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."

48 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That we in the colonies won the war and started a country that didn't take away our rights and treat us like criminals.

    1. Re:Boy am I glad... by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot the "oh, wait..." part.

    2. Re:Boy am I glad... by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Can you give me _ONE_ real example of how _YOUR_ rights have been violated here in the USA? I live in Maryland (which doesn't issue carry permits unless you're politically connected), so my right to bear arms is violated on a daily basis.

      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"?
  2. Thanks by keesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. I've seen the future... by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lenina Huxley, you are fined one-half credit for a sotto voce violation of the Verbal Morality Statute. Additionally, you are fined 120 credits per infraction of the Safe Speed Statutes, for exceeding the speed limit of 45 miles per hour on the freeway 72 times this morning. Be Happy!

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  4. Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yet another reason for me to want to emigrate from the UK, what with ID cards, and 90 days detention without trial etc.(Thankfully the latter was defeated in parliment). At this rate, with ever more draconian laws I'll be able to claim asylum.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    1. Re:Another reason by dfjunior · · Score: 3, Funny

      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...

    2. Re:Another reason by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > > Yet another reason for me to want to emigrate from the UK, what with ID cards, and 90 days detention without trial etc.(Thankfully the latter was defeated in parliment). At this rate, with ever more draconian laws I'll be able to claim asylum.
      >
      > 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.

    3. Re:Another reason by dfjunior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't say come to the U.S., I said have a revolution.

    4. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      All they can do is see where your car is

      Add to that a CCTV camera on virtually every street corner (hell I even had one pointing at me inside a taxi the other day), the extention to detention without trial (even to 28 days is longer than most common law countries*) & the hair-brained biometric passport & ID card schemes, so now they know exactly what I do and where I go all the time, and want me to pay for it all. Sounds doubleplusgood to me.

      *according to the latest private eye.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  5. Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by ViperG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember seeing something like this technology being tested with police. They setup a unit like this (might be the same thing) on a busy road. Anyways, a few hours later, the system caught a few stolen cars, speeders, and few other things, that led to a record number of arrests that day.

    Kinda werid though, for some reason it reminds me of 1984.

    --
    Black Sky
    2D Elite Inspired Game
  6. interesting from the police side by mandreko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:interesting from the police side by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you had stopped your car next to his to ask for directions it would look like you did a drug deal. Good enough reason to search your home, car, and office. I am sure that your boss, family, and the people living next door would understand...
      I am not a privacy nut but this seems just wrong.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. I predict... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I predict... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I've always felt that if the government wants to put us under that much surveillance, then I think we should have surveillance on the politicians that give the thumbs up to these proposals, the people that administer the system and the people that access. They should be forced to wear microphones, they should be monitored, with their every move accessible by the public.

      If they really feel that privacy is an extinguishable notion, then they should be the ones to suffer that loss of it the very most. If they are unwilling to put up with this intrusion, then they can bloody well stop demanding intrusions on the common citizen.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I predict... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they really feel that privacy is an extinguishable notion, then they should be the ones to suffer that loss of it the very most. If they are unwilling to put up with this intrusion, then they can bloody well stop demanding intrusions on the common citizen.
      No, in fact I suspect that politicians will be exempt from this system, perhaps by means of a 'VIP list', that lists license plates not to be sent down to the central servers. Otherwise, a terrorist could hack the system and find out where each politician is, for easy assasination. The current obession with security works for them the same way it works against us.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:I predict... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think we should all have access to all the CCTV cameras.

      That would be grand. Unfortunately, they were all switched off for maintenance while the police held a few hundred people against their will on May Day the other year, right out in the open in London. Funny how that happened.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  8. angry voters, film at eleven? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps now the "silent majority" (people who speed) will elect officials who will raise speed limits or lower speeding penalties.

    Ok, never mind.

  9. A culture prone to understatement. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > "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.'

    In other news, the Atlantic Ocean is described as being "considerably broader" than the English Channel.

    But these are folks whose pet name for the gulf of water separating North America from Europe as "the pond".

    One might go further and suggest that British people are prone to occasional tendencies towards understatement.

  10. Re:What's a Gatso? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

    A type of speed camera.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatso

  11. Speed Limit by PresidentEnder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  12. Not in America by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. This isn't so bad by mgv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:This isn't so bad by oolon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is speeding is not actually the problem they need to solve, accidents are. With the level of cameras now on the road, I find I am paying far more attention to, what the last speed sign said, where the next camera is and how fast I am going. However what i probably should be doing is looking at the road conditions, other vehicles and people/objects near the road for potental hazards. When i drove through nottingham on the M1 there is an average speed check, and it keeps you on edge all the time, the road was of minor importance like wise other cars, my speed was my primary consern as it was with other drivers, you can see this from cars "wandering" onto the lane divisions. Two months ago I got my first speeding ticket ever and have been driving for 10 years. Not to much of a problem, but its getting easier to make mistakes and get caught, at 3+ points each its getting all to easy to hit 12 points in 3 years and get banned. I am starting to think people should get one "free" offence a year.

      James

    2. Re:This isn't so bad by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is that speed is only ONE of a number of variables that define how safe a particular trip may be. The road conditions, other vehicles on the road, and skill and attentiveness of the driver are also major components.

      Speed can be objectively measured and legislated. You can't make rainy, dark nights illegal. You can't measure how attentive a driver is as he passes. We already bar the less skillful from driving (you need to pass a test before getting a driving license).

      I'm not stupid, I know that speed is just one factor. But it's an important one, and an easily controlled one.

      So it really doesn't make sense to say that a particular speed makes a road 'safe'. It does not.

      But speed limits aren't based on that. Speed limits are based on the idea that a particular speed makes a road unsafe. And that's obviously true. You might argue that particular limits in particular locations are unreasonable, but that doesn't invalidate speed limits as a concept.

      Driving at a faster speed than the number on a sign is not immoral, so stop pretending like it is. Driving dangerously is.

      The second you start driving faster than people can get out of the way, you are putting people at risk. That's okay, as a society we've learned various practices to reduce that risk to a socially acceptable level. Imposing upper limits on speed is one of those practices. Who are you to decide that the rules don't apply to you? The rules that are there to reduce that risk? Because you think you are a better driver than average? Newsflash: everybody thinks they are better drivers than average.

      Something is not automatically bad just because you are told it is.

      And something is not automatically okay just because you have been getting away with it for a long time.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  14. The only thing I have a problem with by Bazzalisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is keeping the records for two years - I can't see any good reason for that. The cameras themselves aren't much different from the camera system already used to maintain the congestuion charge in central london and are overall a Good Thing. (As a cyclist I find that the largest regular threat to my life tends to originate from speeding/incompetent motorists - and I want them to be caught and have their licenses revoked)

    --
    James P. Barrett
  15. No intent proven by ear1grey · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well...

    The regularity of the cameras is irrelevant, you only have to know the distance between them, and ensure their clocks are in sync to be able to issue a speeding ticket.

    So thinking around the subject:

    • If you want to monitor road usage to check up on tax discs you only need one set of ANPR cameras between each junction.
    • If you want to monitor speed over distance you need two or more APNR camera sets.
    • Having multiple regular cameras makes it easier to passively monitor the progress of vehicles. What this will give the government/police is the ability to track certain people, and more importantly, to gain an understanding of road usage patterns.
  16. I've got a bike, by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    you can ride it if you like
    It's got a basket, a bell that rings
    and things to make it look good
    I'd give it to you if I could,
    but I borrowed it

    Syd Barrett escapes the universal monitoring!

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  17. A very moral government by FishandChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  18. Why is speeding a crime? by Transcendent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I don't understand is why speeding is so strictly enforced with this system. It's an entirely arbitrary system (well, loosely based on some aspect of the road) that is outdated for current car designs. Do you think my 1,500lb escort should have the same speed limit as some guys 2 ton '88 Cadillac, or an H2? Should I be forced to drive at the same speed as a senile senior citizen?

    What about other circumstances where I sped up to avoid an accident, or to avoid further traffic congestion (as in moving into place to merge into an open spot rather than having 10 people brake behind you)?

  19. Re:Quarter miles? by Bazzalisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, bizarely all our road lengths are still measured in imperial units - even though every other damned thing is metric (except milk and beer which come in pints).

    --
    James P. Barrett
  20. Let's watch the watchers by Paul+Carver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Sadness by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. do, or do not, there is no try by PMuse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could the stated goals not be acheived more cheaply simply by fitting each vehicle with a transponder? Anything that must be installed every quarter mile of every road will necessarily be ungodly expensive.

    Vehicles operating without a transponder would be fined steeply. A few random checks would ensure compliance.

    It's one thing to be an evil overlord, but there's no excuse for being an expensive and incompetent evil overlord.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  24. Re:wow by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  25. Re:Why upset by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Informative

    maybe they use the new money to fix some of the other systems or perhaps increase the police.

    Unfortunatly, it is more likely that the money will be distributed around the various family members of government officials who 'happen' to own services companies who amazingly seem to always win those cushy government contracts.

    It is not widely known that the NHS often use private ambulance companies. When my mother was in the hospital I got talking to a few staff at the hospital and they let me on on how much the NHS pays for a 15 min ambulance journey between two London hospitals. It is an absolutely disgusting figure and given that my terminally ill mother was left in a seriously uncomfortable state for hours while she waited for an ambulance I can assure you that we do not get our money's worth.

    They will put up speed cameras to generate wealth for a government who tells us that it is a choice between raised 'tax' or lower public spending. Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services. I suspect because if anyone were to look into the books to investigate this waste they would find corruption that runs all the way up to downing street.

    It is just easier to pretend there isnt a distinction between driving fast and driving dangerously (and I have seen dangerous driving within the speed limit and also quite safe driving above the speed limit). Of course, it is far more difficult to punish dangerous driving using a device that will work 24/7/365 and doesnt require a salary!

  26. Re:A little difference by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A home is a private place, a street is a public place. Shall I draw a diagram?

    And if you have absolutely no privacy in public? Even if you walk past CCTV cameras, you are primarily observed, not tracked. In general, there is no record of you being there. I would certainly feel that a full record of my public movements would be an invasion of my privacy. Even big celebreties tend to get some privacy. Try these on for size, all "public" facts:

    Who bought condoms last week.
    Who slept where, either going away or coming over.
    Who went to Alcoholics Anonymous.
    Who went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 in cinema.
    Who went to a mosque last week.

    That's a lot of social, political, religious and other profiling for each and every citizen. In general, I place a big difference between being observed and being tracked, and what is being described here is a tracking system. Would you really like to have the government keep a huge file on everything and everyone? Move to DDR, ca. 1970 but don't bring that society here. We don't need nor want it.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  27. Whys is this so hard to understand? by arfonrg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
  28. Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Speeding is a problem

    That is very debatable. The speed limits here in the UK are now so absurd in many places that the vast majority of motorists exceed the limit, yet no accidents ever result (literally; speed limits have been dropped on roads that haven't had even a minor injury accident in a decade).

    This is just another power play by Blair's dictatorship and his ever more draconian Home Secretaries, right along with ID cards for everyone, the National Identity Register, electronic strip searching on the way onto the London Underground, the RIP Act, detention without trial for as long as they can get away with, installing CCTV everywhere (yes, we're still the most spied-upon nation in the world), reversing the burden of proof and/or attempting to do away with jury trials for increasing numbers of cases...

    All of these things, of course, are "justified" by arguing that they increase national security, help to prevent crime, or otherwise benefit Joe Public. Unless he's in the wrong place at the wrong time, in which case he loses his benefits because some junior staffer in a government office mistyped one number out of 1,000 they entered that day into the master database. Or the ANPR system misreads a number plate, and sends him a fine for doing the physically impossible, which he then has to challenge in court after several weeks of concern, with no compensation for the time wasted or grief caused. Or his daughter's the one being rendered naked for the pervert watching the screens at the Underground station. Or he's late for the train, and since he ran through the screen he's obviously a terrorist so they shoot him dead. Or he's black, old, bald, young, or a registered member of an opposition political party, the biometric recognition doesn't work, and he's held for three months as a suspected terrorist on the whim of a senior politician, by which time he's lost his job, his home, and the trust of all his family and friends, not to mention the ability to challenge the statements of absolute fact issued by our political leaders (and I use the term loosely, since they didn't even win the popular vote in England, never mind an overall majority that might justify their absolute control of parliament, not that this particular abuse ever went before parliament) to justify all these Big Brother efforts.

    I used to think the tin foil hat brigade were eccentrics. In recent years, looking at the direction New Labour have taken our government, I think the sooner we have a written constitution and a constitutional court above parliament and answerable only to the public, the better.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by nut · · Score: 3, Interesting
      New Zealand doesn't have a Constitution, it has a Treaty. I won't try to explain it, as someone else has done a much better job here. Basically NZ as a country has existed from this date - it may be the only colonial country where the aboriginal people did give their legal blessing to legal and political systems derived from Britain.

      Mind some people didn't stop fighting for quite a few years after this date, and even today there are outstanding issues...

      By and large, I'm proud to say, we have given to the hysteria of the Threat Of Terror less than many places, but we have at least one stain on our human rights record that derives from this.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    2. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Informative
      Tony Blair's government seems to think that Big Brother (1984 version) was way to moderate with surveyance, and would love to have people issued with passes that can be checked every 100m by Zigbee or Bluetooth or something.

      The British government has proposed a "National Corriculum" for Under 5 year olds and in a year when there are riots in Paris. (The Paris uprising in 1968 was because the teaching curriculum was too rigid).

      And if you don't support him, you must be an Al Quaida suporter. A member of his own party was arrested at the party conference for pointing out that Jack Straw is completely dishonest. He was charged under the Prevention of Terrorism act. However, they want the power to hold people for 90 days with no charge whatever, in case they notice that some other ministers are "economical with the truth".

      The words neurotic, obsesssive, compulsive, posessive, paranoid, manic, and several less polite ones come to mind.

      The only reason they are in power is because "her majesty's Loyal opposition"'s slogan is "we are the party of convictions" - most have several for corruption, libel, slander, purjury, and other things that normally bar you from high office.

      I suspect that the Robert Mugabe's complaints against Blair are fuelled by jelousy over the ease with which these controls are imposed (no need to deport inner city kids to remote Scottish islands, etc).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  29. This will cost money (not make money) by henni16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:What's a Gatso? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.
    Newsflash: they can already do this. It's called the gasoline tax -- the more gas you buy, the more you pay in taxes.

    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

  31. Brazil by sremick · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I hearby inform you under powers entrusted to me under section 47, paragraph 7 of council order numbr 438476, that Mister Buttle, Archibald residing at 412 North Tower Shangri-La Towers has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries, and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in council order RV/CZ/907/X. Sign here, please. Thank you. That is your receipt for your husband, and here is my receipt for your receipt."

  32. Re:What's a Gatso? by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    A problem for whom? Do you have any good statistical data to back up the assertion that speeding is a problem? Not trolling just interested if that was opinion / truism or not.

    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.
  33. It's not the speeding as such... by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    it's the people who are speeding that matters. Can you guarantee that everyone breaking the speed limit has the ability to handle the vehicle properly ? Driving involves quite a lot of common sense, and sadly, these days I see less and less of it.

    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.

    1. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by Geeky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd just like to add to this that the government seems hell bent on making driving expensive, but this is not out of any concern for the environment or as a backdoor ban on driving; they want us driving and paying through the nose for it.

      Otherwise how do you explain new housing estates being built with no public transport links and no local shops - only a Tesco superstore five or ten miles away? Or how do you explain business parks built with no public transport access?

      My company relocated from a town centre office block which was five minutes walk from a train station and had a bus stop right outside. We had been there for years and many employees had relocated to within walking distance. Our new office is on a business park, about 15 miles away, so walking is out of the question. The nearest train station is about a 40 minute walk away. Bus links are non existant. Previously I could walk to work in about half an hour. It now takes me the same to drive, but public transport would take almost three times as long (20 min walk to station, 20 minutes on train, 40 minutes to walk to office). Rather than walk five minutes to a sandwich shop at lunchtime, the nearest supermarket is a five mile round trip.

      One other kicker; it costs more to sit on a cattle truck of a train than to sit in the comfort of my car.

      The reason for our move? It was much cheaper. Not for the building, but for the taxes. In other words, the company got a massive tax break to relocate to a location that forced the employees to commute by car. Perhaps you could explain to me how the free market was involved in that?

      I guess I still deserve everything I get though, for not being willing to take a massive pay cut to stay in the old town or spend tens of thousands to relocate (and incidentally, there is next to no housing near the new business park anyway).

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.