From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 19:12
> On 24/03/2010 10:58, Ret. wrote:
>> ANPR is proving an immensely successful crime fighting tool.
> So what offences, other than driving without insurance, MOT or VED
> does it detect?
You've asked that same question elsewhere - and I replied to it then.
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 19:16
> On 24/03/2010 16:42, Ret. wrote:
>> I didn't refuse - I simply did not volunteer. Having my dna on a
>> database created specifically to eliminate contamination from a crime
>> scene left by attending officers, would indeed be irrelevant because
>> I would not be attending crime scenes.
> Why didn't you volunteer? After all, if you've nothing to hide...
I wish you would monitor the whole thread and not just dive in in the
middle. I've answered that question several times already.
>> ANPR information could well be relevant if, for example, a terrorist
>> incident occurred in a specific location and they wanted to check on
>> vehicles that had been travelling in or near that location at the
>> relevant times. Just as with CCTV recordings.
> But you said that there wasn't the manpower...
Oh for pity's sake. What I said was that there was not sufficient manpower
to individually examine every 'read' from every ANPR camera. Are you sure
about your IQ level?
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 19:19
> On 24/03/2010 11:01, Ret. wrote:
>> Yes, yes, yes. But is anyone going to look at all that data to
>> determine that you, or me, or Cynic, or whoever, went to Tescos last
>> Thursday? They might if an incident occurred there, but the
>> overwhelming chance is that no-one will ever look at 99.9% of the
>> collected data because, in itself, it is of no use or interest to
>> anyone that you or I or Cynic went to Tescos last Thursday.
> So you're actually saying that the whole exercise is completely
> pointless and the �100millions spent on these databases are a waste of
> money and that we should just shut them down?
> The government seem to think they're useful. The ACPO seem to think
> they're useful. I wonder why...
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are as thick as a plank Conor.
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 19:22
> On 24/03/2010 16:44, Ret. wrote:
>> Do you believe that the police and intelligence services have the
>> time or the resources to examine the movements of the entire
>> population just on the off-chance that a few may not be beyond
> Yes. Most of it can be automated.
Tell me how you would create software that would examine millions of vehicle
movements and come up with the result:
"The drivers of these vehicles may not be beyond reproach."
From: Vernon on 24 Mar 2010 21:42
> Do you believe the police have the manpower to follow up on any results
> from such a search? Due to the recession many police forces are
> currently reducing their officer and civilian strength. Cheshire police
> certainly are. The government is not giving them enough money to run the
> existing size force.
All the more reason to rely on automated detection systems, just like a
preference for speed cameras, always on duty never on lunch or off sick.
Likewise a database that cross references crimes (for arguments sake
robberies in a small corner of Cheshire) against vehicle movements, out
of the 560k hits a day how many will eliminated as not in the right
area, lets filter it some more, eventually the system will produce a
small enough list to generate some hits for manual evaluation, some of
those hits may also be known to the police and can therefore be top
priority, but equally if your journeys match, then you can expect to
have to explain yourself, what if your car is the only one that matches,
and the real villain had access to several vehicles, you really are in
trouble if you cannot account for your whereabouts. Oh yes be afraid, as
others have already said that search will take seconds to produce a
shortlist of suspects.
However unlikely YOU think it is, most people seem to think it is a 100%
guarantee, and once ACPO realise how valuable that data is, they will
lobby to keep it longer. Knowledge is power. People have good reason to
distrust the government.