You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 06:05 GeoffC wrote: > Ret. wrote: >> steve robinson wrote: >>> Cynic wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> And when you're ID'd as a possible perpetrator? >>>>> >>>>> And why would I be? >>>> >>>> Because, as you keep reminding us, the police are only human, and >>>> humans occasionally make mistakes. >>> >>> Its not occasional i got picked out of a lineup years ago yet i was >>> just someone the police rounded up at the local precinct and asked >>> if i wouldnt mind helpin etc etc . >>> >>> When the alledged crime occured (about 5 days before)i was the best >>> part of 250 miles away with at least 12 MOD police officers as >>> witnesses monitored by cctv private security and several navel >>> officers >> >> I've held dozens of ID parades. It's quite unusual, although not >> unknown for a witness to pick the wrong person. Of course there is >> never any likelihood of the person who is wrongly picked becoming a >> suspect. > > Or the wrong person being incarcerated for a crime they never > committed, no that never happens does it? > Course not. I never said that - but ID parade 'stooges' are simply selected, according to certain physical traits (height, hair colour, age, etc) off the streets or from colleges, work places, etc. The officer running the parade knows, of course, who the real suspect is, and knows that if a stooge is identified then it is a wrong id. Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 06:12 Bod wrote: > On 24/03/2010 08:29, Theodore wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:52:11 +0000, Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 23/03/2010 11:40, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> According to the article, once all the current 'batch' of cameras >>>> are up and running, there will be around 560,000 'reads' per day. >>> >>> Is that all? >>> >>> Who do you >>>> think is going to be checking up on the movements of 560,000 >>>> individual vehicles every day? (And why would they want to?). >>>> >>> >>> OK... >>> >>> Say for example that you do a bit of gardening and own an >>> allotment. You do a regular journey once a week or a fortnight to >>> an agricultural supplier where you buy bits and bobs for the >>> allotment. Your wife is a hairdresser and as you have more time >>> free, you make regular trips to the hairdressing suppliers to buy >>> various consumables and equipment for the missus. At both >>> locations, you happen to pay cash because its small amounts and you >>> always have enough money on you. On the Monday, you went to the >>> agricultural suppliers and then the >>> hairdressers. From there, you went to the allotment where you spent >>> a couple of hours before returning home. >>> >>> On Wednesday, you go to the allotment to check the plants and then >>> take a drive into a city. On that Wednesday there's a terrorist >>> attack on a high value target in that city within a couple of >>> hundred yards from where you parked. Forensic examination reveals a >>> fertiliser bomb was the explosive device used. >>> >>> Using ANPR data collated on a database, it could be ascertained >>> that you made regular trips to a place that sold fertiliser >>> (agricultural suppliers) and also a place that sold hydrogen >>> peroxide (hairdressing suppliers) and then went to the allotment >>> where you had a shed that you could construct a fertiliser bomb. On >>> the morning, it could be claimed that you went to collect the bomb, >>> drove to the target area then planted the device. You would have >>> little to prove you didn't. You would have trace chemicals on your >>> clothes, in your house, in the car, in the allotment shed. You paid >>> cash so you can't prove that you didn't buy the ingredients needed. >>> Your journeys show a pattern that could be interpreted as a bomber >>> buying the components in small amounts so not to arouse suspicion, >>> storing them in an allotment shed whereupon you assembled the >>> device and transported it to its target. Hey presto, the Police have >>> their man. You have no defence even >>> though all you did was a bit of gardening and some errands for the >>> wife... >> >> A nice, if slightly exaggerated example. >> >> Ret. doesn't seem to understand in the slightest about how valuable >> such data will be and how many innocent people could be picked up >> simply for driving in the wrong area at the wrong time. >> >> Let alone private investigators bribing someone to search the >> database in divorce cases etc etc. The list is endless. >> >> > > How long have you suffered from paranoia? This is exactly the point isn't it? They all come up with these ludicrous scenarios to suggest just *how* you could possibly become embroiled in an investigation - but so far, despite ANPR having been running for some time, can produce no actual incidents. On the other hand, if you do a google on 'ANPR successes' you will come up with stories such as: "Police officers in the county's ANPR unit arrested more than 800 people and seized stolen property worth more than �200,000 in an eight month period. Between April and the end of November 2005, the ANPR team arrested 801 people and recovered 71 stolen vehicles. In addition, 426 uninsured motor vehicles were seized, 2, 270 fixed penalty notices were issued to drivers who had vehicles on the road without a current tax disc or insurance. Inspector George Cooper, who heads the ANPR team, said that he was delighted with their performance and their contribution to combating crime in Northamptonshire." So why don't they concentrate on the huge benefits that this technology brings rather than on imaginary and fanciful downsides? Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 06:13 Bod wrote: > On 24/03/2010 08:33, Theodore wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:31:03 +0000, Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On 24/03/2010 08:29, Theodore wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:52:11 +0000, Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 23/03/2010 11:40, Ret. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> According to the article, once all the current 'batch' of >>>>>> cameras are up and running, there will be around 560,000 'reads' >>>>>> per day. >>>>> >>>>> Is that all? >>>>> >>>>> Who do you >>>>>> think is going to be checking up on the movements of 560,000 >>>>>> individual vehicles every day? (And why would they want to?). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK... >>>>> >>>>> Say for example that you do a bit of gardening and own an >>>>> allotment. You do a regular journey once a week or a fortnight to >>>>> an agricultural supplier where you buy bits and bobs for the >>>>> allotment. Your wife is a hairdresser and as you have more time >>>>> free, you make regular trips to the hairdressing suppliers to buy >>>>> various consumables and equipment for the missus. At both >>>>> locations, you happen to pay cash because its small amounts and >>>>> you always have enough money on you. >>>>> >>>>> On the Monday, you went to the agricultural suppliers and then the >>>>> hairdressers. From there, you went to the allotment where you >>>>> spent a couple of hours before returning home. >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, you go to the allotment to check the plants and >>>>> then take a drive into a city. On that Wednesday there's a >>>>> terrorist attack on a high value target in that city within a >>>>> couple of hundred yards from where you parked. Forensic >>>>> examination reveals a fertiliser bomb was the explosive device >>>>> used. >>>>> >>>>> Using ANPR data collated on a database, it could be ascertained >>>>> that you made regular trips to a place that sold fertiliser >>>>> (agricultural suppliers) and also a place that sold hydrogen >>>>> peroxide (hairdressing suppliers) and then went to the allotment >>>>> where you had a shed that you could construct a fertiliser bomb. >>>>> On the morning, it could be claimed that you went to collect the >>>>> bomb, drove to the target area then planted the device. You would >>>>> have little to prove you didn't. You would have trace chemicals >>>>> on your clothes, in your house, in the car, in the allotment >>>>> shed. You paid cash so you can't prove that you didn't buy the >>>>> ingredients needed. Your journeys show a pattern that could be >>>>> interpreted as a bomber buying the components in small amounts so >>>>> not to arouse suspicion, storing them in an allotment shed >>>>> whereupon you assembled the device and transported it to its >>>>> target. >>>>> >>>>> Hey presto, the Police have their man. You have no defence even >>>>> though all you did was a bit of gardening and some errands for >>>>> the wife... >>>> >>>> A nice, if slightly exaggerated example. >>>> >>>> Ret. doesn't seem to understand in the slightest about how valuable >>>> such data will be and how many innocent people could be picked up >>>> simply for driving in the wrong area at the wrong time. >>>> >>>> Let alone private investigators bribing someone to search the >>>> database in divorce cases etc etc. The list is endless. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> How long have you suffered from paranoia? >> >> Ever been arrested for something you didn't do? >> >> > > No and neither have my friends or family either. Likewise here. Kev
From: Big Les Wade on 24 Mar 2010 06:13 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> posted >On 24/03/2010 08:31, Bod wrote: > >> How long have you suffered from paranoia? > >Ask the guy who was wrongly convicted for the murder of Gill Dando. > >He was convicted purely on the fact he was in the area and minute >traces of gunpowder were found in his pocket. Moreover they were only found a year after the killing, in a jacket that he might not even have owned on the day. And the mere fact that BG lived in Fulham was put forward as suspicious, even though thousands of other people did too. Although AFAIK computers were not used in the BG fit-up, it was a good example of how industrial-scale data collection can be used to frame almost anybody, once you decide that he is the culprit. If you collect every single piece of information you can about a person, and put it all together, you are sure to find a few "suspicious coincidences" to put before a jury. Giant databases, fast computers and universal electronic surveillance simply make the process cheaper and easier. -- Les Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out to be linked to serious offences.
From: Phil Stovell on 24 Mar 2010 06:20
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:05:59 +0000, Ret. wrote: > I never said that - but ID parade 'stooges' are simply selected, according > to certain physical traits (height, hair colour, age, etc) off the streets > or from colleges, work places, etc. The officer running the parade knows, > of course, who the real suspect is, and knows that if a stooge is > identified then it is a wrong id. Surely it must have happened that the stooge actually was the guilty party and the suspect was mis-identified? |