Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at the BBC British Police forces are widening their use of automatic License Plate recognition. One of the police officers involved says 'we can effectively deny criminals the use of the roads.' For those who don't know central London already has a network of number plate recognising camera systems to support the Congestion Charge system."
Road safety would be significantly enhanced if cars were fitted with event recorders that would be queried by police at regular intervals, the idea is to automatically ticket illegal behaviour like speeding or avoiding to stop at stop signs. Such a system could obviously be used to track vehicle whereabouts. One could also imagine having to swipe one driver's licence through the onboard computer to positively identify drivers.
Many will say this is a true invasion to privacy and what is next is complete control over the traffic system. I must disagree. While I am opposed to stoplights taking pictures of light breakers and machine radar enforced areas (the ones where they send you a ticket in the mail), this is a positive direction towards making roads safer and more efficient.
Where I live, there is an incredibly busy road. The city was going to have a man monitor the roads and sit in a booth with cameras to determine which lights they should change when (for better traffic control). Some stupid liberal jumped on the issue and said "Absolutely not, it's an invasion of privacy, and Big Brother is entering our lives." And he convinced about half of the voters(the stupid ones) who were initially for it completely against the idea. The world is getting bigger, we have to try new things so our systems don't get out of control. With all the political disagreement and lack of logic the people in our politcal system have, we move in almost no direction.
-Greg
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
Not for long, the anti privacy legislation here is starting to get extremely excessive, time to look for a new country (preferably cold and with good net connection ;-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
As long as the thing wasnt being used as an auto traffic cop for running through red lights and such, since we know from some experience here in the U.S. that that can cause some seriuos issues via mis-identifying breaking the law, and turning right at a red.
actually, Britain has hundreds of cameras used to catch motorists who speed or run red lights. Of course in the UK you're not allowed to turn at a red light anyway, but there are still misidentification problems -- mostly when people sell on their cars and the new owner doesn't register the purchase.
Interestingly in the UK there's almost no concern about the cameras imposing on civil liberties (or making mistakes). On the other hand, there was a massive backlash from motorists who regarded it as unfair that they should be penalised for speeding or running the lights...I can't say they have my sympathy. More people are killed in road accidents than any other non-disease cause of death.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
This is GREAT!
Imagine if a system were installed nationwide, which detected every crime committed the second it was comitted, and sent a ticket/issued a warrent to the criminal. Practically overnight all the stupid laws that make 95% of us criminals would have to be abolished or the system would collapse under its own weight.
Imagine if everyone would get a ticket each time they exceeded the speed limit. Limits would have to be raised to reasonable levels nationwide, or people would riot in the streets.
Perhaps a little bit of big brotherism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws.
But when it is recorded every few miles, this information is stored for years and who knows who can access it for what ever reason.
Then we do have a problem.
Remember that Britain has no Bill of Rights or anything else to prevent abuse.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Yeah that "law-abiding" quote gave me a shiver.
Your suggestion is balanced. Otherwise the increase in power is only in one direction: towards general security and away from individual freedom.
It's a trade-off between these two. Your suggestion would arguably increase both.
But I could just imagine:
1. people trying to find out famous peoples' license plates to follow them
2. police keeping a list of activists' plates so they could be rounded up before any summits
3. data mining for evidence of potential criminals
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
since most cameras are sensitive to IR light, but our eyes aren't, using super-bright IR leds to illuminate the license plate might saturate the camera in that region...making the plate unreadable. i've wanted to do this for years, but my state doesn't use cameras so there is no need. LEDs mounted under a hat brim might do the same for obscuring faces for sur. cameras...
The people own the cars and collectively own the roads (taxes), why isn't it a 'right'?
Who's to say they don't have that right? In countries with democratic elements such as GB, it seems to me the people make the laws (either directly or indirectly), fund the enforcement of the laws through taxes, so why shouldn't they ultimately have the rights over their life; in this case the part of life while they are driving?I've never understood this immediate knee jerk reaction that since someone once said "driving is not a right", that we should all bow down to it as though it is true.
------ Michael A. Romig
Looks like China is rolling out a scaled-down version -- to catch spitters. Which country will be the first to go after nose-picking?
Is that safer mile-for-mile, mile-driven-for-mile-driven, or just you have fewer accidents per year than we do? Please cite a source for your statement.
Actually I don't use door locks, on my car or my house, but that isn't quite the point either. Imagine, rather, that every house was required by law to have a government provided lock on it, and the police had a key to every door. That wouldn't be too great, would it?
Giving the police the power to watch over everything in the city is not the same as allowing individuals to lock their own property as they see fit.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. Yes, the Constitution can't stop the government from abusing its power, but the Constitution itself gives people power in the form of information. If nothing else (and it really doesn't do much else), the Constitution tells us what things we should revolt against if the government tries to impose them upon us.
Like any other contract, a written constitution is powerful because it keeps us from forgetting what we've said in the past. Anyone who has read 1984 probably gets an idea what the problem is when you don't keep written records of your promises. Unfortunately, over time even a written contract tends toward meaninglessness. Words change their meanings, fundamental concepts change, and campaigns are waged to either distort what was once a plain meaning or convince people that the constitution is some sort of "living document" which can change upon the whims of the judiciary.
Jeremy Clarkson (UK motoring journalist) once said - Driving a car is a privilege not a right.
He was wrong for a variety of reasons, but was attempting to say something that was right.
Here is the primary reason why he was wrong:
Freedom of movement is one of the basic components of the right to liberty. Denying people the right to employ the most common and effective means of moving from one place to another is an infringement on that right, just as dennying people the right to publish or broadcast their opinions would be an infringement on their right to freedom of speech.
Here is what he was trying to say:
Like most rights, the right to freedom of movement can be regulated by the state, and like most rights it can be forfeited if one violates the rights of others, or violates the regulations set by the state. The state can, for example, make regulations about how the airwaves can be used so long as these regulations are designed to facilitate the use of the airwaves, and not to make it more difficult for people to publish their opinions. Likewise the state can regulate the use of the roads, so long as these regulations are designed to facilitate the use of the roads, and not to make it harder for individuals to exercise their right to move freely. In either case, people who break the law can lose their rights to free speech and freedom of movement.
Here is why all this turns out to be relevant in this case:
Lots of people have argued that freedom of speech requires the availability of a certain degree of anonymity, both on the part of speaker an audience. Readers need to be able to check out or buy a copy of, say, Mein Kampf without having to worry about whether they will later be acused of being Nazis. Without the ability to read anonymously readers would start to self-censor the ideas available to them. A similar argument can be made for freedom of movement. Individuals may start to think twice about attending protests, or private political meetings, or religious meetings, if they know that their movements may be made public later.
This is totally phuquing real.
There's a toll-road in Orange County CA which claimed to find my truck in photo's blowing thru a toll booth.
Except I live in Ventura County, and never drive the vehicle anywhere except Home Depot and garbage dump.
I figured out how to sent the servant/slaves an email (had to read source out of their webpage, check phone directories, then email; they didn't provide anything but mailing address for fine payment), and they _seemed_ genuinely amazed that I contacted them to dispute their findings.
BUT...the important part was I went down to DMV and told them that I believed one of my vehicle plates were stolen, that someone was illegally using said plate, and DMV needed to do the right thing and cancel the plates and issue new ones.
I had copies of all the paperwork, including the freeway toll notice, ticket, etc., and whether the clerk caved in or agreed is irrelevant; the effort *had* to be made immediately.
So by the time the freeway people "reviewed" their info, I had already nipped the situation in the bud. So remaining question is whether they did a photo match against drivers license to determine that I was not the driver...
--- tp|pt engineer * bs terminator * propeller head
Here in the states, we just had a Chief of Police murder his wife! Fact is, law enforcement officials stalk there ex's all the time (I guess the controlling personalities that are prone to choose law enforcement are also prone to stalking behaviour). This means if you are a cop's ex-girlfriend in the UK, he now knows where you are at every minute of the day. Be afraid; be very afraid.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Very well written reply. What I'm not sure I agree with fundamentally is the notion that freedom should be restricted by "regulations" carte blanc. If the "regulations" are designed for the purpose of keeping people from violating the rights of others, then I'm all for it. But when I think of the "rights of others" I'm thinking of all of a person's freedoms in all of its potentiality. In my mind, that is in fact the best use of law in society, the protection of freedom for those under that law. Freedom this broadly defined obviously includes protection from unwarrented harm or death. (I say unwarrented, because if I was to exercise my freedom of driving my car off a cliff and to my death, that is certainly a warrented death, as I voluntarily constructed it myself for the benefit of myself. So I am drawing a distinction from the moral/ethical/resonsible praxis and the unrestricted potential freedom to exercise. Ethically I would not make this decision with my car and a cliff, even though I could.)
I know it is not the common view at all, but I would prefer to employ all possible means other than government legislation or new laws when dealing with currently regulated economic or social complexities. With your examples: The government currently regulates the air waves, but the benefit, as you put it "facilitate the use of the airwaves" to "publish their opinions". That benefit should be weighted against the price. The price here is obviously the removal of freedom or "rights" for anyone to unrestrictedly broadcast or intercept airwaves. Is "the facilitation of use" of the airwaves worth the price that we no longer have freedom to use them? Many agree that yes, it is better to have regulation of a thing with less freedom, than the freedom with no regulation. After all there is that benefit, you argue, of easier "free speech" perhaps with the compromise of how we can use the airwaves. However is it logical to give up broad freedom (in this example to start my own radio broadcast) in order to facilitate or protect a specific freedom (also in this example the right to unfettered speech)? Even though it could be argued both ways, what is also a point of impact is the reality of the implementation. In this case the regulation of the radio does not facilitate the broad and unfettered access of people to use the airwaves. Granted we are allowed in most developed nations to use a specific radio signal band, but in terms of the mentioned benefit of freedom of speech; that in reality is controlled by radio conglomerates and wealthy individuals and businesses, who at any rate can afford the heafty fees of getting a license in the first place and then paying for it annually. In reality I don't have an major broadcast right at all, because I submitted myself to the "regulation" of the airwaves for the benefit of "all". If the "all" never includes me, or never includes someone else under the law, is that really freedom? I say it is not. Freedom implies the ability to exercise, not to the privileged but to everyone equally and at any time.
What I disagree with, not that you argued this, is the seemingly flippant treatment of freedom in general. When people band together voluntarily to submit themselves to law and regulations, they do so with the price of a loss of some freedoms, inherint freedoms I would argue. This is not all bad, as we don't want people exercising their freedom of weilding sharp knives into people's bodies. We want that one restricted, so killing people without any 'good' reason is against the law. 'Good' of course varying widely in place and time. I believe what is appropriate to have under the law, should be always argued to the minimum in terms of broad categories of legislation or regulation because of the price. Freedom isn
------ Michael A. Romig
fact is, i have nothing to hide, so i don`t mind being tracked, if my car is stolen, i want my car back and the theif caught.
you cannot argue instances where it may not work, cos thats like saying "well lets not use it, because 1% of the time it isn`t going to work".
as long as the technology can do it effectively, lets do it.
WTF is a sig?