You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 15:58 Kim Bolton wrote: > Phil Stovell wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:09:25 +0000, Ret. wrote: > >>> 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. > > I said further up the thread that it would be the equivalent of > storing a handful of digital photos per day - that'll be two photos > per day data equivalence. > > The tools are already available to data mine this for anything that > can be thought of. > > Kev seems to think that this is so difficult as to be unrealistic. No I don't - and once again you misunderstand my point. Let me explain again. If there was an ANPR static camera between my house and Tescos, then it would log and record my journeys there. I accept that. My point is, however, that it is simply binary data - it is not something that anyone will look at, or even *want* to look at *unless* there is a very good reason to do so. So no-one will 'know' my pattern of visiting Tescos - when I go, how often I go, what route I take, *unless* they go looking for that information - and they wont because it is of no interest to them. It *might* be if some major incident occurs locally - but that is the only time such personal and innocuous behaviour would be 'viewed' by a human being. Apart from that rare and unlikely situation - the information is just data and nothing more. There will be such a massive amount of such data within the system once ANPR rolls out nationwide and in many more places, that it will be a resource consuming task to research data that they *do* want to get access to. They wont have time to go researching how often Joe Bloggs visits the betting shop. Kev
From: Brimstone on 24 Mar 2010 15:59 "Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:eaqkq55errg0lbcna9scprfna2i32u2n7h(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:15:52 -0000, "Brimstone" > <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>|| I class all of those bodies as being part of "the government" THeir >>>>|| funding and policies are controlled by politicians. > >>>>Police policy controlled by politicians? if only... > >>> Of course it is. The Home Office decides on the priorities and the >>> targets. > >>That only tells them what they must do. > > A body that is under the complete control of the government must > surely be regarded as being part of the government? > It is indeed a part of the government machine, but it is not "the Government". If all their policies and actions are controlled by politicians why are there official enquiries into some of their actions? Quite simply because not everyone employed in the government machine is capable of self restraint and treating other people with respect and consideration.
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 16:02 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 10:58, Bod wrote: > >>> >>> ANPR is bringing massive benefits to crime fighting and traffic >>> offence detecting and *that* is what we should be concentrating on >>> - not imaginary and fanciful downsides. >>> > > How does it bring a benefit to crime fighting? You've just told us > that information stored is useless and that nobody looks at it. Do I *really* need to explain that to you? > > It doesn't detect any traffic offences other than POTENTIAL Insurance, > MOT or VED offences. Hell, its even so shite at the VED one that the > gubbermint brought out a 5 day get out of jail period. Sigh - it will trigger alarms for *any* vehicle that is tagged for police interest. That interest could be for many reasons: vehicle owned by dissie driver, vehicle owned by someone tipped off to the police as a regular drink/driver, known drug dealers, etc. etc. etc. Kev
From: ARWadsworth on 24 Mar 2010 16:40 "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:9-CdnRISCbo2wjfWnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > ARWadsworth wrote: > || "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message > || news:80t1akF4qfU1(a)mid.individual.net... > ||| On 23/03/2010 22:21, Steve Firth wrote: > ||| > |||| That's down to the operational side (the Kevins of this world) and > |||| basically I think you'd be on a loser. The plod are keen to seize > |||| and crush cars and they don't listen to any arguments at the side > |||| of the road. They expect drivers to carry all of their documents > |||| with them at all times and TBH they don't even accept Certificates > |||| of Insurance as evidence that a car is insured. > ||| > ||| Not forgetting that according to them, the Motor Insurance Database > ||| is infallible and even when you prove your innocence you, the > ||| innocent person, are still left with a �150 recovery bill plus �12 > ||| for each day your car is in storage plus the cost of travel to the > ||| police station and then the storage compound after it was taken off > ||| you. Do you get an apology? No. > ||| > ||| And the Police wonder why the public have the attitude they do. > ||| > ||| -- > ||| Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. > || > || So is the �150 is not recoverable or repaid when a mistake has been > || made? > > No it's not recoverable, but it *can* be repaid at the discretion of the > police. There are isolated instances of this happening. > > -- > Rob So no justice then, just discretion? No surprises there then. Adam
From: Conor on 24 Mar 2010 17:08
On 24/03/2010 19:32, Ret. wrote: > Cynic wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:36:51 +0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>> Just to add, Kev... >> >>>>> How did Social Services find out about this incident? >> >>> Did you notice the lack of a response by Kev? >> >> He possibly doesn't know because the policy may not have been in force >> when he was a copper. >> >> It is nowadays policy that any incident in which (in the opinion of >> the officer) a child was put at risk is reported to a special unit on >> which social services is represented. That unit will decide what >> followup, if any, is required. >> >> A car with a child passenger that the officer believes was being >> driven carelessly or dangerously would probably qualify. > > OK - I was not aware of that. I retired in 2001. > > Of course, if the police and social services don't do anything about > children suspected of being at risk - then they are crucified. When they > do - they are accused of being heavy-handed. > This was completely over the top and unwarranted. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |