You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 11:41 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:16:29 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>The drivers wouldn't though. >> >>They would on a CCTV quality of image. Note that even the much higher >>quality photographs taken by a Gatso are not good enough to identify a >>driver in most cases. > >I don't know about gatsos but I got done by a roadside plod van scamera in >hampshire a few years back and in the picture they nicely sent me when I >queried it my face was obscured by the sun visor but my wifes face was clearly >visible and could easily have identified her. Sometimes the image will be clear enough to identify people. More often than not it will not be. A roadside camera is closer to the car than an overhead gantry camera and is probably a film camera rather than CCD, and is also at a more favourable angle. -- Cynic
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 11:53 Theodore wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:15:27 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On 24/03/2010 09:08, Theodore wrote: >>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:37:53 +0000, Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> >>> 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. >>> >>> Well that's nice for you, but if or when it does happen you might >>> not call it paranoia to be worried about this increasing >>> surveillance society we're living under. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 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. > > > 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? You have not been able to do that for quite a number of years if you travel by air. Has it bothered you to know that someone somewhere knows that you flew to Malaga in 2004? Kev Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 11:59 Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:56:56 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: > >>> 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. Absolutely - and also to introduce 'cost per mile' on journeys as well. > > 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. Indeed - and in view of the ever increasing congestion on our roads, it will no doubt be inevitable that some form of travel deterrent will have to be created eventually. > > 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. ISTM that the vast majority of motorists adhere strictly to motorway roadworks speed limits where there are average speed cameras installed (the fact that they don't really need to is immaterial). So if such a scheme became national I reckon that income from speeding fines would actually drop. Motorists will not speed if they know detection is inevitable and unavoidable. > > 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. Or simply to reduce the already serious congestion we have on many roads? Something will certainly have to be done sooner or later - particularly with the many thousands of immigrants still flooding into the country. > > 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. Or by a genuine desire to resolve many of the problems that are becoming apparent with personal transport? Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 12:02 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 08:31, Bod wrote: > >> How long have you suffered from paranoia? >> >> Bod > > 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. No he wasn't. Kev
From: Phil Stovell on 24 Mar 2010 12:29
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:13:16 +0000, Ret. wrote: > According to Wikipedia - anpr data will be stored for five years before > being destroyed - not decades. Does Wikipedia say why? If it's had all the immediate successes you've listed, why does it need to be kept at all after it has served it's immediate purpose? |