Slashdot Mirror

The reason I ask is that here in the UK the official speed limit on motorways is 70mph, but police can't pull you unless you're doing 10% + 2mph over the limit, so 79mph on a 70mph limit road.

This is not true. The 10% + 2 rule is a discretionary guideline that the police tend to use. In principle they can prosecute at any speed over the speed limit.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/docu...

Section 9 is the relevant part.

I've actually read it some time ago.

"Think about it for a second, cops draw their guns all the time. What for?"

No. YOU think about it.

Cops are actually trained NOT to draw guns except for:
1) Entering possibly dangerous area (like breaking in into a room where a potential assailant might be hiding)
2) Acting against a clear and present deadly threat.

Police is actually trained to use non-lethal measures first, because guns leave no room for escalation. See: http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/firearms.pdf

I was quite shocked recently to find out that ACPO is a private company.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/about.html: "The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is not a staff association ... The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee."

Have you ever wondered who someone caught doing 31 mph in a non-residential area on an empty dual carriageway is charged with speeding but not dangerous driving?

No, the committee decided that, although such a usage could be justified on the grounds of crime prevention, it would NOT be justified on the grounds of intrusion and invasion of privacy.

I believe we're talking at cross-purposes. My point is exactly that if the data were only used to prevent crimes, then of course that seems like a positive thing, but in reality, you can't guarantee that every time you look up the data a crime will be prevented and there is a risk of less positive uses of the information as well.

It is not a question of time. Under data protection laws the police would never know that the vehicle of interest had appeared in London, so they would never have the opportunity to apply for a warrant.

So why not reverse the bias, and allow the police to designate vehicles of interest so they can be flagged and investigated further if the system picks them up? We do not need to give the police (there is no distinction in law between an average copper and "anti-terrorist police") centralised access to every camera in the UK by default. This could be fully automated if security was a concern.

You can repeat it as much as you like but it does not make it true. All vehicles that are identified by the congestion cameras in London are identified but, until today, that information was not made available to the police for any purpose other than congestion control.

It's not my repeating it you should be worried about. The national vehicle tracking database is a matter of public record, first highlighted after a leaked document reached the Sunday Times a couple of years ago. The police are deliberately building a nationwide network of ANPR-enabled cameras with the explicit intent of tracking everyone, and the congestion charging cameras in London are just one more nail in the coffin. This intent has been acknowledged by the ACPO, and questions have been asked by MPs given the way various aspects of this scheme have been done using technicalities and loopholes to avoid the usual Parliamentary oversight.

Many people who are stopped for speeding are let off with a warning. Many people who commit minor offences are let of with a caution. That is not to say that the police shouldn't investigate crimes.

Of course not. I'm not arguing that it is reasonable to expect every arrest to result in a conviction. I'm simply demonstrating that the suspicions raised by all these so-called anti-terrorist techniques are wrong, a lot.

There is no mass surveillance. There is no blanket approval of police investigations into anybody or everybody without judicial oversight. There is no justification for the claim that we are all being tracked. And finally, I looked very closely at your reply but you haven't offered a better alternative. You have simply stated that you don't like the current suggestion. OK, that is your right. Have you tried contacting your MP about it?

I think I've shown beyond any doubt that your denial of mass surveillance is wishful thinking. This is the explicit, publicly stated intent of our police forces, as shown by the document I cited above. You can also search for discussions in the House, reports by the Information Commissioner and information from other similarly authoritative bodies if you want more proof. And of course, we're not just talking about vehicle tracking now.

As for better alternatives, I have suggested one method above that provides all the same opportunities yet does not entail the same dangerous centralisation of other information. But frankly, just not doing this would be better than the current creep towards a complete surveillance society. I don't think there is a serious problem that needs fixing. I thin

incidentally your non-Arrest will be on record until you attain the age of 100.
  I doubt it will be made clear there was no evidence at all, just the implication there was no evidence to make a charge stick.
  apparently there was a time when the data the Police held on you might be erased, however that was up to the discretion of the Chief of Police.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/Retent ion%20of%20Records.pdf

thats a Police site you might not want to click from home.

I don't know if this is information a judge might see whilst sentencing you for something else, certainly they see prior convictions before sentencing.
Incidentally there is a really long appendix listing crimes in the UK and how they are catagorised.

Sounds like you need some sort of timeout on how long this sort of stuff hangs around. In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while.

That is what I used to think, but actually they don't. Any time a criminal records check is carried out any convictions (excluding most motoring related offenses) will be dug up.

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=1871

http://www.disclosure-scotland.org.uk/PDF/WEEDING% 20POLICY%20revised%20060307.pdf

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/Retent ion%20of%20Records.pdf

This last Link is the most interesting however you might want to consider that your ip address will be recorded by the police server that holds this document if you click on the link. Paranoid? maybe but when you realise that any "intelligence" is almost certain to be recorded on the PNC . Accessing this document may well count as intelligence after all why would a good citizen want to know this. surely only an activist, political malcontent, and potential terrorist would want to know?

heres an extract.

"1.3 The Retention Guidelines are based on a format of restricting access to PNC data,
rather than the deletion of that data. The restriction of access is achieved by setting
strict time periods after which the relevant event histories will 'step down' and only
be open to inspection by the police. Following the 'step down' other users of PNC
will be unaware of the existence of such records, save for those occasions where
the individual is the subject of an Enhanced Check under the Criminal Records
Bureau vetting process. In those cases the data should be dealt with as intelligence
and only disclosed, where the relevance test has been applied, on the authority of
the Chief Officer. The 'step down' time periods are based on the following criteria,
as set out in detail in the chart at Appendix 1;
The age of the subject
The final outcome
The sentence imposed
The offence category
1.4 All non conviction events, for example acquittals and arrests, will be 'stepped down'
when the relevant entry is made on the PNC. This will ensure that such data is only
open to inspection by the police.
1.5 It is recognised that the introduction of these guidelines may have implications for
the business of the non police agencies with which the police currently share PNC
data. Work is already under way to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the
needs of all stake holders.
1.6 Applications from non police agencies to access nominal records on the PNC will
be considered by a Panel chaired by the ACPO lead for Recording and Disclosure
of Convictions.
Background
2.1 The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amended PACE, and removed the