You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: nonanon on 23 Mar 2010 08:03 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:58:41 +0000, Ret. wrote: > nonanon wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:50:31 +0000, Ret. wrote: >> >>> From the current issue of the Cheshire Police monthly newspaper in an >>> article describing the creation of the NWMPG (North West Motorway >>> Police Group) which is a joint venture between Cheshire Police, >>> Merseyside Police, Lancashire Police and, shortly, Greater Manchester >>> Police: >>> >>> Using Number Plate Technology; >> >> Uh, you do know this has been happening for many years? Thus the law >> change to require certain fonts on licence plates? >> >> Heathrow and City of London have been doing this for yonks. > > Yes of course - but static sites are a comparatively recent > introduction. All the sites in CoL and Heathrow are static. They've been recording millions of licence plates for years and years.
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 08:09 Phil Stovell wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:01:47 +0000, 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 - and why would they want to waste time and resources >> in doing so? The only vehicles that are tracked are those recorded >> as 'hits' - ie, those vehicles that are 'tagged' as being of police >> interest. > > I could quite easily write a program that traced, as far as possible, > every car number that appeared on every camera. Get me the data, and > I'll do it! Sort all the data sets into ascending registration number > and date/time of photographing and location - I expect you can see > what I mean. Even if you could do such a thing - it would be pointless without a 'person' looking at it for some reason. The system I have described is on North West motorways only - and yet there is a projected 'read' of 560,000 vehicles *per day*. What value could be gleaned from such a mass of useless information? Kev
From: Adrian on 23 Mar 2010 08:54 fred <not(a)for.mail> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > [1] Just think how many posts google groups archives a day. I'm not so sure that's a great example these days...
From: Phil Stovell on 23 Mar 2010 09:26 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:13:32 +0000, Ret. wrote: > I accept that the computer technology is there to record all these reads > (although, even in just the North West, with 560k 'reads' a day - the > database would very soon become ludicrously overwhelmed with useless > information). But the fear that someone will be 'watching' where you are > going is baseless. If it can be done, it will be done. 560k per day is trivial. > Kev
From: Phil Stovell on 23 Mar 2010 09:37
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:09:25 +0000, Ret. wrote: > Phil Stovell wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:01:47 +0000, 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 - and why would they want to waste time and resources in doing >>> so? The only vehicles that are tracked are those recorded as 'hits' - >>> ie, those vehicles that are 'tagged' as being of police interest. >> >> I could quite easily write a program that traced, as far as possible, >> every car number that appeared on every camera. Get me the data, and >> I'll do it! Sort all the data sets into ascending registration number >> and date/time of photographing and location - I expect you can see what >> I mean. > > Even if you could do such a thing - it would be pointless without a > 'person' looking at it for some reason. The system I have described is on > North West motorways only - and yet there is a projected 'read' of 560,000 > vehicles *per day*. Data volume: RegNo 8 bytes location 8 bytes (at most) date/time 8 bytes (in microseconds) 24 * 560,000 = 13MB. Next to nothing. A CD (700MB) would hold nearly 2 months worth of data to be left on a train. An 8GB memory stick would hold around 2 years worth. > What value could be gleaned from such a mass of useless information? I don't know. Ask Mike Corley. What value in storing all the emails and websites visited? > Kev |