From: Big Les Wade on
Bod <bodron57(a)> posted
>On 24/03/2010 09:54, Conor wrote:
>> 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.
> As I understand it, the police have learned from that mistake and

What is the source of this understanding of yours? Police assurances?

>no longer accept such small quantities as hard evidence.

Actually, it wasn't the smallness of the sample that was the "mistake".
It was the fact that prosecution falsely implied that the gunpowder in
BG's pocket linked him to the crime scene.

Notice I put "mistake" in inverted commas. What I mean is that they
simply lied.

>Look at it the other way, far more innocent suspects have been
>eliminated from police enquiries by using DNA.

They don't need a database to do that. If they have arrested a suspect
they can take his DNA and compare it with the crime scene sample.

It is the database that is the danger, not DNA fingerprinting per se.

Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
From: Ret. on
Conor wrote:
> On 23/03/2010 20:04, Ret. wrote:
>> These are simply traffic census points. Intended to discover traffic
>> flow along a particular road and where it is coming from and going
>> to - usually with the aim of improving local roads. Being rude and
>> uncooperative is self-defeating.
> What does where I've come from have to do with traffic flow? What does
> who I am working for have to do with traffic flow? What does what I'm
> carrying have to do with traffic flow? What does my name have to do
> with traffic flow?
> Surely, all it needs is those people you see sat at the side of a road
> in pairs with a counter counting the traffic by category?

Determining where vehicles are coming from and going to is immensely useful
if you are looking at improving local roads infrastructure. Little point in
building a new road from A to B if the traffic on the over-congested road is
only using it briefly to get from C to D.
If you are driving a truck then who you work for may well enable them to
deduce the likely traffic movements from your depot along that road.
The paranoia that infuses so many posts on is astonishing.


From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:54:06 +0000, AlanG <invalid(a)> wrote:

>>It is so trivial to retain the non-hits that it will almost certainly
>>be done. The police retain the DNA and fingerprints of innocent
>>people and did so even when they were breaking the law by retaining
>>them, so they will almost certainly retain the data on innocent
>>motorists (even if they claim not to).

>ISTR an article in the Reg last year saying the data was retained for
>a month then wiped. Or was that some other data?

I don't believe statements that data is wiped unless there is a
plausible independent monitoring process. We were told the same about
DNA retention before it was permitted.


From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:27 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)>

> I worry more about the nanny state that is encroaching on us, ie;
>must wear a crash helmet for a m/bike, also coming soon, not allowed to
>smoke in my own car on my own, can't take certain photos in London,
>can't take videos of our own kids at school etc.
> I likes my choices in a supposedly free society.

And you don't think there is a possibility that the ANPR database
could be used to impose more nannyism? The more that people are
surveilled, the greater the number of opportunities to impose

So eventually someone gets a knock on the door from social services
who are concerned about how many time the parents of young children
are visiting fast food places, for example.


From: Ret. on
Conor wrote:
> On 23/03/2010 11:01, Ret. wrote:
>> As I have mentioned in another post - the vast number of 'reads' per
>> day means that it would be impossible to record the movements of
>> 'all' vehicles -
> You obviously have little idea of modern computing power and network
> speeds.
> Tracking 30 million vehicles is nothing. Google indexes billions of
> websites and responds to billions of web searches daily and gives
> results in a blink of an eye complete with targetted advertising based
> on cookies stored on your computer, the searches you make and profiled
> information they have on you.
> And all of that sits in a couple of buildings.

Yes, yes, yes. But is anyone going to look at all that data to determine
that you, or me, or Cynic, or whoever, went to Tescos last Thursday? They
might if an incident occurred there, but the overwhelming chance is that
no-one will ever look at 99.9% of the collected data because, in itself, it
is of no use or interest to anyone that you or I or Cynic went to Tescos
last Thursday.

Do you see what I am getting at? The data is there - but the overwhelming
mass of it will never be looked at by anyone for any purpose.