Data Protection and Revenue Protection

[vinnym70]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #12 originally in this thread.

The name/address check can only confirm that a John Smith lives at 10 Acacia Avenue, Greater Snodbury. But NOT that the ticketless passenger willingly supplying the information is actually John Smith.

But surely, anyone suggesting that is their address should provide identification that they are said John Smith of said address? Failure to do so just raises suspicion and should be dealt with by other means. I have no idea of the legality or otherwise but an expected fare evader in the London/SE area said to be from the Orkney Islands surely gets their picture taken for posterity?

 

[najaB]

But surely, anyone suggesting that is their address should provide identification that they are said John Smith of said address?

You would think so, but there is no requirement to carry proof of identity in the UK, and no universal form of ID in any case.

 

[vinnym70]

You would think so, but there is no requirement to carry proof of identity in the UK, and no universal form of ID in any case.

So - surely taking a photograph of said perpetrator makes a degree of sense? Most front-line RPIs now have body-mounted cameras which I assume are recording all the time or can be set to record with a single button-press if the need arises? Indeed, on-train CCTV should provide necessary back-up but I will assume the delay between the offence being committed and contention around the court case may have seen said CCTV footage being deleted for chronological reasons alone.

 

[najaB]

So - surely taking a photograph of said perpetrator makes a degree of sense?

That might fall foul of data protection laws, I'd need to think about that one for a bit.

 

[vinnym70]

So

I have indeed. Not that it's a good excuse but I was reading it on my phone at the time and scrolled past the paragraph that contained the timeline.That might fall foul of data protection laws, I'd need to think about that one for a bit.

As far as data protection is concerned, if someone is purporting to be someone or something they are not, in a situation that may well find itself in court in the future, I'd have assumed that NOT procuring all necessary evidence at the point of potential infringement would be seen as lack of potential diligence. There's a big difference between taking photos and/or videos of everyone on the off-chance versus taking a photo/video of someone you reasonably believe to be telling you porkies and who may well end up in court at a later date.

Data protection is a huge concern for us all and any recorded evidence should only ever be divulged should a court require it. However, I don't believe that procuring evidence that you feel may reasonably need to be produced in court at at future point should be something that needs to be thought about or authorised. I think car dash cams are a good a example of the same.

In this case, were the person who claimed to be resident of the Orkney Isles to have had his/her face recorded by the staff who found them without a ticket, it would go a long way to ensuring the person who was sitting safely at home in South Africa was clearly not the perpetrator.

 

[najaB]

As far as data protection is concerned, if someone is purporting to be someone or something they are not, in a situation that may well find itself in court in the future, I'd have assumed that NOT procuring all necessary evidence at the point of potential infringement would be seen as lack of potential diligence.

The issue is around the storage of personal data - while there are exceptions for prevention and detection of crime the general principle is that personal data should never be collected other than for one or more specific purposes and should never be kept for longer than necessary. The law (both the Railway Byelaws and Regulation of Railways Act) requires that someone believed to have breached the law provides their name and address meaning that the TOC is well within their rights to collect and store that data. There is no legal basis for capturing or storing any other personal data.

 

[vinnym70]

The issue is around the storage of personal data - while there are exceptions for prevention and detection of crime the general principle is that personal data should never be collected other than for one or more specific purposes and should never be kept for longer than necessary. The law requires that someone believed to have breached the law provides their name and address meaning that the TOC is well within their rights to collect and store that data. There is no legal basis for capturing or storing any other personal data.

Agreed - 100%. However, a large amount of the laws in this respect pre-date the ability to record anything and everything. How does the above get applied to an RPI or other railway staff who wear body cams to record everything? Who arbitrates over whether certain parts of recording are worthy of retention and why, and how long before innocuous footage is disposed of? My point here is that some recordings may well be of benefit at some point in the future but, by that point, they may well have been disposed of based on existing guidelines so who gets to make final judgement, especially where continuous recording may happen across a full shift?

Obviously, some events are worthy of retention and they are obvious at the point of recording. Some others may well not be obvious until later. If I were doing RPI duties on a train in the south-east and someone without a ticket suggested they were from a far-flung part of the UK, I'd have fairly strong feelings that the evidence I may had recorded during that interaction warranted retention for longer than normal.

To go back to dash cam footage, I know of no reasons why I should not retain footage for as long as I feel warranted. I appreciate I'm acting as an individual here but I suspect some of these foibles of who can/can't retain information and for how long retention is reasonable is due for some clarification.

 

[XmaX]

Is there any particular reason why only the name and address are requested by RPIs for identification? Surely, also asking for date of birth and/or national insurance number would quickly filter out people providing false details.

 

[Clip]

Is there any particular reason why only the name and address are requested by RPIs for identification? Surely, also asking for date of birth and/or national insurance number would quickly filter out people providing false details.

because that is what the law allows for.

of course of someone can remember an address in Scotland then I'm guessing a dob and ni number won't be too difficult

 

[najaB]

Is there any particular reason why only the name and address are requested by RPIs for identification?

Because that is what the law requires the passenger to provide.

 

[exile]

Because that is what the law requires the passenger to provide.

And, more to the point, is all the passenger is obliged to provide. I suppose the passenger could, if they wish to be helpful, provide extra information to demonstrate the address is valid (eg, show a driving licence) but can't be forced to so so.

 

[Haywain]

It's not unusual for the RPI to make notes about the description of the person, but this is only helpful if there is a response to correspondence. If there isn't, the TOC is at liberty to pursue the matter through the courts - as happened in this case.