From: Brimstone on 24 Mar 2010 07:43
"Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> 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.
But that's all for your own good, and keeping track of where people have
been is merely an extension of that.
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 07:54
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:56:56 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk>
>> So don't you include in that the privacy to travel where you like,
>> when you like, without anyone keeping records of what you do?
> Of course not. It doesn't prevent me going where and when I like.
> If they start to inhibit my movements, then I'll be concerned.
It is unlikely to prevent you going where you want, but it may well
result in the journies costing you a bit more.
ISTM that having lots of fixed ANPR cameras will make it easy for
other places to follow the lead that London has taken and impose
"congestion charges" on motorists entering their town or city limits.
The cost of installing the necessary ANPR systems to enforce such
schemes has been a major deterrent to their introduction elsewhere,
but if the government is going to set up such cameras anyway, we may
as well get as much income from them as we can.
They will also obviously be very useful in retrospectively detecting
speeding offences over wide areas of the country by using them to
determine the average speed between two or more cameras as is already
done on a few motorways. The government will obviously be wanting to
recoup the cost of the cameras ASAP, and using them to issue speeding
fines would seem an excellent way to do so.
We could also introduce an "unnecessary journey" surcharge, whereby
motorists must pay a fee if they undertake a journey that was covered
by public transport. It could operate similarly to the congestion
charge - the onus being on the motorist to determine whether they need
to pay, and a computer search of the ANPR database is carried out
every now and again to identify drivers who made such journies but did
not pay, and issue such people penalty notices. Obviously this would
be done in order to prevent global warming and save the planet rather
than being merely a money-grabbing opportunity.
Once you have such a database, the uses to which it may be put are
limited only by the imagination of officials who wish to maximise the
income they generate and/or control the lives of the population.
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 08:00
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:13:38 +0000, Big Les Wade <Les(a)nowhere.com>
>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.
Wrong. You collect everything you can, and then put a *carefully
selected* subset of that information to a jury.
When it is a human looking at all the data, the human would need to
make a conscious decision to present the evidence dishonestly. When a
computer is looking for patterns in a database it is following a
program that automatically selects only the potentially damning subset
of data, and so no deliberate dishonesty is necessary before jumping
to an erroneous conclusion.
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 08:34
On 23 Mar 2010 20:02:15 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Except that it wasn't Joe Bloggs at all, just someone who cloned the
>> numberplate of a similar colour and model car he saw in his home town.
>Depends, of course, on whether ANPR stores images as well as just
>registration/location data as to whether even that's necessary...
It won't store images. Even if it did, one red Ford Fiesta looks the
same on CCTV as any other red Ford Fiesta.
From: Norman Wells on 24 Mar 2010 08:40
> 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
Then, to cull from the thread about your being asked to provide a DNA sample
and refusing, the database will be pointlessly cluttered up with irrelevant
information. Your reasoning there was that you didn't want that to happen
so you declined.
Why don't you be consistent here and say (a) that the information should not
be collected or (b) that it should not be retained if it is?