Slashdot Mirror
Police Given Access to Congestion-Charge Cameras
The BBC is reporting that anti-terror Police officers in London have been given live access to the "congestion charge cameras", allowing them to view and track vehicles in real time. This is a change from the original procedure that required them to apply for access on a case-by-case basis. "Under the new rules, anti-terror officers will be able to view pictures in "real time" from Transport for London's (Tfl) 1,500 cameras, which use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to link cars with owners' details. But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed."
Mmm, frog stew.
Your flagrant disregard for paying of the £8-a-day toll has been noted. Your days are numbered, Sir.
Yeah, for now.
You mean that when people give power to other people that the powerful might use their power to get more power even if they promised not to?
isn't this just enabling police to watch things happen instead of doing things about it?
The game.
As if nobody was expecting that...
Because we all knew it was coming. And we all know the line about not being used for normal law enforcement won't hold water.
"The BBC is reporting that anti-terror Police officers in London have been given live access to the "congestion charge cameras", allowing them to view and track vehicles in real time. "
If the anti-terror Police officers in London are anything like the anti-terror officers in the States, I would suspect that public acknowledgment means it's been going on for a decade, minimum.
Anything you say will be held against you.
Until, of course, they change the rules again.
This is sorely needed. IRA2.0.
I'm sure this is the last thing you need to stop terrorism, but if it's not--though I'm certain it is--when exactly do you plan on giving up this new power?
A freedom lost is a freedom rarely won back. When will the freedom to cross into a "congestion zone" without being tagged be won back?
"But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed."
Because heaven forbid they're used to solve murders and rapes.
This is a perfect example of how the government creates a system that COULD be abused but has a legitimate purpose initially. The people allow it, so long as it is not used for evil. Then, once the government has it in place, the rules are changed. I'll have to remember this one next time somebody gives the argument that we don't have to worry about the some new PATRIOT-style act.
>But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed.
I wonder how long that'll last... which is to say, I wonder for how long they've already been using the data to at least track ordinary crime, just waiting for the general public to give up caring enough that they can use the reams of data they've collected with impunity. Or whether we, over here in the USA, will even find out that this kind of technology exists and is being used.
Anything the government can use against its citizens, it probably already is, and if not, it's only because of technical limitations they're busily trying to fix.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
What is an "ordinary" crime?
The offices can't even tell the difference between 2 photos. Jean was murdered by London officers after they mislead him with a Muslim terrorist that lived at the same building. An officer took a picture of Jean, sent to the police headquarters, and they said: "that's it, he's our man". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menez es
Yeah, they're going to be watching the video, see someone getting mugged / raped / murdered and say "oh, just ignore it, that's not a security issue".
At least they are being honest about using those systems on people now. I'd rather be dead certain someone is watching my every step than keep this eternal doubt about whether or not governments really use this on regular people. Do they really? Come on!
"But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed."
;-)
In The Netherlands the police is already using ANPR for quite some time to catch criminals. Why doesn't the UK do this? What's wrong with fighting ordinary crime like that?
For example, it will help getting those stolen cars back rather quickly, and you may even want to have alarm bells ringing if numberplates are unrecognisable, as long as you have a police force big enough to chase them all
Okay, a difference is that the Dutch are using this system on highways, and not in cities.
Hey, dumbass - it's not Blair any more.
Do try to keep up. A little search-and-replace could keep your batshit insane rantings looking nice and fresh.
The London system is the direct source of the system that NYC mayor Bloomberg is trying to install in Manhattan. He says it's for "counter terrorism", though he'll probably morph that excuse into "traffic congestion". And then he'll use the (public spying) info for whatever he wants. Like helping his run for president, by watching which "known whorehouses" his political and economic opponents frequent when they're telling their wives they're "working late again".
These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. Their use, and abuse, needs to be overseen by representatives of the public. Probably on a time delay to give real police business the advantage for which they're installed. Probably with a process to allow total redaction to protect legitimately sensitive info, even though it was recorded in public, like for example which places are covered (and therefore which places have a blind eye). But without public oversight, they're just Big Brother's public eyeball.
--
make install -not war
That "enduring threat" seems to consist of two recent attempts, both bungled by incompetent notscaryists, to let off car bombs in central London using previously unknown vehicles. Remind me how tracking everyone everywhere is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent that happening again?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But he used the word "slubberdegullion" -- that's nice and fresh enough for me!
You think the "if it saves one child" crowd really makes a distinction between national security and "ordinary" crime? Pretty soon the Bobbies are looking at all vehicles. They are under pressure to "solve" crimes. Their definition of "solve" is to get someone convicted. Sure this provision will increase conviction rates. But dont be so sure all convicts would be the real perpetrators.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You are clearly madder than Mad Jack McMad on a mad day,
It is obvious to everyone in the country that Bair is easily led by anything shiney, and has no grasp of the concept of truth.
However, the alternative is not very convincing "We are the party of convictions - most of us have been convicted of fraud or corruption" has not been a successful campaign for the Tories. And the liberal-democrat plea "More tax is better - pay more tax" is not going to win them a lot of votes.
"Better the devil you know" is the winner every time! And we all know who is the devil.
Vote for McAbre - the Grim Sweeper" (Private joke, no admittance)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
firstly, this will be used to enforce the 'No Repetitive Beats' law.
and no, i'm not taking the piss.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
The next time... ...the car bombs which don't blow up will be in larger SUVs, and will have scary faces painted on the front of them.
-- Terry
Why can't they use these traffic cameras to fight crime when they can use standard town center CCTV?
How about they also stop pretending that London webcams malfunction whenever there's a large protest, so that we can keep an eye out for criminal acts committed by the police. After all, if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about.</sarcasm>
...actually, something vague and expansive like "national security purposes" is probably the *worst* thing to grant extra enforcement powers for.
Then, our Government(s) do things like the article with the blessing of the majority of folks thinking that they're "fighting" terrorism, when in fact, by reacting they way they are, they are playing right into the hands of the terrorists.
The terrorists want to cause terror and make us react in exactly the way we (the majority) have been - giving up our civil rights, running around panicking, and anytime there's even a threat of an attack, our level goes up to "Orange" or some such nonsense.
I don't know about you, but Osama and gang have been very effectual and are doing a great job winning the "War on Terror" (TM). (We're living in a state of terror - aren't we?)
I really can't blame the Governments too much because if they just say, "Shit happens and we can't panic. We'll work on this and bring these guys to justice. And in the meantime, let's see what we can do to stop this kind of activity in the World." It'll never happen because the general public wouldn't accept it.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
nipping off to the pub for a quick one of the missus works for the police ... she will know exactly where you have been :-(
Maybe, but by the sounds of things we don't all know who's leading the government.
Oay, which nuts are tagging this "privacy"? Are you familiar with the concept of privacy? By definition, things that happen in public - like driving from one place to another - are not private.
If you don't like the government recording some of the stuff that you do in public, please find another term to use instead of "privacy". It's completely misleading and dishonest, it makes you appear like a conspiracy nut, and it does a disservice to the people who campaign for true privacy who don't necessarily agree with you.
"And then he'll use the (public spying)"
What the fuck is "public spying"? Is this another attempt by you to foist your propaganda on us by misusing words that cause an visceral reaction, thereby avoiding the inevitable discussion of the logical flaws in your argument?
IF YOU IN FUCKING PUBLIC, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
"These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. "
Exactly. Save the fearmongering Mr. Bush.
"But without public oversight, they're just Big Brother's public eyeball."
Hey dumbass, you said yourself "Their data is public info" so how the fuck is someone going to be able to abuse it WHEN ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CAN CHECK AND SEE THAT THEY DID SO? Your suggestion that "Their use, and abuse, needs to be overseen by representatives of the public" is moronic when the ENTIRE POPULATION can monitor their use and abuse. Why the fuck do we need a corruptible body to do it when ANYONE can do it? Why would you suggest something so patently dumb?
How fucking stupid are you?
Big Brother is watching you, in public! Surely, being in public violates your privacy!
I think it's a bit alarmist to go on about Big Brother, privacy, etc when we're talking about cameras that are in the street, as if you'll be showering there or rubbing butter on your lover.
Of course, a system like this could be abused if you started watching people jay-walk, but then again jay-walking is a crime and if a cop was standing there watching you, you'd also probably get in trouble (actually, probably not, I've never met a cop (personally) who cared about jay-walking in most cases).
To assume that any kind of authority watching you in the street is automatically big brother reminds me of people who live in the woods, want to separate from the US, and act like a bunch of crazies.
Anyone can see you in the street, log you for any purpose, and any cop can stop you and fuck with you. How is this any different than what's been happening for years? Other than it's over a camera now. You can't automatically jump behind "omfg privacy!" when it's in public. There are millions of people to watch, so it's a little naive and alarmist to assume it'll all be used to control your everyday life.
P.S. Sorry if this is hard to read, I keep having to hide the window from nosy co-workers.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
I think your "Wost case" is more than a little understated.
And your "Best case" is more than a little optimistic.
http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+911+dispatcher+ misuses+database,+kills+ex-girlfriend/2100-1030_3- 6074559.html
D'OH
And the Dutch government is not exactly known for tyrannical abuse of power or corruption.
Whereas in the Anglophone countries, that is all we seem to have these days. Add that to a rich tradition of distrusting government, and the government knowing that its own people distrust it, and it is bound to create even more of an authoritarian reaction in the form of bait-and-switch surveillance and scheming.
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
Whatever it is they're doing, whatever reason it is they give for it, if there's anything about it such that they say 'no, no, we'd never use it that way' - they're planning to do just that, just as soon as they can get away with it.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Could you do that agin, but this time with references to back up your claims. And also a picture of xenu?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
If you "do something" you will be arrested. Smashing a camera is illegal.
You will be prosecuted and imprisoned. You will lose your job and your family.
And the camera will be replaced.
There's NOTHING you can do. Accept the new status quo and learn to live with it.
Oh, we don't care about regular crime. Let it happen as much as you want. Heaven forbid that we might use possibly effective tools already in place to actually protect you and your property. Only terrorists are worth actually trying to give our best efforts towards.
You know, all things considered, I suspect the average Britain is in far more danger from ordinary crime, than from terrorism at this moment. And if a Terrorist isn't actually a Terrorist until he commits an act of Terrorism, then he's just an ordinary criminal up to that point, and will be left to purse his merry pursuits. What a crock!
I like the David Brin solution. Have cameras everywhere public, and allow everyone to access them at any time. No more secrets this way, and a lot less suspicion.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Why isn't this being used to fight ordinary crime. I would love to see this system being used against criminals. people who dont have road tax, mot or insurance and enter the zone should the prosecuted.
I don't see how the police knowing when I enter and exit this zone in any way affects my civil liberties. people are making this out to be some evil big brother experiment that will lead to the end of my right to travel into London.
It's pretty clear that you've never been the victim of police harassment. Or of government harassment. Folks in those positions use every tool possible to harass people they don't like, if they can get away with it.
Heck, one woman here in the States reported that the traffic cop who pulled her over ran a check on her recent purchases (thanks to the credit card datamines) and told her what type of underwear she had recently bought.
Let me also guess that you've never been the victim of sexual harassment.
There's a very good reason why it's a good thing to limit power of those on the government payroll. It's because this power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I suppose you can live like a cog in a wheel, and always living under the threat of never trying to piss your masters off. But there's a price to paid for living free. And that price involves limiting the power of those who would enslave you.
Oh, yeah, massively different! The puppets change, but its the same show!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Until the Goverment changes the legal defintition of terrorism... again.
These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. Therefore, there is no harm to that data being publically available, to law enforcement or otherwise. Mind you, I'm not sure I believe this, but your argument doesn't necessarily follow from the situation.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Londoners were caught on camera over 300 times a day. I fail to see how more cameras change this. Sure, they are directly in the hands of police officers, but if we truly live in an Orwellian state, doesn't the government already have access to said cameras? why is this even an issue?
I personally would have used this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown_(rugby_p layer)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Highway engineers can make fascinating drinking companions, and Cheltenham's a fun town.
We are already the most watched nation on earth. Things can only get worse. Free society my ass
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
Luckily, here in NYC, we just tossed out congestion pricing, which was the distractor for a full surveillance system, paid for by the congestion charge. Luckily, the legislators outside the golden ring of New York City saw this for what it is, a huge commuter tax. I want the Germans to run my traffic systems, not the British. WTF is up with this idea of total surveillance, and why would any allegedy free country put this crap up ? Allegedly....
Drug crime goes down while you are in the vicinity. Now you are on camera, so they cxab make you a 'person of interest'
They can look for patterns. You happen to behave in a pattern they don't like, bam, 3 hours in a room for questioning.
You break a pattern, you become a 'person of interest'
Perhaps there is a murder and the police need to get people for questioning, or are under pressure to put someone away, they can grab the person on the camera they feel a jury would convict with minimal evidence.
Looking at police behavior, none of those examples is a stretch.
God forbid if you had contact with one of the people the blew them selves up, because your life would be ruined.
I, for one, do not welcome are new "prove your innocent" overlords.
And privacy is more then whether or not you can be seen in public.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the...well, it's exactly the same, never mind.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And to think peopel fall for this nonsence every time.
Like the old seatbelt law 'we cant use this to stop you even if we see you with out a belt on the road' but it 10 years they had seatbelt enforcement roadblocks, 'for our protection'.
Wake the hell up people and put your foot down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
London is now the international center of commerce. Not Brussels, not New York, London is where the corporations are flocking to. It's the bridge between the USA and Europe, the English speaking capital of the business world. I've lived in and near the city for most of my life and watched it change over the last 30 years. Property prices are so high that nobody can afford to live there. The congestion charge has made the city a no-go area for most ordinary people and forced many smaller enterprises out of business. The public transport system is so overloaded and expensive that it makes moving around difficult, even on short journeys. Residential areas have been pushed outwards, and are still being pushed outwards north or Kilburn and Stoke Newington, south of Brixton and west of Ealing. Most properties available are single room flats and bedsits which only transient workers and imigrants on social housing want to occupy. The daily rush hour to get in and out to more habitable places is becoming impossible. You sit crammed in a tiny box with a hundred other smelly agitatated people while creepy big-brother announcements warning that you can be arrested or have your property destroyed at any moment play ceaselessly on loudspeakers. The only escape is to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
Every square inch of the city is watched by at least one camera. In London you are under constant watch. If you are merely suspected of anything you can be executed in broad daylight by gangs of armed "police" who operate with impunity. Well, at least if you're Brazillian and look too poor. Ever been in Washington or Manhatten after 8 O'clock in the evening? In 5 years London will be a ghost town from one side to the other where ordinary English people dare not go. It already has the distopian feel of "Escape from New York" or "Brazil" Everyone who isn't so busy working that they don't even see outside the office wants out. Eventually when the global economy wobbles London will implode into an inner city urban wasteland. It will take another 20 years to regenerate and repopulate because the infrastructure for normal life has been gutted. The cheap foreign labour will move back home. The cameras will be defunct on rusting poles because nobody can afford to replace them. Creepy totalitarian socialists like Ken Livingstone will take their spoils and abandon the place to street gangs and England will have to find a new Capital. For the first time in England poverty is hitting the middle classes, not poverty on an absolute scale of wealth, but poverty of lifestyle, poverty of opportunity, poverty of education for our kids. They say the cameras are to stop crime but that's bullshit. Crime is as bad it ever was. The cameras are about control and squeezing the most money out of the helpless population. When the Olympics come here ordinary people are going to have to be swept under the carpet to put a good international face on it. Nobody wants you see the real London where kids carry guns and knives because they are so frightened and feel so disrespected by society. If you want to witness the wholesale destruction of a wonderful culture come to London and see what the last days look like.
and you certianly have no clue what the harm could be in monitoring for patterns.
d =998565
I huighly recommend this paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i
to clue you in on the various aspects of privacy.
While most people in law enforcement are honest hard working people, some aren't.
Some will look for any reason to bust someone of a different race, some people will use information to try and peg a crime on someone, anyone not just the perpetrator.
There is plenty of abuses you can read about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jaywalking? Sounds like something to do with small birds walking around pecking the ground! Where do the jays come into the equation?
We don't have that as a law over here in the UK. First time I found out about it was when I crossed the road in the USA (12 hours after I entered your country) and I heard a police siren, I got shouted at to stand on the side of the road and the police bike cop wrote me a ticket. I knew I'd done something wrong when she pulled out the ticket book, hadn't a clue what I'd done though. Had to ask her what I'd done that was wrong. Blimey, 12 hours in the USA and I was criminal for walking across a small side street to the youth hostel.... talk about a rough introduction to your country. One day in and I am standing on the side of a small road saying "well at least tell me what I've done wrong, I'm not from round here".
How about we give all the cops anal probes? I don't like being watched when and where there is no reason to be watched. It is senseless.
Wherever a police officer could be standing, there could — legally, morally — be a surveillance camera. We just can't afford this many policemen, and the cameras simply allow fewer of them to be (much) more productive.
There will be more of them, and there is nothing wrong with it, unless they peek into what's justifiably considered private — which they could do, but a live policeman is much more likely to.
The problem with Big Brother was not that it was "always watching", but that it was suffocatingly oppressive — and the UK government is not, nor moving in that direction... So, relax already...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think using these public surveillance systems are only acceptable if all the video is archived and the public has access to them. My main objection is that only the prosecution has access to these devices to try to prove someone is guilty, but the defense does not have access to these devices to prove someone is not guilty.
Politicians and law enforcement will think twice about putting these systems in if the public can watch them too. This should bring some balance of power back in the courtroom.
Personally I would be LESS worried about these cameras being used to prevent ordinary crimes. They can't hold you idenfinately for speeding, and they can't apply any of the other "terrorist" laws if a camera footage could possibly offer circumstantial evidence that you were shoplifting. With the "national security" stuff it is different. They can hold you for a significant amount of time without a conviction, you have few means to appeal your case or have it properly reviewed, and of course, they can keep the details secret. So yes, I would rather the police had these powers when it came to things like shop-lifting, drunk drivers ( that kill more people than terrorists) or tracking stolen cars. That these provisions will not be allowed for "ordinary crimes" is reason to be worried, not relieved. The catch is that an "ordinary crime" follow "ordinary laws" and cases are dealt with in an "ordinary court" where you have "ordinary rights". Guess what, when it comes to crime prevention I'd rather the police do it the "ordinary" way than the "national sexurity" way.
"And then what? Assult?"
Why not, it's illegal, and in public. What right is being violated?
"Property damage?"
Why not, it's illegal, and in public. What right is being violated?
"Jaywalking?"
Why not, it's illegal, and in public. What right is being violated?
"Littering?"
Why not, it's illegal, and in public. What right is being violated?
"Unregistered gatherings...that simply turns out to be three people waiting for the lorry?"
I'd like you to play a game with me, it's called "which one of these is not like the others". It's a lot of fun, but I only get to play it when some blowhard decides he doesn't have a reasonable argument, so he must make an idiotic comparison that passes surface scrutiny, but fails an intelligent examination.
You have yet to give a single reasonable argument about why the cameras shouldn't be used for other crimes. I suspect it's because you're so colossally indoctrinated with anti-government propaganda that you failed to consider that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING YOU LISTED IS ILLEGAL, apart from the trumped up attempt at the end.
You failed, but the worst is that several others are so lacking in cognitive ability that they think the garbage you spewed was INSIGHTFUL!
How stupid are you people?
Spewing the slippery slope and conjunction fallacies onto a page like you did doesn't prove your argument, it just makes you a pathetic panderer.
It only takes so much depriving human beings of their
Sense of privacy and individuality,
And increasing a government's
National opression and monitoring of its' citizens in every sense,
When citizens will become so depressed and feel so
deflated of their individuality,
And
Sense of personal freedom
That they will revolt.
Read your history books.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
So, going down the pike to philly for a political rally in your car would have been private at one time, cuz no one would record it (unless you specifically are tailed) and the other people who happen to drive by wouldn't pay you a second thought cuz you're just another car on the road. Now...things are going to get to the point where a surveillance network can follow the whereabouts of ALL cars everywhere in most big cities. With cameras watching pedestrians on top of that, pretty much any dissident (by which I mean peaceful protesters) can be found and tracked and blackmailed/harassed much more efficiently. The anonymous "angry mob" that previous governments have had to please to survive can now be catalogued and effectively dealt with, striking fear into those who might think about joining them.
So there.
Real criminals do their deals inside nightclubs and ride in a 'friends' car or use a taxi, or if its nice - they use a couriers bike, no plates on a cycle.
You can always use bright IR-light to flood your plates so the camera which is more sensitive to IR would see a blank. Or get those JAMES BOND plates that cycle between 3 numbers.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You can bring yourself to admit you ran and hid like a bitch. Again.
When and where or shut your fucking mouth. Remember twat, YOU were the one who wanted me to "come to NYC", but you run like you're French every time I ask for the time and place. Stop being a fucking pussy and take your medicine.
Or you could admit being a coward. That's the truth, so why not just get it over with and save yourself an ass kicking?
I own you. You know it, hate it, and are powerless to do anything about it.
Bobbies! how 1950s. Nowadays "the filth" or "the floating
shit" are more common.
And when it was first brought in, we would have seen:
The Government will only be able to use the data for the congestion charge, and not for any other reason, the Home Office stressed.
It is obvious to everyone in the country that Bair is easily led by anything shiney
Bair? Didn't 'e get the 'ell outta 'ere?
Remind me WHY Privacy hasn't been part of the public debate around the NYC congestion control idea that required automatic scanning of all license plates in midtown?
There is a saying; put a frog into a pot of boiling water, and it jumps out. Put it in a pot of cool water, then slowly raise the temperature, and it will stay in the pot until it dies.
The British police are also asking for the power to hold suspects "for as long as it takes" to get the evidence needed to formally charge them. I will have none of it; here is a petition calling for the removal of the head of the UK Association of Chief Police Officers.
And don't forget to smile
Mod pareent upo
i feel really bad for these police officers children. come on thats like a parents dream being able to track their kids with out having to fallow them or anything... i can see it now...
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
At one stage it did occur to me that the Mayor Ken Livingstone managed to get a somewhat easy ride from the government when he introduced the congestion charge (apart from it being a huge earner- check out the value of fines!)
Then the news emerged that cameras were left on at the weekend, when the charge is not enforced? Duh!
Whether your roads are congested or not, watch for these "congestion zones" springing up near you...the central London zone has just been extended to Kensington & Chelsea, an area which has never had a congestion problem.
I guess i need to just keep saying that catchy little mantra that the media seem to like so much - security vs liberty.
http://www.noliberties.com/trailer_teaser.htm
When they feed all of the vehicle data into WOPR it might just get interested enough to solve the traveling salesman problem.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
What is the difference between "Terrorist Crime" and "Ordinary Crime".
(Hint: there isn't one)
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
Well, they'll be able to use it for that... and for blackmailing political opponents.
"I'll meet you in Madison Square..."
No you won't.
|
|
---you---
|
|
I think that's what he meant
...for when they want to clean up a case of mistaken identity and they cant say technical difficulties when they're looking for evidence against themselves.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Sometimes the only way to fight back is to FIGHT.
-b.
The start of civil liberties.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The predictable effect: turning terrorist mobility, into vehicle or number plate theft followed by terrorist mobility. The only way to rebut the presumption of guilt upon the vehicle or plate owner, will be to have GPS recorders running on Trusted Computing Platforms, embedded in all driving licenses.
How did the security level in the country get defined as "critical" after these two incidents ? I mean, yeah, something might have happened, and all sympathy to those who suffered in the 7/7 bombings, but here we have a bunch of Crap Terrorists (I am reminded of Viz's Crap Sharks) who are so rubbish they manage to crash their car into a wall and then stagger out on fire to try and punch a copper, only to get punched out by passers by. How does this make the security level of the country critical? We had 30 years of the IRA blowing up bombs and killing hundreds of people in this country, where would that be on the security scale if our two Crap Terrorists get "critical threat"? I don't remember us stopping the country when that happened, we just got back on the tube and off to work the next day. Would they have been rated "super-hyper-critical"?
Privacy is important, certainly, and I do not agree with those that say 'If don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear'. We all have something to hide - that is what we call privacy, and it is fundamentally important that we can feel safe in our own private sphere every day.
But here are some things to consider: when we go out into the public space, we can't claim a right to privacy any more - public is public. And we all regard it as our obvious right that we can take pictures in the public space; this is why we don't need special permissions to have our picture taken in front of national monuments, or to take pictures of beautiful flowers, buildings, ships or girls/guys in the street wherever we are on holiday.
I'm not sure I like the fact that public authorities (not to mention private companies) record where we go in our daily lives; but it has nothing to do with our right to privacy. And I think it is important to make that distinction, if we want our viewpoints to be heeded. If we muddle the concepts and talk rubbish, those who are of a different opinion can simply disregard what we have to say.
Manchester will be getting a similar system.
b ilitystudy/studyreport/feasibilitystudyofroadprici n4002?page=5#a1020
Think it's a coincidence that they have chosen an area that has come under terrorist attack in the past? An area that has a high ratio of muslims in the population? The people round here would probably be more amenable to the same sort of frog-boiling.
Not to mention the even-more-creepy plans to implement "Road Pricing" by embedding a mandatory GPS tracker in every vehicle in Europe. Perhaps this is just another example of government buying two when they could have one, or maybe it's just turning up the gas under the frog for the GPS-based system.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/feasi
Check sections 4.17 (they reveal they want the GPS trackers) and 4.46 (they reveal that it is to be compatible with a Europe-wide tracking system).
I was watching some london cops in action kind of show on tv a few weeks ago, sorry cant remeber what it was called, the central london police already have a huge array on ANPR cameras which are scanning for number plates of known stolen and other suspect vehicles. The show followed the cops as the system flagged up a stolen car which they chased down and cornered, and also alerted them to the presence of a van wanted in relation to some crimes, but they quickly figured out that the occupants wernt the people they were looking for and the reg number they were looking for was likely a phoney.
Thats the "Freedom" you'll have experienced there boy. Soon all the world will share in this wonderful "Freedom".
The public threat scale thing is just another tool for the government fear machine. The effective default state is the fourth highest of five levels, and when they need a PR boost, they push it up to five. Apparently it has never, in recent history, been below those highest two levels. But you've got to admit, it's a great way to scare people.
Perhaps we should have a new scale: the honest-o-meter, which rates the credibility of what the politicians are saying today on a scale of "truly insightful", "makes sense", "worth a try", "slightly misleading" and "deliberately deceptive". I suggest that we just leave it on "slightly misleading" by default, and push it up to "deliberately deceptive" whenever any Labour cabinet minister opens their mouth.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The risk of abuse varies depending on what you consider abuse. By many definitions, the government has already abused a great deal of personal data. And they're the ones that need to be watched most closely, because they're the ones with the power.
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
I am recently retired, but I do have some knowledge in this area. You can either accept that statement at face value or not. There is nothing that I am allowed to say or do that will convince you otherwise.
Well, not quite.
My description of what they are trying to do is accurate. I cannot convince you otherwise so on this point there is little I can say that will make you feel any better.
This is not due process, innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff.
If you challenge it in court then you will have the opportunity to prove your innocence. However, most people believe that they will be found guilty in this particular set of circumstances (often either because they know that they were driving at the time, or to protect someone who was driving but was not eligible to do so e.g. was not insured or had no licence) and they do not bother to challenge it. If they do challenge it, then the weak point in their defence is often because they cannot explain who was driving the vehicle if, as they claim, they were not. I did mention that the law expects you to remember who you gave consent to if you, yourself, are not the driver. Simply saying "I wasn't driving but I don't remember who was..." suggests to the court that you are lying. But if you are being truthful and can point the finger at someone else, then you will be found innocent. If you are innocent you can have your costs refunded. But, as you say, many people just roll over. That is their problem.
Sure, after losing anything up to a month of it.
Many of those for whom there was no case to answer (and I hope I have typed it correctly this time) were never in custody. In some cases, they were arrested and released on bail. They were free to continue their life as usual. I did point out they were not in solitary on a diet of bread and water. In many cases they were not even detained although they were, of course, aware that they were part of a police investigation. I am not underplaying the effect of being arrested has on someone but they were never charged and there is nothing on their record. If the police did detain people and they were subsequently released without charge it is still covered by the normal rules of law. It is not as a result of camera surveillance in particular. And again, not being able to convince a court of someone's guilt does not mean that you do not have sufficient reason to believe that they are guilty of a specific crime, you simply cannot prove it so they are free to go. You will, of course, hear of the cases such as these. Unfortunately, because of the Official Secrets Act you will not be kept informed of successful police operations in anything other than the briefest of comments because of the need to protect ongoing and future investigations or sources of intelligence. There have been significant successes which have been referred to by politicians. (Liken this, if you will, to the Portuguese police saying next to nothing regarding the case of Maddie. They cannot for very good legal reasons, but it doesn't imply that they are not doing anything.) The result is that the public doubt that the threat is as serious as some would suggest and, therefore, the security measures are not justified. Alternatively, we can protect individual freedoms and then have the situation where known individuals were able to conduct attacks in London without being prevented. The police are then criticised for not having taken action sooner. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
... but they are building the database to keep that full record as well.
Yes, I know. It can be used to identify the movement of vehicles once it is known that a crime has been committed. There is no-one keeping records of personal movements. When a crime has to be investigated, it takes considerable man-hours and effort to compile the data. It is NOT simply a case of aski
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
The more the police (et al) collect on you, the more that can be lost when it gets into the wrong hands. This idiocy needs ONE (1) leak to endanger privacy of many and help criminals to steal the identity of a godawful amount of people, and such an effort has thus a good ROI for any criminal organisation to try.
Worse, it doesn't have to be an IT breach (although that seriously amplifies the risk)
Do you really, really think that in, say, 10'000 cops there isn't one that is a little bit less ethically inclined? Evidence suggest they're not all that sharp either..
AFAIK they're pressing on with this idea. Quite how this is going to work for foreign cars that come into the country I don't know, but your privacy isn't a particular worry for these guys.
I bet you they will employ some privacy specialist who will tell them what to do to keep things tidy, and then totally (silently) ignore the recommendations in the implementation - a fact that will only emerge years later. Meanwhile they'll feed off the fact that they have employed a major specialist as evidence of 'doing it right'
Deja Moo - I've watched this happen so often it doesn't surprise me anymore, I have rather come to expect it. Bush and Blair have found a new communist and they're milking the sheep for all it's worth.