From: Vernon on 24 Mar 2010 22:02 On 24/03/2010 22:59, Ret. wrote: > Conor wrote: >> On 24/03/2010 20:02, Ret. wrote: >>> 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? >>> >> Yes. > > What I have said is that the overwhelming amount of data collected will > be innocuous, never examined, and eventually weeded out having never > been viewed by human eye. A bit like many CCTV recordings. In many > premises CCTV is recording 24/7 - but it is never actually looked at > unless an incident occurs in the premises - such as a robbery for > example. That is how most data will be dealt with on the ANPR system. > Automatically recorded - but never viewed unless a valid reason arises > for it to be viewed. > No at the moment the CCTV data from say public camera systems is not data mined, because it is difficult to do so. What everyone here is saying is that the ANPR data is in a format that allows for easy data mining, and therefore will be abused. Once facial recognition software improves(as is in use at certain key locations in the UK) it is not too difficult to see cctv data being processed to identify faces in crowds, "just in case" there is a known crim in the crowd ala ANPR. You will then have another database that is searchable. It is not too difficult to imagine mugshots from crims being on the system to start with, then lets add mugshots from id card applications(mainly foreigners at the moment) then driving licence applications, passport applications. Before you know it there is a massive database that can track peoples movements by car, train and even foot. We are walking into 1984.
From: Kim Bolton on 25 Mar 2010 04:20 Ret. wrote: >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. You're quite wrong. There have been no end of examples quoted in this thread to show how such data could be used, and none of it whatsoever involves a person looking at your data. You simply have no idea at all about databases and searches. It is as far removed from the manual searching of a card index as is possible to get. Please get out of your head that people will look at an individual's data. >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. Your pattern will show up if someone decides to run a search against the database. This will not be a single query along the lines of 'what did Kev do last week', but the much more insidious 'who went to Tesco last week'. The latter could turn up three drug dealers, a rapist, six people on the SOR, assorted petty criminals, people who have been flagged for some reason, etc etc. If one of these coincides with your visits, the software then flags you up as well in an associative capacity. It will, of course, be even more likely to associate you with criminal elements if this database gets linked with the tittle-tattle one for the ISA/VBA, due to the vast number of people who will be on it. There is now 'police intelligence' on Kev, and your life starts to change in the manner described elsewhere. "Nothing else on this Kev?" asks the sarg. "No, but he's an ex-copper". "That's suspicious" says the sarg, "He'll know how to cover his tracks. Trace his phones and internet use". Etc, etc. Each time they turn up nothing, the suspicions grow. >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. There are plenty of ways of handling 'massive amounts of data', of which you seem quite unaware, and none of it involves looking at Joe Bloggs and the betting shop. You do find this a difficult concept, don't you? I expect Dixon would have struggled as well. -- from Kim Bolton
From: Adrian on 25 Mar 2010 04:47 Derek Geldard <dgg(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Can you access the database to check your own entry ? >>Yes. > But you need numbers from all manner of documents One number, from one document - the V5C. > and in any case their database query trumps yours. I have no idea what you mean by that. >>www.motinfo.gov.uk > OK but when you are at the side of the road facing a 15 mile walk home > at 3-00 am from "The floating light" having been pulled by a keen young > copper who says your car is not MOT'd and is fixing to have it towed > away and potentially shredded, at that point you can't check your own > entry and any checking in advance would be futile, > > At best and it all gets sorted out you'll still cop for a towing fee of > £150. There aren't even any points for not having an MOT - your car certainly wouldn't be confiscated. You're getting confused with insurance.
From: Ret. on 25 Mar 2010 08:04 Kim Bolton wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> 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. > > You're quite wrong. There have been no end of examples quoted in this > thread to show how such data could be used, and none of it whatsoever > involves a person looking at your data. You simply have no idea at > all about databases and searches. It is as far removed from the manual > searching of a card index as is possible to get. Please get out of > your head that people will look at an individual's data. > >> 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. > > Your pattern will show up if someone decides to run a search against > the database. This will not be a single query along the lines of 'what > did Kev do last week', but the much more insidious 'who went to Tesco > last week'. The latter could turn up three drug dealers, a rapist, six > people on the SOR, assorted petty criminals, people who have been > flagged for some reason, etc etc. If one of these coincides with your > visits, the software then flags you up as well in an associative > capacity. It will, of course, be even more likely to associate you > with criminal elements if this database gets linked with the > tittle-tattle one for the ISA/VBA, due to the vast number of people > who will be on it. > > There is now 'police intelligence' on Kev, and your life starts to > change in the manner described elsewhere. > > "Nothing else on this Kev?" asks the sarg. "No, but he's an > ex-copper". "That's suspicious" says the sarg, "He'll know how to > cover his tracks. Trace his phones and internet use". Etc, etc. Each > time they turn up nothing, the suspicions grow. > >> 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. > > There are plenty of ways of handling 'massive amounts of data', of > which you seem quite unaware, and none of it involves looking at Joe > Bloggs and the betting shop. You do find this a difficult concept, > don't you? I expect Dixon would have struggled as well. I don't find it a difficult concept at all - I just believe that your fears are largely unfounded. This thread is riddled with 'What ifs' and 'They could do this' - with little regard being paid as to why they should want to. Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new national records database that is being set up. The benefits, of course, is that once up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the UK, will have immediate access to the medical records of any person from anywhere else in the country. If you suddenly fall ill, or are seriously injured when on holiday down in Cornwall, a doctor down there can access your records no matter that you might live in Preston. It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her records on this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will she? Of course not. I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the information is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be able to bombard you with junk mail advertising their cures for your specific ailments." "What if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact that you once had Syphilis and threatens to let your family know?" etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, what ifs. Kev
From: boltar2003 on 25 Mar 2010 08:41
On 24 Mar 2010 22:18:40 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I myself ended up unintentionally uninsured for a week not too long ago >> thanks to a fuckup by my insurance company with my automatic renewal. > >Uh, no, thanks to your disorganisation. No , thanks to their fuckup. We moved house. I made sure I told them of the new address and phoned up again near the renewal date to make sure they'd noted it. Yet they STILL used the old address when trying to process the credit card payment. Short of standing behind the knuckle dragging minimum wager while they did it there was little else I could do. And instead of phoning me on one of the 3 numbers they have for me to tell me it had failed they waited 2 days then sent a bloody letter! >It's nobody else's job to insure your car. Don't try and pass the buck. Yes , but the insurance company is responsible for making sure they carry out their own internal procedures properly. >If something had happened, you were uninsured. End of. Yes, I know that and I wasn't best pleased when I found out either. B2003 |