UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems

An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at the BBC British Police forces are widening their use of automatic License Plate recognition. One of the police officers involved says 'we can effectively deny criminals the use of the roads.' For those who don't know central London already has a network of number plate recognising camera systems to support the Congestion Charge system."

Comments

Ok...

[SkyLeach]

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.

Re:Ok...

[Jonsey]

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.

Re:Ok...

[misterpies]

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.

Re:Ok...

[Cyberdyne]

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...

[stilwebm]

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...

[Zemran]

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.

Right Vs Privilidge

[Buzz_Litebeer]

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.

Re:Right Vs Privilidge

[anthony_dipierro]

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

[dotslash]

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.

Overstated

[tomakaan]

'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.

Sigh

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Sigh

[pyros]

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?

Nothing to fear

[interiot]

• "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

[Rick.C]

"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.

"Big Brother" is sometimes okay

[qewl]

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

Will insurance rates be affected?

[joebagodonuts]

"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.

You're right

[CaptainSuperBoy]

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!

[Wesley Everest]

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

[Stiletto]

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.

Knee-Jerk Comment Two Minutes After Story Posted

[reallocate]

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.

Road Tax

[bobm17ch]

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. :)

Re:Not a big deal

[Teun]

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.

Well...

[mustrum_ridcully]

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).