Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems

Posted by michael on from the glimpse-of-the-future dept.

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."

42 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Ok... by SkyLeach · · 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
    1. Re:Ok... by Jonsey · · 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.
    2. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Ok... by Mannerism · · 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
    4. Re:Ok... by Malc · · 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.

    5. Re:Ok... by misterpies · · 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.
    6. Re:Ok... by Cyberdyne · · 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!

    7. Re:Ok... by WhiplashII · · 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;
    8. Re:Ok... by rhombic · · 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.
    9. Re:Ok... by stilwebm · · 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.

    10. Re:Ok... by Zemran · · 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.
    11. Re:Ok... by Narcissus · · 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.

  2. Right Vs Privilidge by Buzz_Litebeer · · 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
    1. Re:Right Vs Privilidge by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Right Vs Privilidge by misterpies · · 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.
    3. Re:Right Vs Privilidge by anthony_dipierro · · 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.

    4. Re:Right Vs Privilidge by dotslash · · 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.

  3. Nothing a little mud wont help by kevin_conaway · · 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.

    1. Re:Nothing a little mud wont help by The+Only+Druid · · 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"
  4. Overstated by tomakaan · · 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.

  5. A good start. by Pig+Hogger · · 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.

  6. Sigh by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    1. Re:Sigh by pyros · · 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?

  7. Nothing to fear by interiot · · 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.

    1. Re:Nothing to fear by Rick.C · · 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
    2. Re:Nothing to fear by FroMan · · 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.
  8. 1984 by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently some people believe 1984 was a training manual.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  9. "Big Brother" is sometimes okay by qewl · · 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. (> <)
  10. Will insurance rates be affected? by joebagodonuts · · 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
  11. You're right by CaptainSuperBoy · · 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.

  12. Sweet! It'll be just like GTA! by Wesley+Everest · · 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.

  13. Ubiquitous Law Enforcement by Stiletto · · 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.

  14. Knee-Jerk Comment Two Minutes After Story Posted by reallocate · · 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"
  15. Road Tax by bobm17ch · · 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
    1. Re:Road Tax by praksys · · 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.

  16. Re:Not a big deal by Teun · · 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."
  17. Well... by mustrum_ridcully · · 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).

    1. Re:Well... by maromig · · 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
  18. Re:Duplication, not stealing, a problem - yup! by tpthompson · · 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
  19. Cops never misuse these, of course! by El · · 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

  20. funny story... by zogger · · 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.

  21. Trips to the UK: One in Seven by PHAEDRU5 · · 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