Slashdot Mirror
CCTV Network Tracks Getaway Car
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that a 'pioneering number plate recognition system in Bradford played a vital role in the arrests of six suspects' after the murder of a Policewoman - within minutes of Friday's shootings, police were using the system to track the suspected getaway car." From the article: "When a car is entered on the system it will 'ping' whenever it passes one of our cameras, which makes it a lot easier to track than waiting for a patrol car to spot it."
Big Brother is watching you. Don't you feel double plus safe?
You can't take the sky from me...
I for one welcome our no-murder enforcing CCTV-watching overlords.
:-)
Privacy? They killed a policewoman. let em hang. whoops... do they do that in Britain?
"When a car is entered on the system it will 'ping' whenever it passes one of our cameras, which makes it a lot easier to track than waiting for a patrol car to spot it." If the "Ping" is above 100, I'm finding another server..
So because it has one good use does that mean we should ignore all the possible misuses?
This system is so sophisticated they tracked it for 211 miles across the country.
:(
For a pioneering system, this sounds very well integrated or they are just using the bad news to give a reason for the cameras. It was only last week we heard about this for the first time.
I don't like living in the UK. Big brother really is watching us
(Though I am very pleased they caught these crooks in this instance, I still don't see why a criminal would go up north, rob a store then flee to the biggest city in the country. Don't these people think about lying low?)
liqbase
If this concept spreads, criminals will merely switch from making getaways in cars to making getaways in boats. The speeds may be reduced, but boats have much less maneuverability and longer stopping distances. Risks to neighboring automobiles from anchors and propellers also promises to raise the number of injuries to innocents in this misguided effort to fight crime.
Probably explains why there are about 35 fatal shootings each year in the UK, and 11,000 in the US.
"When a car is entered on the system it will 'ping' whenever it passes one of our cameras [...]"
Ah yes. The machine that goes 'ping'!
2) What is it?
1) It's the machine that goes Ping!
2) What?
1) We don't know what it does, it just goes "Ping" every now and again and we are scared to turn it off.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Having a plate that's hidden, out of place, or looks funny is primary cause for getting pulled over. Such schemes are likely to backfire by attracting police attention.
Photoblocker. It shines up your plate so much that it doesn't appear in pictures. It looks all washes out to cameras.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
These posters were all over London when I was there a couple of years ago. No joke.
It sounds like the system was used to track exactly where the car was in order to send the police to the correct location in persuit, not to look up the registered owner and wait at their house, so fake plates wouldn't have changed anything.
Some guy goes to a meeting with his probation officer, and parks in front of a squad car with the plate recognition equipment in it. The system pings his ride - which was stolen.
Pretty convenient for the cops.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
I can't resist. They really tracked these boneheads for 211 miles before stopping them? Who's to say that the people in the car when they finally stopped were the people who were in the car when the crime happened? How about this for a scenario?
1: Commit crime
2: Drive to least favorite relative's house
2: Loan car to (for me anyway) sister-in-law, who borrows everything & returns nothing, for vacation trip
3: Laugh for a very long time while she tries to prove she's innocent.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
do they:
1) input a number plate that they want to track and it pings every time they pass a camera, discarding records of number plates which aren't the ones being tracked (i.e. recognise plate, check against list of plates being looked for, if it's not on the list, discard)
2) record every number plate and look through the logs to look when a particular one passed a particular camera, then keeping the logs until forever.
3) some sort of hybrid, like keeping the logs for 24 hours to see what happened earlier in the day, but killing them after that. (like some sort of caching system)
No1 I'd just about support (so long as there were adequate safeguards to make sure that it was only used to track suspects (not potential suspects) and I'd just about stretch to No3 so long as the logs really were being killed.
No2, however, is a BIG no-no. Automated camera systems to track the movements of every car in the country and then keep that on a permanent record are VERY bad (although I suspect that is what happens). When did spending a vast sum on public money on an automated system to track the car-using public go through parliament?
And another thing, where do the police get the idea that it's a given that they can 'deny the use of the roads to criminals'? take this very case, right now these people are SUSPECTS they haven't even been charged, as such they aren't 'criminals'. Someone explain why being a suspect means that you're no longer entitled to use the roads without being tracked? They'll be wanting tracking bugs in shoes next 'to deny criminals use of their feet'
FGD 135
All this will do is create a big black market for fake plates.
If you are going to commit a crime, make sure you pick up a 10-pack of fake plates and switch them out randomly during your arrival and your getaway. Even better if the fakes use valid numbers off other vehicles in the same vicinity giving the coppers two nearby "pings" to choose from. They don't even have to be high-quality fakes, just enough to fool the cameras and anyone else looking at them from a distance.
"I know you were modded up informative but the law does not say police have carte blanch to search your car."
Nope sorry. Thanks to the combination of the seat belt law and the patriot act police can now pull you over for not wearing a seat belt and immediately search your vehicle. No warrent needed. Because as we all know, terrorist don't wear seatbelts. (In the US)
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I think that a system just introduced could not explain anything that happened in the past. Maybe one needs to ask why with 35 fatal shootings in the UK, the state thinks there is enough cause to track 60,000,000 people who are innocent until proven guilty.
Brilliant. The one good use for the ANPR system (tracking criminals) has now become public knowledge. That means your local gang-land thugs will find a way to avoid their registration plate being scanned (custom plate with obscure font). Meanwhile, every other law abiding joe normal will continue along their merry way, quite happy being scanned and tracked because "it's to help catch criminals".
We end up with a system that spies upon and punishes the law abiding citizens that make accidental mistakes, whilst letting the professional criminals find an easy loophole. Its good to see my tax money finding new and creative ways to rape me of my income.
I have more freedom through 60 million people not having guns than I do by me having one...
While you have a point regarding making a per capita comparison, I feel your comment about the murder rate being linked to a "very small portion of the US population" is beyond the pale. Be honest, "very small portion" is just a euphemism for "poor people who are mostly not Caucasian." I'm sorry, you don't get to ignore minorities, or people of lower socioeconomic status, when computing statistics at a national level. Just because they aren't part of your community doesn't mean they don't count. Part of the reason that America has a violence problem is that people like you won't face up to the fact that America has a violence problem. "The first step is admission", and all that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-step_program.
Ummm, yeah. By eliminating data you don't like, you can make statistics say whatever you like. Congratulations.
"i suspect that there's a very small portion of the us population which accounts for an overwhelming majority of the gun related incidents."
would that be people with guns?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Well tickle me pink and call me Norman, but I'd rather have my car stolen than my brains blown out.
Maybe it's just us Brits that see the advantage.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Back in 1972 there was a French movie called "Un Grand Blond Avec Une Chaussure Noire" (The Tall Blond Man With One Black Shoe). In the movie, the chief of French secret service lays a trap for his rival - he convinces him that a particular man is a dangerous and cunning secret agent that is planning to expose the rival's dirty secrets. This rival then goes crazy trying to investigate this "agent". The truth is that the man is, in fact, what he appears to be - a clumsy orchestra player. The movie is summed up with these lines:
"...because when looked at closely enough, every man's life is suspicious".
Individually, any of these systems may appear to do good things in individual cases. And the arguments for them always center around certain immediate benefits without considering the wider picture. The bigger truth is that such systems lead to a society full of anxiety, fear, and guilt, with arbitrary and random enforcement of the rules. There's a word for such conditions - the word is "despotism".
No proof of registration is needed to make up a plate, as there are perfectly valid reasons for having spare plates. Trailers and caravans don't have their own registration - they display the number plate of the vehicle towing them. So you might very well have a couple of spare plates for your main towing car lying around that you can use.
Even the dumbest of criminals will work around that problem before too long. Get spare false plates made up. Attach the false plates to the car using sticky-backed velcro or something similar. Immediately after you've carried out your robbery / murder / kidnap / etc. , duck into a car-park, rip the spare plates off, and drive away at a steady restrained place, happy in the knowledge that the cops won't be actually out looking for you, they'll be replying on Big Brother to spot your car.
Britain is unfortunately becoming a surveillance society. In addition to the number of speed cameras dotted around the country (they outnumber trees in some areas) almost every town centre is covered by CCTV. The latest plan, as referenced in TFA, wants to place cameras every 400 metres on trunk roads and motorways. No doubt it will be described by Bliar & cronies as a way to fight terrorism and crack down on crime; in effect, it will be a way for the police to massively increase their revenue by being able to monitor your speed constantly, and automatically ping you should exceed the limit. They'll then introduce per-mile road charges, motorway tolls, etc. on the back of the technology.
It really makes me very glad I left that country.
Windows Tweaks
In the UK, they can take a DNA sample from an arrested suspect, and keep that data indefinitely even if the suspect is subsequently acquitted or not even charged. This has already been tested and found legal by the courts.
We've got to accept that the police, the government, like anyone else, can observe us in public. But we've also got to ensure they don't take that too far, invading our privacy. Like keeping records of public observations too long, or cross-referencing with private info without just cause, or even invading our privacy beyond the public access.
And we've got to apply that consistency to the police and government employees themselves. Public employees should be monitored, even if those records are available only to duly authorized government overseers. Every official should be recorded for review. Including police officers. The police especially would benefit from being monitored, if we replaced their "paperwork" to just fast-forwarding video with voice annotations that are transcribed. Then they can spend more time dealing with criminals and each other than with forms and bureaucracy. And their "witness" roles would all produce much more accessible evidence to be used by the rest of the justice system. Rather than having to believe an officer's "word", which gradually undermines its credibility, police videos would make it faster, cheaper, easier and more reliable to administer justice. And budget-strapped precincts could auction the bloopers to C.O.P.S. shows.
--
make install -not war
Numerous methods of speed camera avoidance have been tested: hairspray, cling film (PVC film), refraction grid plate covers, etc. Absolutely none of them work.
However, my dad did come up with a couple of really good ideas to counter them. As the use of radar jammers (as opposed to detectors) is illegal, you need to disrupt the photo process. The cameras that use white flashes would be easiest to disrupt. Mount a photographic slave flash trigger above the numberplate, connected and adjacent to two fast-charging flash guns. Speed camera flashes, slave trigger fires and the two numberplate flash guns go off. Result: one completely over-exposed photo with the number plate hopefully obscured by a white smear.
For the infra-red cameras, drill a few holes at random in the plate and mount a number of high-intensity infra-red LEDs in the holes. Not sure how effective this would be, but it would certainly make life a bit more difficult for the people looking at the pics.
Windows Tweaks
First of all, I speak as ex-police officer. The parent post shows a serious lack of knowledge of this crime and British policing.
According to press reports, the two police officers were attending a report of a disturbance. There was no information that this was an armed robbery in progress, and the police women just happened to be the closest officers. Please remember that most city policing in Britain is done by cops on foot walking the streets with inimate knowledge of their beat area; not by remote seeming individuals running around in cars. For example, in the division that I last worked, we had 29 foot patrols and 4 vehicle patrols - which isn't to say that there aren't other vehicles around (traffic division cars, tactical patrol group, special patrol group, vice, Criminal Investigation, etc.)
Gun crimes are rare in Britain - there is no legal way for any individual to own a gun and there are stiff penalties (like jail) just for possession. Having a gun is considered a more serious crime than having drugs. If a police officer suspects that they may be faced by a person with a gun they have only to use their radio and armed officers will be on their way within seconds - literally. Guns are available at all police stations, and many (perhaps most these days) police officers are trained in using them.
In five years as a police officer, including over 1,000 arrests, I was never faced by anyone with a gun, and I can only recall a handful of times that officers had to call for backup because of suspected gun use. However, I was faced by knive wielding people six times and five times I disarmed them without injury to either of us. The first time I was faced by a man with a knife I wasn't quick enough and received a cut to the back of my hand that needed ten stitches, and the knife wielder received six years in prison.
According to all press reports, the policewomen involved in this incident did have body armor. However, body armor doesn't stop all bullet types, and there are bullet types specifically designed to penetrate such armor. The principle reason that most officers wear body armor is to protect themselves from knives, a much bigger threat than guns. Of course, this doesn't apply to all officers, those who carry guns (diplomatic protection group, anti-terrorist group, special patrol group, royal family protection officers, etc.) expect to face guns and wear appropriate protection.
Police work can never be totally safe. In Britain approximately one officer a year dies in the line of duty. However, the most common cause of death is being run over by a vehicle, deliberately or accidentally. Over the last 30 years, 12 officers have died to gunfire, and three of those were in a single incident in London.
British police value the fact they are generally unarmed. It makes the general public feel less intimidated by officers, and there is a general sense of public cooperation with the police that far exceeds that of countries where the police are armed. There have been many strident calls to routinely arm the British police, but very few of these calls have been from police officers. I think that arming British police would fundementally change the way that the British police interact with the public and cause more incidents (such as the case where over-eager officers shot and killed a suspected terrorist in the London underground, and subsequently found out that the man was merely an electrician on his way to work with no terrorist connections at all.) It would also make criminals more eager to carry guns and more willing to use them.
These two policewomen were just unlucky. A routine incident turned deadly. It happens, but it's pretty infrequent. Rules should not be based on very rare incidents.
The parent post asks why the car was allowed to travel all the way from Bradford to London. I don't know, but a number of possibilities come to mind. The most likely reason in my mind is that there was not a suitable location to isolate and take the
First, very small amounts of the US have higher rates for theft *OR* violent crime than England. Those places also have a significantly higher population density than London.
Second, most places in the US with very high proliferation of firearms have much lower crime rates than England.
Neither of which explains why there are ~11,000 fatal shootings in the US per year, and only ~35 in the UK. This is using the OP's figures, I haven't looked it up, but I do know it's a major news event when someone gets shot in the UK. There was one (1) local (within a few miles) shooting in my 15 years of living in London...
[snip pointless rant about history - that of which you speak was in place before your country was. The founding fathers went to the new world to seek religious freedom, not to escape any royal censure. It's easy to claim a clean history when you haven't had much of it, apart from the whole slavery thing, of course. Oh yeah - freedom for *whites*...]
As for your last comment, let me re-iterate. I'd rather be stabbed than shot, too. I have a higher chance of survival. I'd rather be hit by a blunt object than shot too. I have a higher chance of survival. Perhaps it *is* just us who see the advantage...
Actually, looking at the figures, and (being generous) given that the US has some 5x the UK population, there must be some *really* *really* nasty places in the USA if your two assertions are to hold. 5x35 = 175. 175:11,000 ~= 1:63...
Take the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the splinter from mine (or something like that, I never paid much attention to that religious bollocks - the lesson is valid though)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Automated camera systems to track the movements of every car in the country and then keep that on a permanent record are VERY bad
You are anthropomorphizing the data (I refuse to make the obvious joke). The data itself is not bad or good. The data is just data, another tool.
What is bad or good is the procedures by which this data is accessed, the uses to which it is put.
The real question is - is this tool too powerful to exist? I do not think so as long as there is oversight in it's use, because it can do a lot of real good - as in the case of the killers being caught, or (potentially) a vast reduction in stolen cars.
People like to argue that the genie is out of the bottle in regards to filesharing. Well, the genie of pervasive monitoring is so close to out as to make no difference. So we as humanity must adjust and figure out how we are to live with this very powerful tool, and make it serve us instead of fearing it just as the RIAA and ilk must figure how to live in a world when anything can be copied. This situation may seem dissimilar but it is not; something you do not wish to happen is becoming prevalent so instead of a futile battle to stop what cannot be stopped, figure out what leverage you have to control its use.
Some people also claim the UK is now a "Police State". They are mistaken; the difference between a police state and this is that in a Police State is that you are always being WATCHED (or be made to think you are). In the case of the modern UK your public actions are constantly being RECORDED. There is a huge difference between activity and passivity.
If a system is passive and takes no action without direction, if a person in order to direct a system to take action has oversight and rules binding what they may do, then I am generally OK with that system. A network of passive cameras that can be used to track fleeing thugs or stolen cars? Grand. A network of cameras that automatically issues tickets without intervention? Now that pisses me off and I think is a serious misuse of the power granted to the government. The sooner people see the difference the sooner they can push for oversight and reasonable use of the cameras.
Having read David Brin I would argue that any feed from a public camera also be publically accessible. When anyone can watch anyone else, when the police as well as citizens are bothe being recorded in public - then there is equal footing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...Both Australia and England saw large jumps in violent crime after instituting draconian gun control laws...
Care to back the Australia comment up with some meaningful information? And the England one too.