclude that he isn't a member, just because he has a different username, that's up to you.
perhaps they are.
nonetheless, its difficult to take any serious points raised there when they're surrounded by, essentially, paranoid rantings of the puerile and childish.
well, it appears to be blurred out in the video.
Iain
It doesn't say it might be up for renewal.
It says renewal overdue, as if that were a proven fact.
And, because someone has ignored earlier letters (actually one earlier letter - that was the very next one, after the "Important Reminder) it's OK to imply, completely without evidence, that someone is breaking the law
It was suggested that misleading adverts don't matter, if nobody falls for them, so I asked if the same would apply to fake invoices, ie. does it matter if I send them, if nobody falls for them
THIS ONE, for a start
I think that's pretty obvious.
That people may buy a licence they don't need.
Do they? There is no evidence that people do is there?