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."

11 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. yeah well.... by joemawlma · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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..

  2. Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice! by kentrel · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know, its terrible. People can't commit murders now without being tracked by the police straight away. What has the world come to!

  3. So that's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So because it has one good use does that mean we should ignore all the possible misuses?

    1. Re:So that's OK by Stickerboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So because it has one good use does that mean we should ignore all the possible misuses?"

      I don't know. Have you deleted your Peer-to-Peer filesharing programs yet?

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  4. So sophisticated... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 :: faster than paper
    1. Re:So sophisticated... by tolan-b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1984 was also deliberately extreme to show the problems with a surveillance society, as is often the case in fiction.

  5. This is dangerous and scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont by close_wait · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably explains why there are about 35 fatal shootings each year in the UK, and 11,000 in the US.

  7. Don't touch it!! by bernywork · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  8. Los Angeles use a similar system by DieByWire · · Score: 5, Informative
    I can't find it on google right now, but the first day that Los Angeles began using automatic plate recognition, they generated a new type of 'stupid criminal' story.

    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.
  9. Parent post is full of misinformation by Calibax · · Score: 5, Informative

    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