Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
#1862174
cotterpot wrote:The link to that CAA 'process' is broken :wink:

Ah, it didn't survive copy and paste from the original thread. Should work now.
cotterpot liked this
#1862176
"However, you should be aware that this matter was raised with the ICO previously and they agreed with the CAA's position."

Not sure what 'this matter' was, nor what the 'CAA's position' was the ICO agreed with. Without the context it is difficult to understand the answer given. If the question asked was simply about the CAA being required to maintain a register and make it available for inspection then I am sure that the ICO would have agreed with that position. But what isn't clear is whether the question was about how the register was made available, including whether publishing details of owners' names and addresses on the internet complied with data protection legislation and principles.

Regards

Mike
Miscellaneous liked this
#1862182
Miscellaneous wrote:@rdfb I'd argue maintaining a public register does not necessitate putting it online with all the information it contains.

... I'd argue a paper file in a filing cabinet that can be examined by anyone visiting, or even via written request, meets the criteria of keeping a public record. ..


ISTR (possibly from studying Air Law for my BoT PPL exam*, when the pertinent data was held by the Air Registration Board), that the information could be obtained from ARB by letter (possibly for a small fee; possibly 1/- :) ) or by calling in person at their offices (possibly Shell-Mex House).

[*incidentally, the only part of the syllabus for which my Air Cadet tests and Canadian PPL exams had not fully prepared me :) ]


There is an interestingly (to me) analogous provision under UK FOIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... Exemptions

One of the Absolute Exemptions (ie, no 'public interest test' need be applied) by which a Public Authority may refuse to provide a reply to a Request for Information is under s.21: "Information that is accessible by other means (s.21)"

So it could be argued that if a noise complainant, or journalist, or any one else with a passing interest (benign or less so) could obtain the information by writing to or turning up at the pertinent CAA office, then there is no inherent obligation (under ICAO or under UK Statute or Regulation) for the CAA to make it available online. But IANAL ..
#1862192
Dave W wrote:The CAA's view on that (via a letter to ls8pilot, from a previous thread):

I am writing in respect of your enquiry relating to ‘G-INFO’ which, as you know, is the UK Register of Civil Aircraft.

The CAA is responsible for maintaining the UK Register of Civil Aircraft in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO). The ANO details what information must be held against each aircraft and this includes the name and address of the registered owner of the aircraft. The CAA is also required by the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 to make the UK Register available for inspection by any person.

<snip>


The ANO does not require the register to be published, and the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/199 ... tents/made) say
Inspection of aircraft register

8. The Authority shall, at all reasonable times and upon payment to it of any applicable charge under section 11 of the Act for inspecting the register, make the register of aircraft available for inspection by any person.

I do not see how they could interpret the 1991 Regulation as requiring them to publish it!
kanga liked this
#1862481
That the ICO agrees with the CAA's interpretation of the ICAO requirement should not be a surprise.

What they don't allude to is if the ICO thinks that stuff needs to be available on the internet without any protection for those listed is another matter.
#1862487
The recent reply that I had from the ICO neither agreed nor disagreed with the CAA's interpretation, but advised that if they received a complaint from an individual about that individual's data being published in this manner they would investigate it.

Personally I think that would be an effective and low cost way to get more clarity. Perhaps one of the pilots who has recently been harassed by the FR24 brigade would consider it?

There are various steps that the CAA could take that are not incompatible with the secondary legislation that they are relying upon - for example, requiring proof of identity of those seeking the information, and maintaining a record of who has received the data. (Much like DVLA do, thereby if the data starts being used for unlawful purposes, much easier to track down who obtained the data). So, a possible outcome could be that the CAA still have to make it available, but with far improved controls around that.

The fact that the CAA try to hide behind a bit of early 1990s legislation, that was written before data protection was understood as an issue, just shows how out of touch the CAA are, and how little they care about the impact of their actions on the 'customers'. Most other government agencies would have been going back their relevant departments saying 'we and our customers have a problem with this statutory instrument, can it be amended to make it fit for the present time'.

But given the CAA don't care..... The legislation that the CAA are relying upon is 'only' a statutory instrument, and amending an SI is not a big deal in the scheme of things. The DfT would need to lead on the amendment, so perhaps we should be lobbying MPs to get it on the DfT radar
#1862497
They don't even need to do any of that. They can just require people to provide details and upload a photo ID as they require us to do when we want to register with the portal. Job done.

But even if they did not want to do that from the outset. Just putting it behind a normal registration portal would be a good start.
#1862529
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:They don't even need to do any of that. They can just require people to provide details and upload a photo ID as they require us to do when we want to register with the portal. Job done.

But even if they did not want to do that from the outset. Just putting it behind a normal registration portal would be a good start.


I agree @FD. If the regs are as posted by Dominie above then I do not see that they need to be amended. All it needs is for the CAA to consider the way they make the information available including whether the register should be made available only on request rather than published online.

Data protection has come quite a long way since the original decision to publish in this way so it would be useful if the CAA conducted a review in any event to determine if publication to the public at large meets the new requirements.

Regards

Mike
Flyin'Dutch', rikur_, Aerials and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7