UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems

Ok... by SkyLeach · 2003-05-30 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

Or what if they steel the license plate from valid drivers while they sleep?

This sytem is only for keeping track of law abiding (or at least those that attempt to be law abiding on some level) people.

--
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p

Re:Ok... by Jonsey · 2003-05-30 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

So do all restrictions on ownership.

If the government takes all the guns away, only the bad guys will have guns.

If someone wishes to avoid this system, they can, same with nearly all tracing systems. C'est la vie. IANFIF.

--
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Re:Ok... by sean23007 · 2003-05-30 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is not the correct analogy, though it certainly is a popular one. He said that monitoring the roads in this fashion does not catch criminals, nor does it prevent them from using the road. What if the car is stolen? What if the license plates are stolen? This monitoring system would have largely no effect in these situations. Its only usefulness is in keeping track of law abiding citizens, and as such it is not useful.

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative

erm, no. This will still prevent most known criminals, or ones that have been identified on the fly from escaping detection and tracking. In the cases you described the police should be notified that the car/plate has been stolen and so the system works (maybe slowly). I don't disagree that they can still track innocent people and George Orwell, et. al. are rolling in their graves (or beds if they're still alive). However, like so many tools, it has both an intended good use and a possible misuse. Same as DeCSS, a crowbar, or any number of examples seen on /. everyday.
Re:Ok... by Mannerism · 2003-05-30 07:24 · Score: 3, Funny

My brother is an idiot most of the time but

I don't see the "but".

--
Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases
Re:Ok... by BeBoxer · 2003-05-30 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

Um, because a stolen car can be located much, much faster than possible thru any other means? Would you steal cars if you knew the police could locate and track you within minutes of the car being reported stolen?

My $0.02 will always be worth more than your ?0.02, so :P

Live mid-market rates as of 2003.05.30 19:24:11 GMT.
0.02 ? = 0.0235500 USD
Re:Ok... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-05-30 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

Well, once the car is reported missing I'm sure it will be recognized by the computers. But until then, it doesn't.

Or what if they steel the license plate from valid drivers while they sleep?

Again, won't help until the license plate is reported stolen.

This also won't stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings. And it won't stop date rape. And it won't keep people from cheating on their taxes. And it won't stop global warming.

This sytem is only for keeping track of law abiding (or at least those that attempt to be law abiding on some level) people.

In other words, all people. Everyone attempts to be law abiding on some level, because whenever they break a law they risk getting caught.
Re:Ok... by Malc · 2003-05-30 07:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Taxing works differently in the UK, and this is a British story. They carry a tax disk on the inside of the wind screen. Those things you call "tags" are registration plates, not license plates.
Re:Ok... by misterpies · 2003-05-30 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

If somebody steals your car, and you report it stolen quickly, then with cameras there's a much better chance of finding it before the number plates are switched (if your average 2-bit car thief bothers). If your numberplate is stolen, then report it stolen and the police will quickly be able to find the thief.

There are good arguments against using cameras to track cars, but the fact that criminals can get around them isn't one. There are hundreds of thousands of law-breakers out there who have managed to outwit the police. You can't use that as an argument against having police.

--
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Re:Ok... by Cyberdyne · 2003-05-30 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is not the correct analogy, though it certainly is a popular one. He said that monitoring the roads in this fashion does not catch criminals, nor does it prevent them from using the road. What if the car is stolen? What if the license plates are stolen? This monitoring system would have largely no effect in these situations. Its only usefulness is in keeping track of law abiding citizens, and as such it is not useful.
Actually, it could be useful for tracking stolen cars. (Give them your number, they tell the computer to alert them if it's spotted.) Likewise the getaway car from a crime. Of course, it's useless as soon as the criminals has a chance to swap the plates (as is already being done to avoid the GBP 5 [c. $8] per day 'congestion charge'), but useful in the first minutes after a robbery... (Of course, a Lo-Jack system is much better for the stolen car scenario, but not in the bank robbery.)
Overall, I don't like it. Too instrusive (WTF - they want to track everybody, everywhere they go?!) for too little gain (very little you can't achieve with OnStar or LoJack), and too much risk of abuse (cops tracking the SO's car, harassing people they don't like).
The trouble is, it is useful - for all the wrong things. Lots of potential abuses, very little legitimate use!
Re:Ok... by WhiplashII · 2003-05-30 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um. NO!!!

As soon as I report my plates / car as stolen, it is instantly located through this system, probably before my car is even trashed!

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Re:Ok... by madcow_ucsb · 2003-05-30 08:07 · Score: 2

I think you're overestimating the intelligence of a small-time criminal. As anyone who watches "Cops" knows, there are a LOT of criminals who just keep driving around with their own plates with warrants out for them who only happen to be caught for not using a turn signal (which should be a crime punishable by jailtime IMHO, but anyway...)

While the system may not have as large an effect on stolen cars (except when they're reported stolen quickly, then it's just like LoJac), it still can get the idiots.
Re:Ok... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-05-30 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

False. When the system is effective, it will be well known among criminals. When it is well known, they will drive three miles, swap the plates out with the ones they picked up earlier that day, and be on their way, surely less than five or ten minutes after the theft. It will then be ineffective for any sensible purpose, and only useful for tracking law abiding citizens.

It's a wonder we bother having plates in the first place since they are completely ineffective at stoping crime or catching criminals. Didn't anyone notice that not a single person has ever been caught due to their plates?
Re:Ok... by rhombic · 2003-05-30 08:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

So drive three miles, swap plates. Drive three more miles, swap plates again. Every time you stop and swap plates, it's gonna take you several minutes of being stopped. And you're still gonna have "hot" plates (assuming the ones you "picked up" earlier have been reported as stolen). Whether it's through detecting the stolen car, the stolen plates, taking time to swap plates, or through somebody seeing you swap plates on the side of the road and calling the cops, the system is putting the car thief at a disadvantage, and the police at an advantage. Which is the whole point, I think.

--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Re:Ok... by Kombat · 2003-05-30 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Weren't the Washington snipers caught through their plates?

I know you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to throw in a serious example to back you up.

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:Ok... by stilwebm · 2003-05-30 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

False. When the system is effective, it will be well known among criminals.

This will be true so called professional car theives. Two things to consider, however.

* Most professional car theives use disposable minions to steal the car. They use various techniques to maximize the chances of success while minimizing risk to the operation. They don't care as much about the actual theif, who usually is ignorant of the reasons behind the procedure given to him/her.
* The majority of criminals, especially violent criminals as the parent mentions, do not expect to get caught. Their passion for revenge/money/blood/sex/cars results in them taking risks. Among these risks is the quick departure of the crime scene, usually without thinking of removing or obscuring the liscense tag on the get-away car.
Re:Ok... by sean23007 · 2003-05-30 09:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Ok... by sean23007 · 2003-05-30 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you copy a license plate from one car to steal another that looks just like it, you may as well have just stolen the first. The cops will recognize the duplicate plates and know that one is stolen. The computer program he speaks of would be able to create a unique set of plates such that it may as well be a unique car.

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Ok... by JJahn · 2003-05-30 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're seriously overestimating the intelligence of the average criminal here. Most would just drive away with the same plates, or switch them with some others that they brought along. Computer databases and planning for a car theft are not common characteristics of a normal car thief.
Professionals might, but like mentioned before, they would prefer to use an expendable minion to do the actual work.
Re:Ok... by Zemran · 2003-05-30 11:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

There seems to be an assumption that false plates are stolen... This happens in films but in real life you just make a new set of stick on plates that cover the real ones. The number is taken from another car of the same make and model and the real owner can scream and shout but still has to pay the fine.

Sticky back plastic and black numbers is all you need and they are both easy to get and very cheap. If you wish to keep driving the stolen car (or just avoid paying the fines in your own car) you can get a new set of plates made quite easily. Most accesory shops that make plates do not ask for that much proof of ID that you cannot get from a dustbin (utility bill etc.)

There have been cases of people that got off because they were not in the country but they are the lucky ones. Most people cannot prove they were not driving their car 4 weeks ago.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:Ok... by Narcissus · 2003-05-30 12:18 · Score: 3, Funny

That reminds me of a story of some enterprising youths somewhere here in Australia (so I'm sure it's an urban legend, but it's a funny story none the less).

A carload of guys see a cop with a speed camera sitting on the side of the road (well he's not, he's sitting in the car with the camera in front of it). They pull over and start asking him all of these questions about it. He's impressed that they're so interested: he gets out of the car, shows them how it all works, all the bells and whistles. After a while they thank him, and drive off.

During the rest of his stint there, the camera takes another 20 or 30 photos, but when they're all developed, it's the number plate of the police car who was controlling the camera. It wasn't until they asked the officer that they decided that while he was showing the camera off, one of the boys had gone to the back of the police car, took the number plate then stuck it on the back of their car before speeding past the camera for the rest of the afternoon.

Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

These methods are great for those of us concerned about law enforcement. they allow an already understaffed agency to monitor for potentially illegitimate traffic at little to no personal risk to themselves.

Right Vs Privilidge by Buzz_Litebeer · 2003-05-30 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think this is a good idea, if they feel that it is truly necessarry to use it. Imagine being able to use this to identify stolen vehicles, minutes after they are reported stolen, just put in the recognition to look for a car and there you go.

There are some issues about location tracking of your citizens, but as it is being used it is for tracking who is using the roadway during high congestion periods. As long as it is not used for private data mining (IE trying to figure out where you tend to shop and such) then I am all for it. If there is a counter argument, I am not seeing exactly "where" the abuses could be applied on this one to any extent. 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.

As long as it is used for congestion identification, and possibly tracking of stolen vehicles/people who have committed a crime and the police which to facilitate their capture. I cannot see a bad side to this.

Since driving is a privilidge given by the state, being able to track who is driving is also a responsiblity of the state if they wish to implement it.

--
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion

Re:Right Vs Privilidge by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Driving is neither a right nor a privilege; it's an _activity_ that citizens engage in that is monitored by the government which citizens have created to provide order to the larger body. The government doesn't exist without us my friend, so I would amend to say if the will of the people is to have their movement tracked, so be it.

Personally, I doubt this is the case.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by misterpies · 2003-05-30 07:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by anthony_dipierro · 2003-05-30 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

As long as it is used for congestion identification, and possibly tracking of stolen vehicles/people who have committed a crime and the police which to facilitate their capture. I cannot see a bad side to this.

Well, the main bad side is that it will be used for more than just the purposes you've laid out. You can put whatever laws or standards you want, but this system will be abused.

The other bad side is that the set of "people who have committed a crime" is equal to the set of all people. Even if you buy the argument that minor crimes tend to be given minor punishments, there is still the ability for abuse in the future. Remember, the whole point of modern government is to keep the people in the government from infringing upon those not in the government. This is done by distributing the power, mainly through voting and economics. But information is power too, and when you give that power to a certain group of people (in this case cops) corruption is inevitable. To put it more succinctly, information is power, and power corrupts.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by HowlinMad · 2003-05-30 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes it is an activity. But if you are going to drive on public roads, then it is a priviledge. You do not need insurance, or a permit to drive on private property, know yourself out, but do not go onto a public road.

you are correct, the gov't does not exist without us. But we have been wanted to be watched, there have been police forces for ages, but now that someone is doing it smarter, people start complainin and worryin.

Hey thats your right here in the USA, to complain, but driving.... thats a priviledge!

--
Great Linux Site
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by Pig+Hogger · 2003-05-30 08:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Driving is neither a right nor a privilege;
Driving IS a privilege.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by dotslash · 2003-05-30 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

In other news:

People of Jewish ancestry up to two generations removed must now wear a yellow star on their armband and have it visible at all times. Police assured us that honest jews have nothing to fear as the system will no be used to discriminate against them.

Now imagine if today they wanted to do the same. All they now need is a new database which can correlate jews to license plates and they can effectively follow anyone and efficiently exterminate them.

s/jews/communists/g
s/jews/hackers/g
s/jews/an yonetheywanttotrack/g

If you give someone the power to very efficiently track anyone in the country they might not abuise it now. But as soon as an abusive government comes into power you are in a wordl of trouble.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-30 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by anthony_dipierro · 2003-05-30 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Right Vs Privilidge by privacyt · 2003-05-30 14:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not seeing exactly "where" the abuses could be applied on this one to any extent
Suppose you decide to go downtown and get a few drinks. You get very drunk and go into a gay bar, where you act like a fool.
"But that's okay," you think. "None of the people there knew me. I'll just forget it ever happened and vow never to go drinking again in that part of town."
However--Big Brother's cameras caught your license plate number. How much would it be worth to you to not have your friends/co-workers/neighbors/parents find out that you went to the gay bar?
Or suppose instead of wanting money, a tax collector comes up to you and says, "Your boss had a suspicious tax return this year. Go steal some of his files for us, and this whole gay bar incident will go away. Thanks for your cooperation."
Blackmail and other governmental abuses have happened before, time and time again. Read up on the history of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI crimes in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Nothing a little mud wont help by kevin_conaway · 2003-05-30 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I bet you could foil this pretty easy by splashing some mud on your bumper (to look more 'real' :) and over a few crucial digits on your plate.

Re:Nothing a little mud wont help by The+Only+Druid · 2003-05-30 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't know about the UK, but in the USA its illegal to have your plate obscured for any reason, and is a ticketable offense. Moreover, its mandatory that a police officer run your plates/license whenever they ticket you, so if you get pulled over for having obscured your plate then you're just as screwed as if they knew it was you from the beginning.

--
"Stumble before you crawl"

Not a big deal by jratcliffe · 2003-05-30 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're driving on a public road, you have to assume that individuals or the government might be (gasp!) reading your license plate. This is functionally no different from having a cop sitting by the side of the road, taking notes, just more efficient.

Re:Not a big deal by Teun · 2003-05-30 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

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."

Overstated by tomakaan · 2003-05-30 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

'we can effectively deny criminals the use of the roads.'

I fail to see how they can say that. Public law enforcement will never be able to deny crime in any way as long as the people continue not to fear the punishment.

All this does is go one step further to tightening the hold that the law has on the abiding citizens.

Re:Overstated by E-prospero · 2003-05-30 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Public law enforcement will never be able to deny crime in any way as long as the people continue not to fear the punishment.

At no point in recorded history has "fear of punishment" proven an effective mechanism for encouraging public order.

For example - During the late 1700's in England, relatively minor property offences (stealing a loaf of bread, for instance) were met with strict punishment - execution, or transportation to Australia. Yet strangely, people kept stealing bread.

Why was that? Are people stupid? Do people not value life? No - they stole bread because they were starving, and it was die by starvation, or maybe die at the hand of the state IF they were caught. This put an increasing impetus on not getting caught, not on obeying the law. History is able to furnish any number of other examples.

People don't break the law because they have no fear of the punishment. They break the law because personal circumstance requires it (e.g., need food, must steal), because they don't respect the law itself (e.g., sharing music isn't stealing), or because they are insane.

In none of these cases is harsh penalty ever going to be an effective deterrent. The only real solution is to solve the circumstance (e.g., do something to remove poverty as a cause of crime), fix the law, or treat/protect the insane from themselves.

Russ %-)

--
... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.

BB is watching you by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · 2003-05-30 07:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Monitoring all of us 24/7 will naturally make law enforcement so much easyer. Life in Oceania 2003.

Why should any law-abiding citizen object to a two-way TV monitor in their living rooms to help inform them on the war against terrorism.

A good start. by Pig+Hogger · 2003-05-30 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's a good start, but it's overkill for too little.

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.

Sigh by drinkypoo · 2003-05-30 07:21 · Score: 4, Funny

It's getting to be where everyone's going to have to be on motorized bicycles and wearing a full hood and cloak in order to avoid automated recognition. I can just see it now, a world of jawas on two wheels.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Sigh by pyros · 2003-05-30 07:39 · Score: 4, Funny

hand gestures similar to that to speak to a blind
Those must be some hefty hand gestures to be understood by a blind person. Do they involve the sound of one hand clapping?
Re:Sigh by pyros · 2003-05-30 07:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Think joke beanhead, where people laugh with the person making it.
Re:Sigh by Kintanon · 2003-05-30 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, he's talking about signing into another persons hand. You hold the persons hand and make the signs on their palm. They "read" the signs by feel and respons the same way, or with conventional sign language.
Sine the signs are being done covered by the recipients hands they can't be intercepted. It makes a handy (pun intended) stealth communication tool since it looks like the two people are just standing their holding hands.

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji

Nothing to fear by interiot · 2003-05-30 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear"

Yeah. So they thought about this long enough to realize there'd be at least a small public backlash, but didn't do much thinking beyond that.

If we're going to go down this road, fine, but as papers on the Transparent Society suggest, this should be much more open.

Everyone, not just police officers, should be able to use it to track people. Charge whatever fees are required to support it, but you should be able to track anyone.
Everyone should have access to the transaction logs and should be able to see who's tracking who.

Everyone benefits... the police and "law-abiding motorists" get their criminals, McCarthys get to entertain their delusions, politicos get to have their watergates, and the public and press get a little entertainment over the whole thing.

Re:Nothing to fear by Rick.C · 2003-05-30 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear"
Also from the article, "One in 12 stops during the trial of the scheme produced an arrest and Mr Ainsworth described the results as 'surprisingly good'."

Well, I'd bet that the other 92-percent of the people who were stopped were none too pleased.

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Re:Nothing to fear by FroMan · 2003-05-30 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The other possiblity is that some other action was performed with the other 92%. Not everything warrents and arrest.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

1984 by Zen+Mastuh · 2003-05-30 07:22 · Score: 3, Funny

Apparently some people believe 1984 was a training manual.

--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"

Re:1984 by rkz · 2003-05-30 09:46 · Score: 2, Funny

But as with most literature, you can't take everything 100% literally.

How true, especially of slashdot

--
There is no god

"Big Brother" is sometimes okay by qewl · 2003-05-30 07:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. (> <)

Re:"Big Brother" is sometimes okay by utd-blaze · 2003-05-30 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a difference between a man staring at video cameras to direct traffic and a machine recording the movements of every vehicle in the city. Unless the man is writing down every plate of every vehicle he sees than we are talking about two different things here.

Misrepresentation of your opponents side for the purpose of making yours appear better by comparison is not an argument.

--
Do me a favor and double it!

Will insurance rates be affected? by joebagodonuts · 2003-05-30 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear and will be pleased to see untaxed, uninsured and unregistered being caught in the act." I don't care so much about them being "caught in the act". Here's my wish. I would be most pleased if my insurance rates were to go down *IF* this system helps remove said drivers from driving.

--
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy

Oh and on a slight re-think by Buzz_Litebeer · 2003-05-30 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

this system could be abused by "cloners" as the article said, people making "fake" license plates then going down town to drive while someone else is charged the fee.

Oh well, yet another problem with automatic systems ;-(

What they should do is keep a small 10 second clip of the vehicle for court, and make it easy to come in and file a claim against the device, if the snapshot or vehicle shows THEIR vehicle, then they have to pay a court fee.

Otherwise the tax is waved, and the car in the screenshot is flagged by its make and model, and its owner arrested if it can be identified again, and file a criminal case against them.

--
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion

Uk is where i live by Loosewire · 2003-05-30 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

not to worry by andy1307 · 2003-05-30 07:25 · Score: 2, Funny

The system is implemented in .NET. Shouldn't be too difficult to change the administrator password.

Re:From the glimpse-of-the-future dept? by Ella+the+Cat · 2003-05-30 07:29 · Score: 2

"Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear and will be pleased to see untaxed, uninsured and unregistered being caught in the act."

Here we go again. We _should_ have nothing to fear but we _do_ because the technology is open to abuse by a society that is increasingly run on the assumption that it's alright to do something as long as you're not caught and doubly so if you are anonymous and unaccountable.

Stuff speed cameras and stuff this as well. Now if PC Plod actually sees me speeding and comes acroos to my stopped car, at least i have the hope he'll show some common sense, show a bit of discretion when i show him the transplant kidney and the pregnant ladies in the back seat, maybe send me on my way with a telling off, then it's a fair cop.

You're right by CaptainSuperBoy · 2003-05-30 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

With all the political disagreement and lack of logic the people in our politcal system have, we move in almost no direction.

Yes, you do realize you have just suggested fascism, right? If only we didn't have to deal with those stupid voters.

Sweet! It'll be just like GTA! by Wesley+Everest · 2003-05-30 07:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Once they know what car you're driving you have to ditch it and jack another! It'll be soooo cool! All they need to do is set up some ramps so you can dive out at top speed and launch your car at buildings and cop cars.

Ubiquitous Law Enforcement by Stiletto · 2003-05-30 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Ubiquitous Law Enforcement by gmhowell · 2003-05-30 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

No. More likely they'll raise your taxes to hire some more cronies (read: judges) to hear cases. Or they'll remove the right for you to appeal the decision. Or even have a trial. In the US, most traffic violations are civil offenses, so your 'rights' are severely curtailed. No idea about the UK.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Ubiquitous Law Enforcement by John+Jorsett · 2003-05-30 09:33 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

For which they'd be ticketed ...
Re:Ubiquitous Law Enforcement by anthony_dipierro · 2003-05-30 12:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps a little bit of big brotherism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws.

No, a lot of big brotehrism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws. A little bit is what this system proposes, where the police will have discretion to issue or not issue a ticket. So they'll issue the tickets to those who can't afford to defend themselves. Certainly not to friends and family.

Knee-Jerk Comment Two Minutes After Story Posted by reallocate · 2003-05-30 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ummm.. the story was posted at 3:12 and your comment went up at 3:14. That's pretty fast -- read the BBC piece, consider your thoughts, and submit a comment all in two minutes. (Well... the "consider your thoughts" portion didn't take much time, apparently.)

There are lots of ways to be a criminal driving around in a car with a perfectly good license tag without shooting someone and taking their car.

For starters: not paying your taxes, not registering your car, driving without a license, skipping bail, violating parole, a zillion different kinds of taffic violations, not paying child support, auto theft, child abuse, etc., etc.

In fact, just about any crime in which the perpetrator can be linked to a particular car, which is everyone who drives.

There's no difference between a flesh-and-blood cop running a check on your license plate and this automated system. It just maximizes the capability.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Road Tax by bobm17ch · 2003-05-30 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's just another tool for increasing revenue for the police forces around the country.

They day will come when every motoring offence on any major road is recorded and dealt with automatically.

Break the speed limit 4 times in one day? Ker-ching! 4x£50 to your local copshop please.

It`s yet another example of the ongoing 'automatic-insta-justice' trend.

And no, I didn`t read the article. :)

--
\\ Mitch

Re:Road Tax by sameyeam · 2003-05-30 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

They day will come when every motoring offence on any major road is recorded and dealt with automatically.

...and this is a bad thing? If you drive like an arse on a public road then you deserve to be punished for it.
Re:Road Tax by bobm17ch · 2003-05-30 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

It's the automatically part I object to.

Accidentally slipping 1mph over the limit is overlooked by policemen/women checking speeds with their radars, but wouldn`t be by an automatic system.

It`s the idea that justice is a simple boolean issue that bothers me.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about driving like an arse :).

--
\\ Mitch
Re:Road Tax by panaceaa · 2003-05-30 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Speeding tickets really are just a "road tax." This could be a great start to an automated system. Something like 2 cents per mile per mile over the speed limit. 20 miles at 10 miles over the speed limit would be $4 each time you did it... which is pretty reasonable but still expensive enough to discourage people from speeding. Maybe a "reckless tax" too, which would triple the tax if you're 15 miles per hour over.

It's a waste to have cops sit on highways looking for speeders. What they really should be looking for is unsafe drivers. It would be nice if a combination of technology and new police priorities could push people to drive more safely. Right now, people's main priority is trying to obey speed limits and signs designed by people who never use the roads they apply to.

--
my blog
Re:Road Tax by praksys · 2003-05-30 11:12 · Score: 3, Informative

It's the automatically part I object to.

I don't know how this works where you are, but I can tell you something about how speed cameras were implemented in New Zealand. The police in NZ already use a rule of thumb that anything up to 10 kph over the limit does not get a ticket. Speed cameras were implemented with a similar rule in mind, and in fact the way it used to work was that only the top 15% or so of speeders would get a ticket, so that if most people were speeding on a particular stretch of road, only the worst offenders were prosecuted. Recently the policy has changed so that the 10 kph rule is now uniformly applied, but that still means that you will not get a ticket for just being slightly over the limit.
Re:Road Tax by bobm17ch · 2003-05-30 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Being guilty or not is, at a pedantic level, boolean.

Justice is far from Boolean however. Two people accused of the same crime may recieve different sentences (different 'justice') according to circumstance - because of judges.

Christ, even having Dredd would be better than no judges at all you twat. :)

--
\\ Mitch

Re:From the glimpse-of-the-future dept? by Cyberdyne · 2003-05-30 08:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Stuff speed cameras and stuff this as well. Now if PC Plod actually sees me speeding and comes acroos to my stopped car, at least i have the hope he'll show some common sense, show a bit of discretion when i show him the transplant kidney and the pregnant ladies in the back seat, maybe send me on my way with a telling off, then it's a fair cop.

The kidney won't help you: the police in England are currently prosecuting an ambulance driver for speeding while transporting a liver for transplant. Insane, but there's nothing to stop them doing it...

pendulum swinging further towards a police state by zptdooda · 2003-05-30 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:I am suggesting a logic test by CaptainSuperBoy · 2003-05-30 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah, voter intelligence tests. That's never been used for miserable, racist purposes before.

system to thwart cameras... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

It won't catch all of them by maromig · 2003-05-30 08:49 · Score: 2

From the article:

ANPR can detect number plates even when vehicles are being driven at more than 100mph - and it can check up to 3,000 plates every hour.

3000 / 60 min / 60 sec = .83333 I don't know about where you drive, but I see a heck of a lot more cars than 1 per second flying by on highways at non-rush hour times.

Personally, I think their current system, this expansion and the whole concept of congestion billing is based upon the ignorant position that the government can usurp arbitrary amounts of people's freedom and liberty for their duties. In my country (USA) the soverign are the people and the government get is rights only from the pleasure of the people. The power structure is clear. The citizenry is the ultimate power in the USA, constitutionally speaking, the government by design is the servent of the people to carry out their wishes.

This view of the world in Britian and I must admit and certain socialist parties here in the US (DNC for example) is the exact opposite, presupposing that the citizenry is ignorant and certainly in a position of inferiority to the all-knowing all-powerfull Government. BAH! They vote there, in Great Britian, just like the rest of us; they want it they can have it. As for me, I'm voting from freedom and liberity when I have the chance!

--
------ Michael A. Romig

Well... by mustrum_ridcully · 2003-05-30 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Jeremy Clarkson (UK motoring journalist) once said - Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

This is a fact often overlooked by too many drivers, in the UK there is a problem with people driving un-MOT'd (MOT is a annual inspection of any car that is more than 3years old), untaxed, and worst of all uninsured (try suing someone who can't pay). As far as these people are concerned driving a car is a God given right. Something really does need to be done to get these people off the roads, but I don't think cameras are the best solution as these people will just do something to evade detection (heck they're breaking the law already so why would they care).

Re:Well... by maromig · 2003-05-30 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
Re:Well... by praksys · 2003-05-30 10:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Well... by maromig · 2003-05-30 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
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

in China... by asr_man · 2003-05-30 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Looks like China is rolling out a scaled-down version -- to catch spitters. Which country will be the first to go after nose-picking?

Re:passive and active responses by zakezuke · 2003-05-30 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative

You're from washington usa, so I'll share this little bit of info with you.

according to http://www.dol.wa.gov/vs/tr-replacement.htm it refers us to (RCW 46.16.240)

[http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction= se ction&section=46.16.240]

"It is unlawful to use any holders, frames, or any materials that in any manner change, alter, or make the vehicle license number plates illegible. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any vehicle unless there shall be displayed thereon valid vehicle license number plates attached as herein provided."

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.

Re:Welcome to the incredibly underdeveloped US by thrillseeker · 2003-05-30 09:42 · Score: 2, Funny

it's almost sad for any country to be compared to France and lose!

Especially with anything to do with safe driving!

Duplication, not stealing, a problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stealing other people's plates / cars isn't a problem for law-abiding citizens. *Duplicating* someone else's *is*.

This has already started to happen in other areas of the country - people clone the plates of a similar make & model, do whatever they want that's illegal - and be seen doing it on the cameras. The next day the (innocent) owner of the original vehicle has police turn up on their doorstep, or they get arrested when they drive through the cameras on their daily commute.

Of those that try to cheat the system - some will *always* succeed. The more complex the system becomes, the more likely innocents are to get hurt in the process.

Re:Compared to Carnivore by agrippa_cash · 2003-05-30 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Carnivore program intrudes on a medium where users believe that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. On public roads you (hopefully) have no such expectation. The power always has potential for abuse. Though the notion of being tracked creeps me out, my privacy is not, strictly, being violated in the same sense as Carnivore or Eschelon. Its too interesting and powerful a tool not to be used, so its just a matter of preventing abuse.

Re:Duplication, not stealing, a problem - yup! by tpthompson · 2003-05-30 10:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Cops never misuse these, of course! by El · 2003-05-30 11:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:Knee-Jerk Comment Two Minutes After Story Poste by jez9999 · 2003-05-30 11:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Do you live in the UK? In case not, I'll inform you that there is an extensive network of speed cameras in this country, widely considered to be ludircous profit making machines for the police on many roads. However, they don't just fine you for speeding, the put 3 points on your licence. This means that, for being caught going 5mph over the limit, twice, you could get *BANNED* from driving. Still think it's reasonable for the police to be able to track anyone who 'isn't 100% legal'?

The police in this country abuse the law, are effectively the government's hitmen, and they ought to have some fucking accountability. Instead of that, they just turn the roads into more of a frightening place for the average motorist each and every day.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Makes car theft that much harder and riskier by Gorimek · 2003-05-30 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

As you describe yourself, the process of stealing a car would be quite a bit more complicated and risky under this system than at present. You have to get a set of non suspicious plates from somewhere, stop and switch plates somewhere, without arising suspicion, and then stop using the car before your stolen plates have been reported etc.

With any fake plates you would probably have to make sure that the number is registered to a car of similar color and model, or the system would be able to see that something was very wrong with your vehicle.

And this just deals with car theft. Any other criminal with a known car would have to take the same precautions constantly when travelling.

There is a lot of space between "nothing" and "everything". This system would not make it impossible to steal cars etc, but would make it much harder and less attractive and undoubtedly make it easier for the police to catch people they want to catch. If that is a good thing or not is an other issue alltogether...

funny story... by zogger · 2003-05-30 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

... many moons ago, had a buddy of mine who, like a lot of real young guys, wasn't all that swift with his finances yet. Comes new plate registration and insurance time for his bike, he found himself a scosh short, as in, beer pizza rent, whoops, no money for the ride that week. He's stuck, no idea, he knows he'll get nailed while he drives to work until the next paycheck. Idea! He's an amateur artist, a fair renderer. He got a set of testor's model paints and reproduced his plate with this years colors and "sticker" in the corner!

We all thought this was funny, and he swore he'd drive cool "until next week" when he got his check and got legit. YEARS later he was still doing the same thing!

note: not to be construed as advocating being irresponsible or avoiding social and economic liabilities, provided under the "fair funny old story" license

For the camera idea in general, this is just more obvious conditioining efforts for "the herd" to keep everyone all "commanded and controlled" up. Same in the US, they just go at it a little different, but basically the same. I mean, anyone REALLY think they will NEVER not use any advanced surveillance tech, if I can mangle all those negatives? MOO, MOO, no one says "boo" to them, everyone sucks it up, one step at a time. Oh well, fingerprinting, well, that's as far as it goes! oh well, dna sampling, that's as far as it goes though! and etc. One step at a time, OF COURSE they are going to keep puting cameras everywhere. and microphones and sniffing traffic and whatever they feel like, once they have the ability to do it. The implantable tracking chips are coming,too, it's definetly on the table, and most people will stand still and take those things. And after tracking, just surveillance? It will be electro-chemical emotional control, and maybe worse than that. Any and all tech that will make big bros job easier and more efficient,in their favor of course, they will do, and charge you cash for the privelege of having it done to you.

Re:Dallas "blaze" boy: by utd-blaze · 2003-05-30 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not familiar with the road you are talking about but I agree that Dallas' roads are much faster and more efficient thanks to road monitoring. There is, however, a difference between monitoring and surveillance and that is where I think the line should be drawn. I have no problem with cameras monitoring the flow of traffic. I have a problem with cameras monitoring the movements of my car.

I don't see government tracking my movements as the loss of a minor personal right. Even if it was only a minor right, it would still be troubling. We are loosing more "minor" rights every day. Eventually we are going to look around and realize that everything we do and say is monitored by the government. We will see that one at a time we have ceded all of the rights upon which this country was founded and realize that there is no way to get them back. License plate cameras are neither the first nor the last step of this process.

--
Do me a favor and double it!

Cameras and plates by drdale · 2003-05-30 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was interviewed a few months ago by a local newspaper (this is in the USA) for a story about cameras placed at toll booths that would take a picture of the plates of people who didn't pay the tolls. He wanted my take on whether this violated privacy rights. I had a hard time not laughing---with the Patriot Act and TIA to talk about, he was worried about cameras at toll booths? I couldn't see how there was any reasonable expectation of privacy. But if you have a camera on every block, and if they keep a record of every car that goes past, that is different. Maybe we need to distinguish between observing and recording information. If I drive down the street, I cannot reasonably expect that my plate will be unobserved. But I can reasonably expect that it will not be recorded, unless there is a particular reason to do so (i.e., I am a criminal on the loose, the car has been reported stolen, etc.).

--
This post is dedicated to all of those /.ers who do not dedicate their posts to themselves.

Trips to the UK: One in Seven by PHAEDRU5 · 2003-05-30 14:31 · Score: 3, Funny

I saw the lights go off when I was breaking the speed limit between Reading and Oxford on the A-423.

I continued to break the law, and see the flashbulbs, for the two weeks I spent in the Home Counties.

I'll be back after the warrants run. Thanks for all the beer.

--
668: Neighbour of the Beast

i have NOTHING to hide by ReLik · 2003-05-30 16:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Slashdot Mirror

UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems

92 of 462 comments (clear)