"Robbie" wrote in message
news:651ig5F2dkc21U2@mid.individual.net...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Fray McBentos" wrote in message
>> news:6DLGj.114706$nw4.16231@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On weds evening I caught part of a "traffic police" tv program. Cameras
>>> following police to see what they do etc.
>>>
>>> Anyway, There was a part where an ANPR camera caught an uninsured
>>> driver, so
>>> they pulled him over.
>>>
>>> The driver produced an insurance certificate there and then. The
>>> officers
>>> were not satisfied, so they rang the insurance company. I think the
>>> officer
>>> said it was "E-Sure". After a quick phone call the officer said to the
>>> driver that he had missed some monthly payments and that he hd been told
>>> to
>>> pay by a certain date and hadn't done so, so the insurance lapsed.
>>> The officer gave details of dates of missed payments and dates when the
>>> driver had contacted the company, etc.
>>>
>>> Surely Data protection laws would prevent this ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No information provided to the police for the prevention or detection of
>> crime is exempt.
>>
>> One wonders what happens if the bloke produces receipts...
>
> I saw this part of the programme. I assume that there must have been some
> way the police could verify who they were? It (obviously) never showed
> footage of the actual conversation the policeman had with the customer
> service rep, but I assume the info wasn't just given on the spot because
> he claimed to be a policeman?
When I worked for an Electricity Board, in the days when computers only
lived in large, air-conditioned rooms, anyone authorised to receive
confidential data would phone us, then ring off and wait for us to ring back
on the number we had for them in our telephone book. I suspect that caller
ID would replace the need for that today.
Colin Bignell
|