Car Reg published online at work

deravarra

Hi. I had someone log an infarction against me at my work, stating they saw my car failing to stop at a zebra crossing in work.
I have no recollection of said event, nor does my carpooling colleague.
However, what I find quite disturbing is the fact that my car registration number, although without my name attached, is plainly visible to anyone who may access the system. This is available to thousands of employees.
Is the publishing of this data against the law, or GDPR?

Thanks in advance.

whomitconcerns

A licence plate is public information. Could anyone in your car park not see your licence plate anyway? Not gdpr.


It's not identifying to an average member of public

dudara

The question is if the publication of your car registration can lead to someone identifying you. Normally I would say not really, as the car registration database is only available to authorised people.

However, this has been been published in your workplace, and it would be far easier for people to figure out who owned that registration. They could just watch the car and see who drove it.

So on that basis, I would say you have grounds for a complaint.

whomitconcerns

dudara wrote: »

The question is if the publication of your car registration can lead to someone identifying you. Normally I would say not really, as the car registration database is only available to authorised people.

However, this has been been published in your workplace, and it would be far easier for people to figure out who owned that registration. They could just watch the car and see who drove it.

So on that basis, I would say you have grounds for a complaint.

Actually I would agree with dudara, a work issue for HR to intervene in. but I would not say it's a gdpr beach as, on its own it can't be used to identify you.

deravarra

dudara wrote: »

this has been been published in your workplace, and it would be far easier for people to figure out who owned that registration. They could just watch the car and see who drove it.

I was thinking along this line

Irishphotodesk

deravarra wrote: »

Hi. I had someone log an infarction against me at my work, stating they saw my car failing to stop at a zebra crossing in work.
I have no recollection of said event, nor does my carpooling colleague.
However, what I find quite disturbing is the fact that my car registration number, although without my name attached, is plainly visible to anyone who may access the system. This is available to thousands of employees.
Is the publishing of this data against the law, or GDPR?

Thanks in advance.

Your work colleague had better be capable of providing proof of their allegation , it could be seen as a defamatory statement, as it implies the driver of said vehicle has performed an act of bad/negligent driving.

Claw Hammer

A licence plate is personal data and it is a GDPR breach. many people remember other peoples licence numbers and all it takes is one person to recognise the number and you are outed.

evolving_doors

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Your work colleague had better be capable of providing proof of their allegation , it could be seen as a defamatory statement, as it implies the driver of said vehicle has performed an act of bad/negligent driving.

This is a good point.
Also as it's a comment on your contribution to your work environment It's the same as putting your monthly /yearly work evaluation progress in a public forum.
...and if they are going to do it, there should be a procedure in place for you to appeal.

Sleeper12

Claw Hammer wrote:

A licence plate is personal data and it is a GDPR breach. many people remember other peoples licence numbers and all it takes is one person to recognise the number and you are outed.

What if it's a company car?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't see how bad driving by op in his/her own car & on their own personal time would have anything to do with their work place.

If the company owns the car then they own the reg plate.

deravarra

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What if it's a company car?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't see how bad driving by op in his/her own car & on their own personal time would have anything to do with their work place.

If the company owns the car then they own the reg plate.

It's my car, and the zebra crossing was on my employer's premises. Yup - big employer

km991148

Is this even a legal crossing, or just some white paint on a private road?

Whats the issue here - a lot of hearsay over someone who thought they might have seen someone do something a bit wrong. Don't take this wrong way op - but is it worth following up on? Maybe let it go and have less stress.

Sleeper12

deravarra wrote:

It's my car, and the zebra crossing was on my employer's premises. Yup - big employer

That makes perfect sense. I wouldn't have thought of that possibility in a million years.

micar

No offence.....but how many people do you know actually know your car reg.

I know mine and mine only.

You might be slightly embarrassed or annoyed but it would take a lot for someone to report you.

I'd be more careful at the Zebra crossing.

A colleague driving to work hit another colleague who was walking across a zebra crossing outside work. He wasn't hurt badly.

We all knew who the driver was but didn't go around thinking... "isn't she the one who hit peter with her car"

Just forget about it.

For anyone who uses the car park, there's a spreadsheet some where with people's name, phone number, make of car, colour and reg of car. Every few years were are asked to update it. If asked me to find it, I wouldn't have a clue.

Claw Hammer

Some people don't know the Reg number of their own car, others know the Reg number of the cars of large numbers of people. Some people are obsessed with cars, talk about them all the time and look at every car in the car park constantly.

Sleeper12

micar wrote:

No offence.....but how many people do you know actually know your car reg.

I have my current van over 2 years & I don't know my reg.

Vetch

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What if it's a company car?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't see how bad driving by op in his/her own car & on their own personal time would have anything to do with their work place.

If the company owns the car then they own the reg plate.

Vehicle reg is personal data as it can lead to the identification of a driver/owner of a car. Opinion on this was included in guidelines published by EU Data Protection Commissioners. It is irrelevant who owns the car. It's the fact that a person is identifiable is the deciding factor.

What is unclear from the OP is why this information was made available on a a system available to thousands, and what this system is.

Mrs OBumble

It's quite like that that having such details in the health and safety incidents / near-misses register is part of your employee handbook, and that by signing your employment contract you agreed to be bound by the requirements of said handbook (or whatever they call it. There are good accident-reduction reasons why this information is available to all employees.

Even if the registration number wasn't lkisted, a description ("blue Nissan Micra with boy-racer stripes, which arrived at work at 8am on the 27th of Whenever") would be enough to identify the car as yours, and thus you as the driver, to many observers.

If there is information that is factually incorrect in the register, then you have a right to have it corrected. But if it is correct, you don't stand a chance.

It's quite likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that your employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

The observations of your passenger are irrelevant: they weren't driving, so weren't expected to be watching the road.

Vetch

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's quite like that that having such details in the health and safety incidents / near-misses register is part of your employee handbook, and that by signing your employment contract you agreed to be bound by the requirements of said handbook (or whatever they call it. There are good accident-reduction reasons why this information is available to all employees.
.

With personally identifying information removed maybe, but it's difficult to see the inclusion of identifying information as proportionate, fair or necessary.

what kind of workplace has a public system used to host and log 'infractions'?

Victor

deravarra wrote: »

my car registration number, although without my name attached, is plainly visible to anyone who may access the system.

Ask nicely for the registration number to be redacted from the published version.

Vetch wrote: »

With personally identifying information removed maybe, but it's difficult to see the inclusion of identifying information as proportionate, fair or necessary.

The inclusion of identifying information would be proportionate in a report to the system, so that incidents can be properly recorded and followed-up. It wouldn't necessarily be proportionate for the system to publish that information to everyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

what kind of workplace has a public system used to host and log 'infractions'?

As mentioned, there may be a health and safety log that everyone can access, so people can learn of incidents / issues quickly.

Vetch

Victor wrote: »

Ask nicely for the registration number to be redacted from the published version.

The inclusion of identifying information would be proportionate in a report to the system, so that incidents can be properly recorded and followed-up. It wouldn't necessarily be proportionate for the system to publish that information to everyone.

As mentioned, there may be a health and safety log that everyone can access, so people can learn of incidents / issues quickly.

Yes, I was replying to a previous poster's comment about the system being available to all employees. Full details of safety incidents obviously have to be recorded; it's who has access to them and why that seems to be in question.

Mrs OBumble

Vetch wrote: »

Yes, I was replying to a previous poster's comment about the system being available to all employees. Full details of safety incidents obviously have to be recorded; it's who has access to them and why that seems to be in question.

Safety is everyone's responsibility, so everyone needs to have access to information about known hazards. A car that has not respected a pedestrian crossing in the past is, on average, more likely to do so again in the future.

Vetch

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Safety is everyone's responsibility, so everyone needs to have access to information about known hazards. A car that has not respected a pedestrian crossing in the past is, on average, more likely to do so again in the future.

Seriously? Safety might be everyone's responsibility but this doesn't mean they need the same level of access to personal data.

Any hazard is around the crossing of the road and surely the response is to investigate reports of hazards (no reference to this being done in the OP), and put things in place to minimise the hazard eg clearly mark the crossing, driver education, pedestrian education, discipline those against whom a complaint has been upheld.

Irishphotodesk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Safety is everyone's responsibility, so everyone needs to have access to information about known hazards. A car that has not respected a pedestrian crossing in the past is, on average, more likely to do so again in the future.

If safety is everyone’s responsibility, would it also be ok for the person who was walking on or near the zebra crossing to be identified and the person that made the “log” , so that motorists and other co-workers are aware of the persons who:
(a) are more likely to be nervous around vehicles (anyone that has been a victim of theft, or been involved in a serious incident might be able to understand this logic)
(b) are more likely to be reporting similar infractions, (someone who feels it’s important to “log” someone who goes through a zebra crossing, is also likely to report someone for not washing their hands or someone claiming mileage with a receipt they found)

Pkiernan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Safety is everyone's responsibility, so everyone needs to have access to information about known hazards. A car that has not respected a pedestrian crossing in the past is, on average, more likely to do so again in the future.

Reduction to the absurd again.

Dravokivich

I'm more concerned that an issue with another employee can be reported, and "is available to thousands of employees," without any form of due process.

Victor wrote: »

As mentioned, there may be a health and safety log that everyone can access, so people can learn of incidents / issues quickly.

The issue isn't just one of the OP potentially driving through the zebra crossing while in use by a pedestrian. Grievances reported within the workplace should be handled with as little an audience as possible. If there is a safety risk, an incident never needs to be directly referenced, nor do those involved.

Get Real

whomitconcerns wrote: »

A licence plate is public information. Could anyone in your car park not see your licence plate anyway? Not gdpr.


It's not identifying to an average member of public

I agree with this post. The main reason GDPR was brought in was to stop big corporations harvesting your data and storing it for themselves or selling it on to other companies so they could exploit your age, location, websites visited, telephone number, what you view etc etc.

Although it's very broad, its original intention wasn't as a defence to the trivialities of everyday life.

In that case, why do people have house numbers on their door, in full public view? What use is that to the average Joe walking by?

Unless you're a target of the RA, or kinihans, or a psni officer or prison officer or guard. What is the difference between this reg printed on a piece of paper and me walking the street taking down every single reg I see on a piece of paper, that is out in public and clearly visible to everyone.

Or God forbid I knew my neighbours reg and he has it parked everyday in the front garden, visible from the road. What if I'm a town gossip and tell the lads down the pub I saw Jim's car breaking a red light on Tuesday? Am I sharing his personal data?

What about the well known millionaires and lottery winners. Do they drive around with a black bag over their car reg?

You're using the internet, as am I, as is everyone. A car reg typed on a screen, that everyone can see in public anyway, is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

In fact, you've 993 posts, are a virgin media customer, Vodafone customer, bought stuff from the US for your wife and your interests included airsoft at one time. What can I do with that info? Nothing, it's useless to me. But you're voluntarily broadcasting it and are concerned about a car reg everyone can see anyway?

evolving_doors

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What if it's a company car?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't see how bad driving by op in his/her own car & on their own personal time would have anything to do with their work place.

If the company owns the car then they own the reg plate.

I think you've inadvertently highlighted the issue by stating it was " bad driving by op".
Things just became fact because you assumed.

Op should have recourse to appeal the allegation logged against them.

Presume there should be CCTV in the car park so at very least op should be allowed the opportunity to actually view it.

I would presume that adhering to health and safety rules is part of the OP's work description... So it must follow that if they are passing judgement on his work he should have a right to challenge it.

Claw Hammer

Get Real wrote: »

In that case, why do people have house numbers on their door, in full public view? What use is that to the average Joe walking by?

?

People have numbers on their door. That is why there are restrictions on data controllers keeping the name and address of a person unless they have consent or are obliged by law to have it and the leakage of such data is an offence.

evolving_doors

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with this post. The main reason GDPR was brought in was to stop big corporations harvesting your data and storing it for themselves or selling it on to other companies so they could exploit your age, location, websites visited, telephone number, what you view etc etc.

Although it's very broad, its original intention wasn't as a defence to the trivialities of everyday life.

In that case, why do people have house numbers on their door, in full public view? What use is that to the average Joe walking by?

In the OP's case I think he should forget about gdpr and data storage.
Although it should have been outlined to him at the start how the system worked with monitoring of employees' cars on the work premises and health and safety etc.
I think it's only fair that he should be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations.

ED E

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A licence plate is personal data and it is a GDPR breach. many people remember other peoples licence numbers and all it takes is one person to recognise the number and you are outed.

What are you basing that on?

GM228

ED E wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

See this post:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109286177&postcount=14

Mrs OBumble

evolving_doors wrote: »

I think it's only fair that he should be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations.

Agreed.

But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

Seth Brundle

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agreed.

But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

Is that relevant though under GDPR?
Surely given that its personally identifiable data, the OPs rights apply and it should not be made public within the organisation, no matter the reason?

Ash.J.Williams

I work in a similar environment, American i presume? They have these Lick arse empowerment schemes where they encourage staff to essentially snitch on colleagues for breaching health and safety.

ED E

GM228 wrote: »

See this post:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109286177&postcount=14

Does that make every photo of a high street a DP breach?

Phileas Frog

Vetch wrote: »

Vehicle reg is personal data as it can lead to the identification of a driver/owner of a car. Opinion on this was included in guidelines published by EU Data Protection Commissioners. It is irrelevant who owns the car. It's the fact that a person is identifiable is the deciding factor.

Have you a link to these guidelines? Before I go out and paint over my car registration plate.

Who are the EU Data Protection Commissioners? :rolleyes:

Vetch

Phileas Frog wrote: »

Have you a link to these guidelines? Before I go out and paint over my car registration plate.

Who are the EU Data Protection Commissioners? :rolleyes:

Sure, here you go https://www.pdp.ie/docs/1030.pdf.
Can I be there when you're explaining to the Gardai why you've painted over your reg plates?

Article 29 Working Party now European Data Protection Board constitute body of EU Data Protection Commissioners

GM228

ED E wrote: »

Does that make every photo of a high street a DP breach?

In theory potentially yes depending on how the image is used, that is why Google Street View or Garda Tweets for example have registrations blanked or blurred.

Could make an interesting test case if ever pursued.

ForestFire

Has anyone posted the rules of a zebra crossing yet? While some have made a lot of assumptions of what happen.

From RSA:
You do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step
onto the crossing. Never step onto the crossing if this would cause a
driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

While there is also a responsibility on the driver to be prepared, to slow and stop (if safe), most people think they have a devine right of way and will just waltz out without looking or warning.

We cannot begin to know what happened in the op situation, but without a chance to view and challange any evidence, their private data and accusations should not be made Public.

HR OR H&S in a company are not law experts or nforcers either and do not always know all the rules fully themselves.

maestroamado

I assume you have access to what i will describe as an internal forum for whatever purpose, i am assuming you have access to said forum.
If it were me i would politely re-post your own number plate with added note that neither you or your passenger have any recollection of this incident.
I think this will make your point and if you reasonably confident you did not cause danger this will kill it.
On the other hand it will open the door for the person who made the post to confirm, to do this they will have to come forward and say what happened.


I drive abroad abit, for example in Spain the "person has the total right on crossing" and its not like here that we need to make out intention known to traffic. I t could be someone from this type of culture made complaint.
The other day i was in local town and stopped at crossing before people went on and i could tell by their reaction they were surprised that i stopped.
Basically we all know our own good/bad driving habits and if you think it is a possibility this may have happened let it go.
On the other hand if you think it is very unlikely i think be worth while looking into.

deravarra

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agreed.

But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

Unfortunately, it hasnt. And this whole issue has pushed me into getting a dashcam.

evolving_doors

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agreed.

But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

I have no recollection of said event, nor does my carpooling colleague.

If they had seen a CCTV then their point about recollection would be moot.
So your belief about the employee knowing is currently redundant.

Look we know the way these companies operate.
Theres a health and safety meeting where everyone pours their heart out in a shaming session about what they witnessed of their fellow colleagues (walking with coffee mug, walking while talking on phone, not holding the hand rail on stairs, going up stairs on left hand side, going over 10.265kmph in the car park, not reversing into car space in car park etc.).
It's like something you'd see in a cult with all the shaming and flagellation.

Also compound with the fact that an employee is given credit for making a 'good catch'... Actually some places you're not allowed to not contribute in the session.

So you get random accusations that are thrown out like the one in the OP. And it IS usually linked to your work reviews.

deravarra

evolving_doors wrote: »

If they had seen a CCTV then their point about recollection would be moot.
So your belief about the employee knowing is currently redundant.

Look we know the way these companies operate.
Theres a health and safety meeting where everyone pours their heart out in a shaming session about what they witnessed of their fellow colleagues (walking with coffee mug, walking while talking on phone, not holding the hand rail on stairs, going up stairs on left hand side, going over 10.265kmph in the car park, not reversing into car space in car park etc.).
It's like something you'd see in a cult with all the shaming and flagellation.

Also compound with the fact that an employee is given credit for making a 'good catch'... Actually some places you're not allowed to not contribute in the session.

So you get random accusations that are thrown out like the one in the OP. And it IS usually linked to your work reviews.

You know the system I have at work.

Cazale

deravarra wrote:

You know the system I have at work.

Is this a mirashare system? If so someone with supervisor/admin access can edit or delete it.

deravarra

Cazale wrote: »

Is this a mirashare system? If so someone with supervisor/admin access can edit or delete it.

Not sure. I was referring to the type of "infarctions" that can be reported

ittakestwo

ForestFire wrote: »

Has anyone posted the rules of a zebra crossing yet? While some have made a lot of assumptions of what happen.

From RSA:
You do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step
onto the crossing. Never step onto the crossing if this would cause a
driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

While there is also a responsibility on the driver to be prepared, to slow and stop (if safe), most people think they have a devine right of way and will just waltz out without looking or warning.

We cannot begin to know what happened in the op situation, but without a chance to view and challange any evidence, their private data and accusations should not be made Public.


HR OR H&S in a company are not law experts or nforcers either and do not always know all the rules fully themselves.

If anyone walks onto a zebra crossing and is hit by a car, The driver will be found the guilty party. Every judge would blame the driver for not giving way.

The rule quoted above does not even make much sense. A collision of a pedestrian and car can only happen while the pedestrian is on the zebra crossing so automatically has the right of way according to the rule.

ForestFire

ittakestwo wrote: »

If anyone walks onto a zebra crossing and is hit by a car, The driver will be found the guilty party. Every judge would blame the driver for not giving way.

The rule quoted above does not even make much sense. A collision of a pedestrian and car can only happen while the pedestrian is on the zebra crossing so automatically has the right of way according to the rule.

you maybe right about what a judge may or may not do, But there was no collision so its not relevant for the OP's case here.

Here is the additional part from the Rules of the road book to clarify what is meant by "stepping on to the cross road".

Always watch carefully for approaching traffic. Place one foot on the
crossing to indicate that you wish to cross. Wait until traffic has stopped before you start crossing.

Its quite clear, Pedestrians do not have the right of way, They must wait for Traffic to stop, before crossing.

ittakestwo

ForestFire wrote: »

you maybe right about what a judge may or may not do, But there was no collision so its not relevant for the OP's case here.

Here is the additional part from the Rules of the road book to clarify what is meant by "stepping on to the cross road".

Always watch carefully for approaching traffic. Place one foot on the
crossing to indicate that you wish to cross. Wait until traffic has stopped before you start crossing.

Its quite clear, Pedestrians do not have the right of way, They must wait for Traffic to stop, before crossing.

Of course pedestrians have ''right of way' at zebra/pedestrians crossing... .If doing a driving test and you don't slow down at a pedestrian crossing even if no pedestrians are there you will get a mark against you. drivers have to be alert too for pedestrians who may or may not cross it. both pedestrians and cars should be alert to each other at zebra crossings . But if an accident actually happens the car will be at fault

If car hits pedestrian on zebra crossing= Big insurance pay out from drivers insurance.

Thirdfox

Page 121 of the Rules of the road:
https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, to proceed with caution.

You must always yield to:
pedestrians already crossing at a junction;
pedestrians on a zebra crossing;
pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing; and
pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety, a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians.

Think that's pretty clear.

Claw Hammer

The "Rules of the Road" are not the "Laws of the Road" nor do they purport to be.
They are for guidance of road users and so are advisory. They are concerned with safety rather than defining rights. People follow the Rules of the Road, they are far less likely to have an accident. What is dangerous as people relying on technical definitions of right of way rather than on common sense.