From: boltar2003 on 24 Mar 2010 08:40
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:34:51 +0000
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
The drivers wouldn't though.
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 08:51
On 23 Mar 2010 20:07:42 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>I was thinking more of "Why bother matching the make/model?"
>Several years back, a bunch of us watched from an office window as a team
>of scrotes picked up a parked motorbike, put it into a white Vauxhall/
>Renault/Nissan (I forget which) van, and buggered off - bike alarm still
>We all wrote the van plate down.
>The plate belonged to a blue Kia hatch.
That's where recent technology *has* made a change that I regard as an
improvement. Checking a plate used to invove radioing the station and
asking for a check, the results of which were radioed back. Obviously
the police are not going to do that for every vehicle they see on the
But these days the DVLA database can be queried automatically from the
car at the press of a button, so a police officer is more likely to
idly query the plate of the car in front on the offchance that there
is an anomaly.
If you are going to clone a plate, it is so trivial to find a vehicle
of the same model and colour to clone from that it is hardly worth
*not* taking such a precaution.
From: Big Les Wade on 24 Mar 2010 09:21
>>if movements of suspected active criminals are recorded - then a
>>pattern begins to build up that may later be tied into specific crimes.
>Until your movements have been thoroughly checked how will the police
>and intelligence services know that you are beyond reproach?
Thanks guys - two super additions to my authoritative National Archive
of Kafkaesque Slogans.
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 09:46
Phil Stovell wrote:
> 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?
Clearly I cannot say that it has never happened - but it would have to be
one hell of a coincidence don't you think?
From: Mike Scott on 24 Mar 2010 10:03
> 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.
It seems a perfect example of the fact that "something unlikely" is
actually extremely probable to happen. The trick is simply to select the
"unlikely" event /after/ the fact. Too many do not understand this.
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England