You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Phil Stovell on 23 Mar 2010 09:37 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:20:22 +0000, Adrian wrote: > Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. Just store > the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a later date. Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol!
From: Adrian on 23 Mar 2010 09:55 Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. Just >> store the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a later >> date. > Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol! Cobol? Tha don't know tha's born. When ah were a lad, all we 'ad were Fortran, and a lump o'coal once a month.
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 09:59 Phil Stovell wrote: > 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. It may be trivial in respects of a computer recording the 'reads' - but clearly it is not possible to keep 'track' of each individual vehicle's movements in any realistic way. In other words - the information may be in the computer - but there are nowhere near enough staff available to scutinise that information and make use of it. Kev
From: Theodore on 23 Mar 2010 10:24 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:36:35 +0000, Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> 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. Absolutely! The information is invaluable! Christ I can't believe the naivety and technical ignorance of some of the posts here.
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 10:45
Theodore wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:36:35 +0000, Phil Stovell > <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> 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. > > Absolutely! The information is invaluable! Christ I can't believe the > naivety and technical ignorance of some of the posts here. Explain how the information is invaluable - and explain how millions of vehicle movements can be scrutinised individually. Kev |