Slashdot Mirror
UK To Passively Monitor Every Vehicle
DrSkwid writes "The UK Police are building a network to monitor the movement of every vehicle in the U.K. through an extensive Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The data will be retained for 2 years. The Register further reports that the system will likely be used for issuing speeding fines." From the article: "The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads.' But unless the Times has got the spacing wrong, having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well, which would effectively make the current generation of Gatsos obsolete. Otherwise, checking a vehicle's tax and insurance status every 15 seconds or thereabouts would seem overkill."
I'd just like to say thanks for trying to waste my hard-earned tax money on this, rather than going out and using it for something useful like fixing the sorry state of our education system or making the NHS ever so slightly less pathetic.
First cameras on _every_ corner...now this.
this could be a very interesting tool. Other than it's privacy issues of course, it could be used in some neat ways.
Let's say you have a criminal who has been busted for drug charges. You could then find out where he's been, and probably track down where he gets his stuff from, and take it straight up the channels to the big guys.
Or does it not work that way?
One group of people asking why the English let their government run roughshod over them, and a group of Brits claiming that they fully understand the reasons behind the measures their government is taking and are willing to endure scrutiny for the public good.
1984 wasn't set in America.
Ok, never mind.
Doubleplusungood brother...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I just hope that the US doesn't adopt this idea.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
The point to point speeding measurements are much fairer than the spot speeding checks. For example if you average 150MPH down the freeway over 1km you can't really complain when you get busted. If however you get caught at 150MPH when passing a truck at the unfortunate location of a Gatso then that may just be bad luck.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
>
> Or you could do what we did, have a revolution!
> The UK Gov't hasn't given us a whole heck of a lot of trouble since...
Ah yes, flee UK ID cards and 90-day detention without trial for the balmy shores of the United States, with REAL ID, and, umm... indefini... aaw fuck.
As the gray of November gives way to a long cold winter for Western Civilization, the UK's forgotten stepchild (Canada, eh?) is beginning to look warm and sunny by comparison.
I've always felt that these sorts of measures are alot better than the speed enforment that we have in Australia and many other places - The hidden multinova cameras that police now use here.
If you really want to stop speeding, this is the way to do it. All the time. Everywhere.
If it sounds radical, well at least it will mean that in the long run the speed limits themselves will have to be adjusted to something that is reasonable, rather than what has happened in most countries - speed limits that were set but which are only enforced a very tiny fraction of the time.
Also, getting done for doing too fast an average speed is far more important than getting unlucky for doing an instantaneous speed that is too fast at some random point in your trip. Almost everyone speeds a little at some time - unless you only use cruise control to drive with you will always run the risk of going too fast at some point when you aren't looking at your speedo. (And, its not exactly safe to drive the whole trip whilst looking only at your speed)
As for the privacy issues.
Well, I think its a little too late for anyone in the UK (maybe anywhere, really) to get worried about that. Look at the congestion tax in the UK (Automatic licence plate recognition). Look also at the ability to obtain a list of every base station that your mobile is associated with - the phone companies can do this if requested by a magistrate, although that usually only done in murder cases or similar. Look at the number of CCTV's that proliferate in every public place.
Unfortunatly, the invasion into our privacy has only just begun. There is no techonlogical way to avoid this - it will only get worse. Soon enough automatic facial recognition will be connected to all the CCTV's around and you will be trackable just for being visible. You can identify people by the way that they walk. Some systems now can identify potential suicides in the happening in train stations by the typical behaviour people make prior to jumping in front of trains.
The only solution to the privacy issues are legislative ones. You can't stop this level of data collection anymore, all we can do is ensure that only certain legitimate uses for it exist. This is the only way that any of us will have real protection in the future - if its in a constitution or in legislation.
Just my 2c worth,
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
It would appear that the times DID get the spacing wrong, since I seriously doubt the UK has randomly decided to use US units.
Every Western country is facing Big Brother issues. However, I wonder if the UK has created its own issue here: whether it is wise or moral to criminalize huge numbers of the population with the aim of raising extra revenue for the government. Few in the UK would argue that the present system of speed cameras (they are called Gatso cameras) is designed for much else other than making money for the state.
I guess if a government goes about giving very large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens a criminal record they should not expect much more than cynicism when it comes to other social problems. We are then all the losers.
A by-product of the current obsession with safety is that enormous sums have to be spent on repairing emergency vehicles whose suspension is wrecked going over speed bumps in urban areas. In addition, more acute cases die because it takes longer for an ambulance to get them to hospital and the ride there is bumpy to say the least. It might even turn out that the safety obsession kills more people than it is intended to save.
Meanwhile, new licensing laws in the UK permitting the sale of alcohol 24/7 promise many mores deaths from alcohol abuse and its fallout. Liver disease from alcohol abuse among those under 30 is several hundred per cent higher than it was even twenty years ago. Apparently it's OK to drink yourself to death in the UK, but woe betide you if you get in an automobile stone cold sober.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
If you have not done so already, get in contact with your local branch of No2ID. Sign the I refuse pledge (or at least the I support pledge). Lobby your MP and your councillors: many councils across the UK are passing resolutions to forbid government services from requiring their users to have ID cards.
Except when they put you in the slammer for 90 days because you 3 times in the past 2 years have been driving behind a suspected terrorist.
The romans posed the question "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"
I would be in favor of a system to track the movements of all cars and issue speeding violations as long as the data is a matter of public record and it can be proven (for example, via Freedom of Information requests) that all traffic regulations are being strictly enforce on all public officials, including elected official, appointed official, off duty police and their families, friends, and relatives, and anybody else in a position of influence.
If a speed limit is too low, I'm sure it would get rapidly fixed if there were 100% enforcement of fines and penalties against senators and representatives.
If a speed limit is, in fact, valid and legitimate for safety reasons then 100% enforcement is certainly a good thing.
The problem occurs when traffic regulations are constructed in such a way that everybody violates them because they are unreasonable and the police use them as a means of selectively grabbing people they have an illegitimate beef against.
This is simply a voluntary tax system. Want to help your gov.? Simply speed.
Besides, maybe they use the new money to fix some of the other systems or perhaps increase the police.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm feeling sad that these kind of measures can be introduced in the UK and the citizens of the UK doesn't feel the need to throw those responsible for this surveilance into the ocean or something.
...
Seriously, why is it, that we have to live in such a passive society? Like if it would have been bred for obedience.
First, there were cameras on the streets and noone said a word
Then, there were monitoring of cars and noone said a word
Finally, when I got stripped from all my freedoms, labeled a criminal, then, there was noone to say a word.
Sad.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I mean seriously... Of coarse speeding tickets will be issued with it. That is how they will raise funding for it. However, figuring out how much they were speeding is a whole different story altogether... Now grant it, the 1/4 mile distance will limit some of the speeds, but in theory, someone could hit 100+ mph and slow back down to 5 mph before they hit the next scanner, thus the overall time spent going the 1/4 mile could still be same time spent for going that distance as it would if you simply went the speed limit.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I don't normally like to resort to ad hominem attacks, but you are a moron for believing this.
There are so many problems with government organizations having this level of control over their citizenry. Starting with the people actually doing the control, who do they get to monitor these systems? What if it's some creepy guy trying to stalk women with this technology? What if it's someone trying to use knowledge of your actions to blackmail you? If I'm working the camera, and I see you walking down the street holding hands with one woman, then the next day another woman, I could demand that you pay me money or I'll let them know about each other, etc. This is one example but you can see many more. What if I'm not even working for the government, but I hack the system to gain access to this kind of information?
At a higher level, what's legal and what's not is always subject to change. You could be subject to hundreds of dollars in fines every day just for doing something that otherwise seems ordinary. See the above comment about the man asking a drug offender for directions. Nothing illegal took place, but in the investigation of the drug offender, while trying to find his customers and sources, you would get flagged for investigation and would be subject to search and arrest. Just getting arrested is often enough for you to lose your job and be embarassed by your friends, colleagues and family.
I can go on, but I hope that you see why your line of thinking that this is "only bad for bad people" is flawed.
So how about we put cameras in every home, in order to detect criminal activities?
You've got nothing to hide, so it's all fine and dandy, right? After all, why watch you? You're just doing your average activities, right?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
... despite the UK's continual attempts to make it easier to incarcerate people without trial, it does require motive, means, and opportunity, not to mention some evidence of a crime, rather than a conversation to get arrested/charged. There is always the option of wrongful arrest, if the police try to take it too far...
:-(
In general, though, I'm very disappointed. Christ, I thought geting rid of "lockemup, lockemALLup" Blunkett was a good thing. Looks like we swapped the frying pan for the fire
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Sure and when you decide to join a political group that maybe isn't looked upon favorably by the Govt, they can track you right to the meetings.
Maybe you're having an affair, your spouse can now petition the state to have your movements tracked.
Maybe you take the daughter of a important MP out on a date, one thing leads to another. Now he can track you and have you busted for statutory rape! (not sure if that is a law in the UK, but you get my point).
Government tracking is never a good thing.
Gatso is the current yellow-back speed cameras, which uses the
These new speed cameras (called SPECS) are already deployed on some parts of motorways and a few A roads (they look like yellow CCTV cameras), which have two cameras spaced about a mile apart and they calculate your average speed.
Either way, i think these new systems are generally a good idea. Speeding is a problem, and the current speed cameras can in some areas cause more accidents than they save. I think all we need now are more dynamic speed limits, so A roads could become national when its quiet, but drop to 50 when its busy - kind of like they currrently drop some speed limits when the weather is bad.
As much as i support them though, you are left thinking this is starting to give the government a bit too much control - as these systems dont just record you when you speed or have no tax, they record you all the time. I mean, if all you want to do is catch tax evaders, just stick them on a few key junctions. If you want to catch speeders, just put them on key accident sites. More complete deployments though gives them an easy way to monitor people. You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive. And heck, eventually they could do more advanced monitoring, say checking the type and colour of the vehicle, or even looking inside to see who is in the car. Maybe even detect drunk drivers. Once the network is there its only a small jump.
So, who is up for making a number plate shaped LCD? Sounds like a good job for e-ink type displays! Granted, they might notice if your number plate changes at each camera (especially if you are always between the same two cars infront and behind).
Paul
What's the point of a revolution in a democracy? You're more likely to persuade people to vote for you than fight for you.
At least here in the U.S., the arrest gets all the press. An acquittal NEVER gets nearly as much press. Case in point, recently nine women attending two fraternity parties near the University of Colorado were taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. It was front-page news for several days when two of the women apparently tested positive for GHB, a "date-rape" drug. One of the frats has actually had its local chapter closed down for the rest of the year, maybe permanently.
Fast-forward several weeks, and guess what, the "quickie" test for GHB has a non-zero occurence of false positives. The more expensive, accurate, and time-consuming lab test came back negative on all nine women. Was it front page news for over a week that "frats didn't drug women after all"? I'll let you guess at the answer.
I had a point somewhere in there. Oh yeah, I'd prefer not to be arrested just because I happened to come into casual contact with a criminal.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Oh, this goddamned stupid argument again. So, if you're not committing crimes, why don't we stick a camera up your ass so you can have a perpetual colonsocopy? Obviously, it would be good for your health, no? It could have embedded GPS, and remote monitoring so in the event that you develop a polyp the doctors can come and tear you out of your mistress' bed and take that sucker out!
Maybe some of us don't like living under a microscope, for any reason? Could increase your safety in a way significantly relative to the amount of privacy (every)one gives up? I sincerely doubt it.
I'll take my chances with the fucking speeders and terrorists, thanks.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
So ... would you complain if cop cars seems to mysteriously always be nearby when you were speeding?
Do you object to cops monitoring your speed?
Would you object to an increase in police personnel to do this same job?
Do you object to automatic ticketing?
Do you object to the notion of guilty until appealed? (tickets are like this)
Do you object to the entire notion of speed limits?
Do you object to spending this much money on speed limit enforcement? Any money?
Do you object to the excessive proportional allocation of funds for this?
Do you object to the road work this will require, and the associated traffic?
While there's obviously some discomfort with the notion of having cameras tracking our vehicles all over the place, I'm not seeing the 'why' pinned down precisely. When out in public, you expose yourself to scrutiny -- whether by passers-by, cameras, car-tracking systems, etc. The UK measure is extreme, yes, but we're talking about the automation and scaling-up of existing abilities, not new ones. They could have posted cops every quarter-mile, and hoped they could read and remember plate numbers as well as an electronic system. There would be the same implications in terms of their ability to ticket you, track you, find a stolen (or not) vehicle, etc. but without the technology.
Don't misunderstand me: I get a creepy feeling from this too. And I'm all about revolutions. But it's best to have clearly defined principles first. A new government would need to be limited appropriately, or the same thing would eventually happen again.
I think that this will probably cost them money.
If you know that you will be "caught" and have to pay everytime you speed, you probably won't do it if you really don't have to.
So my guess is that they will spend a lot of money to install such a system and afterwards will lose lots of money because of less people speeding.
I think it is more likely that the system will be used to create a giant toll system.
However, I agree that these cameras have bad implications for civil liberties -- and far beyond just traffic offenses. Once they're tracking you, they can be monitoring to see if you're engaging in any "terrorist-like" behavior, such as planning protests against an opressive government.
Of course, this just makes me glad I don't live in Airstrip One.
By the way, even if speeding were a problem, in this case the "solution" is worse.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"wait...i can have 4 kids, sit on my ass all day, get a free house, free dental, free health and make £40,000 a yer."
So you won't get with the program. Whose fault is that?
"Can i come to USA?"
I thought the USA was the laughing stock of the world, where everybody is fat and supports a government of morons and warmongers.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Very insightful comment. However, "Mrs Grundy" is only prevalent in the smaller towns and nicer neighborhoods. The more dense the population, the harder it is for her to keep track.
:-)
If you'll allow me to expand on this: (whoops--too late
Anyone that chooses to live in 'any' societal setting is subject to some form of scrutiny. Whether it's speeding/red-light/street cameras, "Mrs. Grundy", or the nice folks waiting for the next asteroid to come pick you up....SOMEBODY is watching you, and your actions are kept in an archive--somewhere.
Now, to get to the meat of the topic. My problem with 'this' kind of scrutiny is that it is more profit-driven than it is safety/public interest driven. I'm sure that there are statistics that can quote 'lives saved', or 'terrorists thwarted', but all I hear on the news about these cameras is the amount of revenue generated for the city. I'm sure the city isn't the only one profiting either. Someone created the technology, and someone maitains the system. It's a win-win situation for the profiteers, but we ("...the so-called 'normal' human beings") lose.
They accept our taxes to pay for the system, and they profit from the revenues generated.
Hmmmmm....
This isn't about catching speeders. It's about tracking your each and every move, for ever and ever. I'd be nervous about this if they were keeping records for two *weeks*, nevermind two *years*. What they really want is to be able to say "Where is license plate #27D726" at any given moment in time, so that they can put "the bad guys" away. The definition of "the bad guys" can easily change with the wind, and they'll have the security net to find and catch all the homosexuals, johns, pot-smokers, poker players, or any other evil-criminal-du-jour. Stupid laws that have made criminals of everyone have been passed before, and will pass in the future. This is just stupid.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
No, we have the RIAA and the MPAA to do that for us.
don't corporations work so much better than governments
besides, our gov't respects its citizens rights and passes laws to protect our property, like the DMCa....err, Patriot Ac....ummm, damn, nevermind
"Driving is a privilege" is no more sensible than "walking around outside is a privilege." How about "appearing in a public place without having every minute detail of your appearance and habits scanned and logged forever along with the same information about everyone else in a location and medium unknown and inaccessible to you ... is a privilege."
Thanks to the USA-PATRIOT act, I might be one of the 30,000+ US citizens with no links to terrorism who was a subject of a national security letter. I'll never know, because of the gag order that accompanies them. My (9th amendment) right to know, as previously guaranteed by the FOIA act and other laws, has been nullified.
My right to petition the government for grievances and to peaceably assemble is violated every time I'm herded into a "free speech zone".
My right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures disappears the moment I get in to a motor vehicle, whether I'm driving it or not.
My property can be taken without just compensation any time the government feels that someone else would pay more tax if they had it instead of me.
That's just what I can think of at 11:30 at night after a couple of stiff drinks. I'm sure I can come up with some more.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services.
It might be interesting to note that (at least in the US) the public has been clamoring for the privitization of certain government services, thinking it would save money. The joke's on them. Many private companies, once they get their hand on the public teat, won't let go, and milk it for all they can. This is where these astronomically-prised ambulance rides come in. I can't seem to figure it out, but people in government that are responsible for spending money (never mind wisely, because that clearly doesn't happen), think this is OK. The government just can't seem to get away from this mindset that has them paying several times what a normal person with half a brain would end up paying for the same thing.
Speeding is a problem for cyclists and pedestrians who have to share the roads with impatient maniacs.
What's your GCNSEQNO?
Don't know about UK, but in DK about 1 in 5 casualties of traffic is thought to be caused speeding. Those are the official numbers. I would imagine that the numbers are not so different in UK.
Of course, such numbers comes with the usual reservations. No one knows if the casualty would have been suffered if the speeder had not, in fact, speeded.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I am a professional driver, and see this every day. The motorways are full of people who are too scared to use the outside lane when neccessary, but who drive in the centre lane almost obsessively. Consequently, when they come up behind a slower moving vehicle in the centre lane, they brake, causing following traffic to either, brake hard themselves, or, swerve into the outside lane, regardless of the traffic situation. This is what causes pile-ups. I drive for miles on virtually empty motorways sometimes and there are still lines of cars in the centre lane, usually only 20 or 30 feet behind each other. There is another problem with this - when I have to overtake a vehicle in the left hand lane, I have to 'break into' this line of cars somehow. This is difficult when they are only 20 feet apart, so I have to pull out much sooner, and stake my claim before they pull alongside.
I could go on for hours about the bad things that are happening on the roads, but speeding is the least of my worries. My truck has a tachograph, so anytime the police wants to stop me, they can tell instantly whether I've been speeding or not. Why should the car drivers be exempt from this ? Bad driving is the real issue, and nothing much is being done about it. I am fed up with seeing females negotiating junctions with their right hand holding a phone to their left ear and their left hand on the right hand side of the steering wheel. Sometimes the right hand has a piece of food in it as well ! No-one can argue that that behaviour is safe, either for them or others.
In the end, there are too many cars on the road, driven by very basically qualified people. No one forced them into this situation. The free market sold these people cars and the idea of freedom, so they can't really complain that they need a car to get to work, the shops, whatever. It's down to their buying habits that turned villages into dormitories for workers who have to drive 50 miles to work everyday. Either people find alternative ways to work (internet based etc) or live closer to the place of employment.
How long can the country as a whole be held to ransom by the car ? The government can't ban cars outright, but they can make it as difficult (read expensive) as possible to own and operate one.
As a disclaimer, I must add that I ride a GSX1100 suzuki, and so speeding is a virtual certainty, but even then, it is so much harder to find adequate space in which to do so, because of the unpredictability of the other traffic. But as a motorcyclist, I know with painful certainty what a mistake at speed will mean. I have in the past fallen off and hit the road at over 60 mph, and it's not fun believe me. So, hands up all those car drivers who have intimate knowledge of the surface of the road. Apart from motorcyclists / cyclists, there aren't any hands showing. This is where it has gone wrong. Every driver should be aware of the road surface in front of them, the temperature, how wet the road is, what white lines feel like as you go over them. That's where true control comes from, being aware of your surroundings.
Instead, they have the heating up high, the sound turned up, and sit in the middle lane eating and talking on their phones, and hope that no-one gets in their way until they get to work.
I for one won't miss their departure from the environment, and sad to say, they deserve everything they get in the mean time.
Are you also aware that once you go much above 65mph your car's fuel economy plummets, so although you're going faster you're not only using fuel faster you're also using more per mile you travel.
OK, maybe you do like lining Gordon Brown's pockets. I sure as hell don't.
-- Soruk
The right to bear arms is, fundamentally, the right to self-protection from government, authority, or any other asshole that tries to infringe on any other rights you may have. Even if you could stop CRIMINALS from obtaining firearms, don't you think that they'll just switch to knives, axes, brass knuckles, large wooden stakes, or any other type of weapon that could be used to gain control of, or injure, defenseless, weaker people?
That being said, I could give a damn about having firearms for self defense. I want them in case my government ever gets out of control. I want them so that I can, if the need arises, be part of an armed revolution. And that's a DAMNED patriotic, American thing to say. Eventually it WILL be a necessity, despite our well-written constitution, because eventually some dickwad will gain control of the government. It could be a foreign power, it could be a corrupt politician in a time of war (like Marcos in the Philippines) instituting martial law then refusing to remove it, and it could be a military coup de'tat. I know this sounds loony and paranoid, but you never really know. My money says it'll happen eventually in America. Hopefully it won't in my lifetime but, if it does, I will happily take the risk of imprisonment or death at the hands of a bad regime in order to try to restore a proper government.
I know people are going to chime in about Bush and all of that crap, but I don't think that's nearly as bad as people think. Now, if the man declared himself King Bush II, announced that the 2008 elections were going to postponed indefinitely, etc. you can bet I'd jump on that bandwagon. Even if his actions are criminal (which I doubt), there is a proper constitutional system in place which can still be utilized.
To summarize, some of us aren't scared shitless of being shot. Some of us are scared shitless of being unable to shoot.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
The amount of times I've seen one truck trying to overtake another
(usually going uphill! Wtf?!) on a 2 lane road so causing hundreds of
metres of car traffic building up behind I've lost count of. What
exactly is the point of overtaking another truck if you're only going
0.5 mph faster? I mean really , what is the point? If I was of a paranoid
nature I'd say the truckers did it on purpose just to piss off the car
drivers.
> Only 3% of accidents are solely caused by speeding
No, 0% of accidents are caused by just speeding. Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop. The only way that speed could have killed a person is if they had a heart attack: "scared to death" from going so fast. Actually, then it's their heart thay killed them.