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."

14 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Can you taste that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mmm, frog stew.

  2. The best part. by Radon360 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed

    Yeah, for now.

    1. Re:The best part. by Nightwraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. And they weren't to be used for National Security purposes when installed.

      This is why you don't give a mouse a cookie...

    2. Re:The best part. by cuantar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, just like the American government only uses the Patriot Act for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, like drug dealers and street gangs... *cough*

      --
      Legalize it.
  3. you mean, "on the record," right? by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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. ... "tits"
  4. New Rules? by keithmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Under the new rules... will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime..."

    Until, of course, they change the rules again.

  5. Beauuutiful example by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Yeah, that'll last. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >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.
  7. Re:Hm by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And then what? Assult? Property damage? Jaywalking? Littering? Unregistered gatherings...that simply turns out to be three people waiting for the lorry?

    It always seems reasonable until it becomes too late to change it.

  8. Jean Charles de Menezes by tsbiscaro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. No, *this* is the best part by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the change was needed to deal with the "enduring vehicle-borne terrorist threat to London".

    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.
  10. I've said it before and I'll say it again: by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This was always coming.

    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.
  11. Oh, Regular Crime Just Isn't Good Enough by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed.

    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."
  12. Re:Yep. by iknownuttin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you live in the UK or US then you have probably never experienced many MOMENTS of terror, let alone LIVED in terror.


    As far as folks in the UK are concerned, I guess you never heard of the IRA. That's the reason that to this day, you will not find any trash cans on most London streets.

    Also, if you truly believe that police monitoring TRAFFIC cameras in the UK was one of the goals of the terrorists then I want to have words with your teachers.
    The goals of terrorists are to get us to be terrified and to allow our Governments to continue the erosion of our privacy and Civil Liberties. Monitoring by Police, for whatever reason, is yet another means of said destruction of those liberties.

    So while we should be vigilant we also should be thankful for the freedoms we have,
    I am so grateful for them and love them so much, that I become quite angry when any one of them is eroded for achieving the sense of (false) security.

    ...grateful to those who died so that we could have them, and honor those who sacrifice so much to maintain them even to this day
    I have a several family members who would shove their Bronze Stars up your ass for saying that to me.

    They have sadly let you down in both your education and critical thinking skills.
    I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight because of that comment.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.