Number plate recognition - invasion of privacy?

[Steve]

This is my opinion. I have no problem with the ANPR systems. My view is that there are more idiots and law-breaking hooligans on the road now, than at any time during the past. A system that makes breaking the law harder, and catching illegal drivers, therefore making the roads safer, should be welcomed by all.

Frankly, so what if the government knows what road I travelled on 2 years ago? Does it matter? What exactly can they do with such a piece of information that can be threatening to a law-abiding citizen such as myself?

And a thought just struck me. Here you all are complaining about civil liberties and data being stored and profiling etc, yet do any of you realise just how easy it is for people to monitor your internet useage? I'll bet many people have spyware they dont know about, and what about your ISP? They have the ability to see what sites you're looking at too.

 

[ellal]

Frankly, so what if the government knows what road I travelled on 2 years ago? Does it matter? What exactly can they do with such a piece of information that can be threatening to a law-abiding citizen such as myself?

OK, here's how...when they have the whole network installed, they can monitor 'real time' traffic.

Now let's suppose that you want to attend a legal demonstration or meeting because you happen to disagree with something the government of the day is doing...and suppose that you have to travel by car..cars can be 'targetted' and stopped. You can be prevented from doing something legal which just happens to be annoying to the state..

Oh, btw this has probably already happened!!

Civil liberties protesters from NO2ID, the group fighting plans to introduce ID cards in the UK, have been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause criminal damage.....

The protesters were in their cars, en-route to a summit of EU interior ministers in Gosport, Northumbria where they intended to protest against restrictions on civil liberties. The police stopped their cars and then arrested them.

Now the thing is they were bailed under condition that they didn't get anywhere near the summit, and then of course a month later 'no further action'..thus preventing the protest taking place!!

The police have stated that there was no surveillance operation, and mobile ANPR units were noticed in the area..coincidence?

Of course having a vast amount of data routinely analysed is impossible, but the ability to 'target' people who are not neccesarily doing anything illegal is right there..

And a thought just struck me. Here you all are complaining about civil liberties and data being stored and profiling etc, yet do any of you realise just how easy it is for people to monitor your internet useage? I'll bet many people have spyware they dont know about, and what about your ISP? They have the ability to see what sites you're looking at too.

Of course...and I don't particularly like the harvesting of that information either!

 

[markie]

It would be intresting if Joe Bloggs could get that imformation. Could you imagine the sh#t it would cause on parteners who are cheating,
The street cred would be in tatters turning up on a bike/bus/taxi.

 

[Softus]

when they have the whole network installed, they can monitor 'real time' traffic.

So what? The absence of any problem will just become a real-time absence of any problem.

Now let's suppose that you want to attend a legal demonstration or meeting because you happen to disagree with something the government of the day is doing...and suppose that you have to travel by car..cars can be 'targetted' and stopped.

This already happens without the use of NPR, and it's a good thing that it does.

Civil liberties protesters from NO2ID, the group fighting plans to introduce ID cards in the UK, have been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause criminal damage.....

That's because such protesters have a history of conspiring to cause criminal damage - they bring suspicion upon themselves.

interior ministers in Gosport, Northumbria where they intended to protest against restrictions on civil liberties. The police stopped their cars and then arrested them.

Excellent news. Note that on a recent visit to Cumbria, I passed several police vehicles. I wasn't arrested once. Why? Because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Now the thing is they were bailed under condition that they didn't get anywhere near the summit, and then of course a month later 'no further action'..thus preventing the protest taking place!!

That sounds like a very wise way of exercising legal powers. The police and the justice system has a duty to prevent breaches of the peace.

The police have stated that there was no surveillance operation, and mobile ANPR units were noticed in the area..coincidence?

Yes. Or you've got it wrong.

Of course having a vast amount of data routinely analysed is impossible, but the ability to 'target' people who are not neccesarily doing anything illegal is right there.

Yes it is, and it is a good thing.

Edit: the following words posted by me were incorrectly based on what I thought was a quote by ellal, but were written by crafty1289 - apologies to both posters for this error.

And a thought just struck me.

It had to happen sooner or later.

...and what about your ISP? They have the ability to see what sites you're looking at too.

And there it is. At long last the lid has completely fallen off the writhing can of worms that is your paranoia. Why would you care who knows what sites you look at? Unless, perhaps, you're ashamed of what you look at...

 

[Steve]

And a thought just struck me.

It had to happen sooner or later.

...and what about your ISP? They have the ability to see what sites you're looking at too.

And there it is. At long last the lid has completely fallen off the writhing can of worms that is your paranoia. Why would you care who knows what sites you look at? Unless, perhaps, you're ashamed of what you look at...

Softus, 'twas me who said those last 2 quotes, not ellal, as your quotes seem to suggest. I was pointing out the hypocrasy of the moaning minnies complaining about ANPR, when every day, they use the internet and just about anyone can see what they do and log it. It doesn't bother me, merely making a comparison.

 

[Softus]

Softus, 'twas me who said those last 2 quotes, not ellal, as your quotes seem to suggest. I was pointing out the hypocrasy of the moaning minnies complaining about ANPR, when every day, they use the internet and just about anyone can see what they do and log it. It doesn't bother me, merely making a comparison.

Absolutely right - I apologise and retract. I'll edit my post to make it clear that I misrepresented both of you. Sorry.

PS. Sorry.

 

[confidentincompetent]

The problem I see with this is the civillians working on the database. They will have access to all our personell details.. What a boon it will be if/when some get 'nobbled' by crim gangs as is happening in the finance sector. Will you feel safe driving to heathrow airport and parking there for two weeks knowing that some one outside of your circle has the knowledge that your not at home...Also the case recently in Bournemouth where cctc operator (security official) was convicted of using cctv footage of children undressing on the beach for his own use How many other's are doing this and not got caught yet..? Who's guarding the guards?????
The programme recently on this anpr issue showed the good points of detecting uninsured vehicles. But I was outraged to see that young mother stopped and was 1 minute from having her car impounded before her sister turned up with her documents....The insurance company had failed to input her details into the database... tut..
This is only on trial in mobile units.. just wait till its on every lampost in every street where they will be used for their ultimate intent to check and fine /tax your speed......

 

[Softus]

But I was outraged to see that young mother stopped

Why? Are there no young mothers who are also criminals? If you think so then you need to visit Hatfield.

...and was 1 minute from having her car impounded

How can you tell how many minutes there were before the thing that didn't happen was going to happen?

This is only on trial in mobile units.. just wait till its on every lampost in every street where they will be used for their ultimate intent to check and fine /tax your speed......

So what's the problem? That you've been allowed to break the law for decades and get away with it? Wake up - the party is over.

 

[ellal]

That's because such protesters have a history of conspiring to cause criminal damage - they bring suspicion upon themselves.

Here you show your complete ignorance - you can't lump groups whose actions are legal, together with those who advocate illegal means!!

Or do you want a society where mere suspicion is enough to instigate police action and LEGAL protest is prevented..?

That sounds like a very wise way of exercising legal powers. The police and the justice system has a duty to prevent breaches of the peace.

you mean prevent something that won't/might not happen by retricting a persons legal rights?...not so long ago I'd have suggested moving east to get the kind of society you seem to want - well now you don't have to bother as it's coming to you..!!

And what doesn't seem to have sunk in yet is that although you are so sure that you havn't done anything wrong (and hence won't attract attention), you are just at as much risk of being a 'suspect through (unknowning) association' as anyone else.....after all, as you say you use the roads a lot!

I guess it'll have to take an 'incident' for most people to realise what's happening, although even then I suppose they' ll swallow the 'it's for your own good' line..

 

[Softus]

That's because such protesters have a history of conspiring to cause criminal damage - they bring suspicion upon themselves.

Here you show your complete ignorance - you can't lump groups whose actions are legal, together with those who advocate illegal means!!

And here you show your naively black and white view of the world. It's patently obvious that I'm not completely ignorant.

As far as lumping together groups is concerned, I'm not the one doing the lumping.

Or do you want a society where mere suspicion is enough to instigate police action and LEGAL protest is prevented..?

I do want a society in which the police are empowered to act on suspicion - it's a fact of life that this sometimes interferes with legal activity. Deal with it.

That sounds like a very wise way of exercising legal powers. The police and the justice system has a duty to prevent breaches of the peace.

you mean prevent something that won't/might not happen by retricting a persons legal rights?

Yes - that's exactly what I mean. You can't have one without the other.

...not so long ago I'd have suggested moving east to get the kind of society you seem to want - well now you don't have to bother as it's coming to you..!!

How ridiculous you make yourself sound - one day, when you finally grow up, you'll realise it.

And what doesn't seem to have sunk in yet is that although you are so sure that you havn't done anything wrong (and hence won't attract attention), you are just at as much risk of being a 'suspect through (unknowning) association' as anyone else.....after all, as you say you use the roads a lot!

I'm quite familiar with being questioned when having done nothing wrong, and this is the basis of a ongoing legal action against the DWP. However, this is a private action, and not something that I've turned into a 'the whole system is corrupt and my civil liberties have been infringed' argument.

I guess it'll have to take an 'incident' for most people to realise what's happening, although even then I suppose they' ll swallow the 'it's for your own good' line..

You're being very childish about all this. Have you put one moment's thought into how you would run the country if you were in charge?

 

[ellal]

Ah, the usual 'insults' - I wondered when they'd arrive..

Your reliance on semantics for your points don't hide the fact that you seem to be quite happy to trade off your legal rights in return for the state to increasingly treat everyone as being under suspicion...

luckily some people view this as objectionable...the 'grown-up' ones who also have their eyes open..

Have you put one moment's thought into how you would run the country if you were in charge?

yes...differently...

 

[Softus]

Ah, the usual 'insults' - I wondered when they'd arrive..

No - I'm being factual. If you find that you're frequently referred to as childish, then perhaps it's time for you to grew up.

Your reliance on semantics for your points don't hide the fact that you seem to be quite happy to trade off your legal rights in return for the state to increasingly treat everyone as being under suspicion...

You're almost incredibly naive and out of date - are you really not aware that everyone is increasingly under suspicion?

luckily some people view this as objectionable.

By all means object, but it's a fact of life. Increasing surveillance is a necessity, albeit an unfortunate one.

Tell me - do you write to your MP about your concerns? Or just whinge and whine at people who don't agree with you?

 

[ellal]

By all means object, but it's a fact of life. Increasing surveillance is a necessity, albeit an unfortunate one.

Ah..so you're the one with no alternatives.

You're almost incredibly naive and out of date - are you really not aware that everyone is increasingly under suspicion?

doh!!...it's what I object to, if that wasn't so obvious..

No - I'm being factual. If you find that you're frequently referred to as childish, then perhaps it's time for you to grew up.

I'm sorry..I didn't realise that what you say is fact..

Your reference to 'childish' shows your inability to debate on the same level...you like to think you're 'looking down' to others don't you...

Tell me - do you write to your MP about your concerns? Or just whinge and whine at people who don't agree with you?

Yes...and a lot more!

You really show your colours when disagreement to your views becomes 'whingeing & whining'..!

 

[Softus]

Ah..so you're the one with no alternatives.

I really don't know what you mean with this one.

You're almost incredibly naive and out of date - are you really not aware that everyone is increasingly under suspicion?

doh!!...it's what I object to, if that wasn't so obvious..

You've missed my point. Your objection is to the increased surveillance; I'm saying that the increased surveillance is because everyone is increasingly under suspicion by everyone else. To wit paedophilia, July '05 bombings, to name but two examples.

Your reference to 'childish' shows your inability to debate on the same level...you like to think you're 'looking down' to others don't you...

It's not a "reference" - it's an observation. This is nothing to do with other forum members - you have made sweeping generalisations based on what you portray as a inexperienced and paranoid view of the world. If you don't like hearing that, then that's your problem, not mine.

Tell me - do you write to your MP about your concerns? Or just whinge and whine at people who don't agree with you?

Yes...and a lot more!

Er, which?

You really show your colours when disagreement to your views becomes 'whingeing & whining'..!

And what colour would that be? Accuracy?

When I pointed out that people are increasingly under suspicion, you readily inferred that I meant 'by some authority' - this is what makes you seem childish and look like you're whining. You present a view of that authority as being a different entity to the society in which you immediately live, and, I assume, somewhat presumptuously, within which you've grown up. The authority that you criticise is one that acts in the best interests of the honest citizens whom it represents and serves to protect. It's characteristic of an immature viewpoint to regard the government as "them" and car drivers as "us".

Nobody is perfect, and some laws may well be uncomfortably restrictive, but the opposing argument is that this country has been too soft for too long, and with everyone making good use of technology these days, it would be utterly stupid for the government, and the police, not to use whatever means is available to uphold the laws that exist.

I believe that your main point is that things are being done outside the law, to monitor personal movement for reasons that have nothing to do with preventing illegal activity. This sinister implication is the one that I find implausible - I'm familiar enough with computer networks and security systems to know that there just aren't enough people in the country to spend the necessary time monitoring every honest citizen in the way that you suspect is happening (or is about to happen).

So, I agree that the existence of ANPR systems could be viewed as suspicious, and that there use is open to abuse, but it doesn't automatically follow that abuse will take place, or that it will take place systematically and or across the country in the unified way that you imply will happen. This is where I believe that you're naive.

If I'm right in thinking that we agree that the technology exists, and that's it's probably already in the process of being installed on a large scale, then the only real difference between our views is in the degree of comfort we each have with this situation. You're just not very mellow about it, and for your own personal reasons. My objection to is that you don't simply say that you object because you're uncomfortable, but instead you imply that it's inevitable that ANPR (amongst other things) will be used in ways that everybody should object to.

I'm not trying to make you like it, but it's misguided to claim that people who dislike it less than you are not living in the real world.

 

[ellal]

Ok - so your last post was more reasonable..but (and you knew that was coming )..

You've missed my point. Your objection is to the increased surveillance; I'm saying that the increased surveillance is because everyone is increasingly under suspicion by everyone else. To wit paedophilia, July '05 bombings, to name but two examples.

But you're taking the threat of these out of all proportion..just as the government hopes!

Nobody is perfect, and some laws may well be uncomfortably restrictive, but the opposing argument is that this country has been too soft for too long, and with everyone making good use of technology these days, it would be utterly stupid for the government, and the police, not to use whatever means is available to uphold the laws that exist.

The reason I object to a lot of recent legislation is that it isn't aimed at 'existing laws'..it creates new laws that become a crime merely by non-compliance.

This fingerpint scanning is just an example. At present, most motoring offences (the first target) are not dealt with by arrest. However, when (and it is inevitable) compulsion comes about, an offence is created whereby refusing to submit to scanning will be an offence, whereas the original transgression is not normally so..in other words, submit or we nick you!!

I believe that your main point is that things are being done outside the law, to monitor personal movement for reasons that have nothing to do with preventing illegal activity. This sinister implication is the one that I find implausible - I'm familiar enough with computer networks and security systems to know that there just aren't enough people in the country to spend the necessary time monitoring every honest citizen in the way that you suspect is happening (or is about to happen).

Like I said the (present) capability of such sytems is not sufficient to monitor everyone...however a 'thorn in the side' of government can be targetted..and monitored!

So, I agree that the existence of ANPR systems could be viewed as suspicious, and that there use is open to abuse, but it doesn't automatically follow that abuse will take place, or that it will take place systematically and or across the country in the unified way that you imply will happen. This is where I believe that you're naive.

OK, so you have agreed it can be open to abuse...I never said it would be systematic, but (as above) it could be targetted against anyone that the government of the day decided to..

If I'm right in thinking that we agree that the technology exists, and that's it's probably already in the process of being installed on a large scale, then the only real difference between our views is in the degree of comfort we each have with this situation. You're just not very mellow about it, and for your own personal reasons. My objection to is that you don't simply say that you object because you're uncomfortable, but instead you imply that it's inevitable that ANPR (amongst other things) will be used in ways that everybody should object to.

Every law that has ever been passed has been abused to some extent..Every power given to the State over it's citizens likewise..

Technology now gives the ability for the State to remove the 'human element' to enforcement of laws/policies...and the net result will inevtably be resentment, and whatever form that will take