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."

57 of 293 comments (clear)

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

    Mmm, frog stew.

    1. Re:Can you taste that? by myspace-cn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It ain't off topic.

      The boiling frog analogy can absolutely be applied.
      Welcome to the surveillance system.

  2. Form Letter by UncleWilly · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Sir/Madam: Laden, Osama, bin

    Your flagrant disregard for paying of the £8-a-day toll has been noted. Your days are numbered, Sir.

  3. 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. Re:The best part. by phil+reed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called "mission creep".

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    4. Re:The best part. by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wost case - police watch you and I live our BORING lives

      And once in a while, something funny, embarassing, or otherwise destructive to one's social character mysteriously shows up on YouTube or a BBC comedy show take-off of "funny videos". Mind you that you can be on your utmost best behavior in public, and still be a hapless victim caught up in someone else's asshattery.

      Yeah no one cares too much about what you do as long as it's legal, moral and ethical. But if it's at least mildly entertaining, it's marketable, regardless of whether it's legal, moral, or ethical to do so.

      I think the problem that most people have is despite the police being held accountable to very high standards of integrity, police are people, too. Abuse, while rare, still happens because of this fact. Thinking of it in another way, many people consider themselves to be under the constant watch of God. The police are not God, nor can they fully act in a godly, devine, and omnipotent manner. Why try to move them closer (albeit in a very small step) to the empowerment of such that they are incapable of handling? (Okay, there's my crack at philosophy for the day...)

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

      According to BBC radio4 this evening, it will be used to fight terrorism and any other crime . I tend to think R4 is more accurate than the BBC generally. Its listenership makes the grammar NAZI's on here look tame and the slightest inaccuracy is generally picked up and commented on

    6. Re:The best part. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2, Informative
    7. Re:The best part. by cuantar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you tried to buy Sudafed (not the new fake adrenaline precursor crap, but the kind that's actually pseudoephedrine) in the last year or so? The newest version of the Patriot Act includes a section intended to cut down on meth production by placing restrictions on this *unscheduled* and rather effective sinus medicine. How does the regulation of pseudoephedrine have anything to do with national security? It's Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2006, and here's a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp1 09&sid=cp109WUZzm&refer=&r_n=hr333.109&item=&sel=T OC_218802&

      Jose Padilla was a Chicago street gang member originally from Brooklyn who converted to Islam while in prison. He was arrested, declared an "enemy combatant," and transferred to a military brig in South Carolina. He was denied due process, and he's an American citizen. The wikipedia article agrees with what I've read elsewhere.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(al leged_terrorist)


      These are just two examples. There are many more (the domestic wiretapping?) but these are the two that come to mind readily.

      --
      Legalize it.
    8. Re:The best part. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Informative
      Bruce Schneier has a nice piece on this sort of thing - the risks of data re-use - in his latest newsletter.

      We learned the news in March: Contrary to decades of denials, the U.S. Census Bureau used individual records to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II. The Census Bureau normally is prohibited by law from revealing data that could be linked to specific individuals; the law exists to encourage people to answer census questions accurately and without fear. And while the Second War Powers Act of 1942 temporarily suspended that protection in order to locate Japanese-Americans, the Census Bureau had maintained that it only provided general information about neighborhoods. New research proves they were lying.
      It's worth bearing in mind these sort of things, especially when the British government is still pressing, full-steam ahead with the invasive and unwarranted National Identity Register (and ID Card).
      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    9. Re:The best part. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cue the old saw about the best way to cook a frog.

      "Give a man an inch and he thinks he's a ruler. Give him 12 inches and he is a ruler."
      -- Marx, Groucho

      Inch by inch....

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    10. Re:The best part. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Or in this case, why you don't give a pig a camera...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    11. Re:The best part. by rifter · · Score: 2, 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...

      The same exact thing happened here in the US. We were told the cameras would not be used by law enforcement at all. Not that anyone really believed it.

      Likewise the anti-terrorism laws (including the infamous PATRIOT act) were supposed to be "only for terrorists" but the reality is that they are much more often applied to ordinary crimes.

      Bottom line, if there is data available people will use it, as long as they are clueful enough to do so.

    12. Re:The best part. by Agripa · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am altering the deal. Play I do not alter it any further.

    13. Re:The best part. by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would much prefer that they get rid of these people off the street or stop the next building from exploding then them having a video of me walking down the road and catching me looking at some girls ass, or pissing on a building when I have been drinking. It affects me and the community more with crime and the whole country with acts of terrorist then it does being caught on a video (which will never be used, unless there happens to be a terrorist standing right next to me while I walk past.) Thank you for informing us of one count of stalking, and one count of indecent exposure. Unless the girl in question was under the age of sixteen, in which case we can add grooming to the list. As these are all seen a s precursor crimes, you will be delighted to know that you are now on our sex offender register.

      Congratulations sir... You are the people we are trying to get off the street. Please present yourself at your nearest police station with a full confession to each of these crimes and any others not detailed above.
      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  4. Slope: Slippery by popejeremy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  5. yeah but... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    isn't this just enabling police to watch things happen instead of doing things about it?

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:yeah but... by backwardMechanic · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'll help the police catch those serial-suicide-bombers that keep getting away...

  6. 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"
  7. 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.

    1. Re:New Rules? by obergfellja · · Score: 2, Interesting

      unless it is written in an important document (like a constitution)... oh wait, it can always be changed. Look at what Bush has done with the patriot act. If someone speaks out against him in public, it is now a crime, yet we HAD freedom of speech (to speak out against the leader if we chose to do so).

    2. Re:New Rules? by veranikon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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. Once the nascent terrorist menace of jaywalking, running stoplights, public urination, and petty drug deals is fully acknowledged by your gov't, then yes, those cameras will indeed be used exclusively for national security purposes.
  8. 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.

    1. Re:Beauuutiful example by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Informative
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. Re: United Kingdom , Tony Blair, George Bush by brain159 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  13. Big Brother Bloomberg by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  14. 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.
    1. Re:No, *this* is the best part by Knave75 · · Score: 3, Funny

      [Deep in the top secret control room]

      Officer #1: Sir! Murder in progress!
      Supervisor: Ignore that, we are not allowed to act on that information.
      Officer #1: But sir! The victim is alive and crawling away... slowly... unseen for now...
      Supervisor: Nope, terror only boy, terror only.

      Meanwhile...

      Officer #2: Sir! A turban-wearing terrorist is driving a car within 20km of the airport!
      Supervisor: How do you know it is a terrorist?
      Officer #2: Why else would a single man drive a car to the airport?
      Supervisor: Good point...
      Supervisor: CODE RED CODE RED! TERROR ATTACK IN PROGRESS. SCRAMBLE CHOPPERS, NUKE THE CAR!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Yeah, this is going to work well.

    2. Re:No, *this* is the best part by Tom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remind me how tracking everyone everywhere is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent that happening again? Just think of the chiiiildren. I mean, really hard. You're not trying! Think hard. Think children... don't think that, you pervert!
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:No, *this* is the best part by drspliff · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, those cars must have previously been known by the congestion charging system unless they were driven in at night from outside of London and have never previously been in London.

      Even then, speeding tickets? Parking tickets? license registration? MOT?

      It's almost impossible for a car to stay anonymous when in the UK and especially in London, but attaching this car to a terrorist or terrorist suspect is something which needs active human integration, which is why the police are being given access to the network.

      90% of the time, the police have nothing to do with instigating investigations against terrorist threads, these come from MI5 and MI6.

      So the question comes back, why are the police being given access to this network when the majority of the crimes they have to deal with are every day things, like tracking bail absconders?

      Though if you were taking the paranoid approach you'd consider, why haven't MI5/MI6 already got access to the network for this sort of thing? Or if they did, would we ever know about it?

      Basically, privacy is a given human right, regardless of the individual; whether this is going to be used only for tracking "criminals" I've seen many times the re-definition of criminial which fits myself in other countries (remember when it was illegal to be homosexual?).

      Even though I don't like the congestion charging cameras, they should be used only for the purpose that was approved of. I'm just wondering is it too late for 'citizens' to call a vote to appeal this decision, or will the sheep approve it even if we did?

    4. Re:No, *this* is the best part by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am quite willing to consider alternatives to my own viewpoint. I just think that the argument you make is a very dangerous one.

      You focus on one side of the debate: the potential benefits of using cameras in this way. In fact, I would state the case for this more strongly than you do:

      Well someone, in fact a whole committee, has sat down and used common sense. They accept that widespread use of the cameras for all crime prevention would be against the public interest.

      That clearly isn't true: use of cameras for crime prevention unquestionably is in the public interest.

      The danger, which you gloss over in making your case, is that in allowing the use of cameras in ways that might prevent crimes, you also open the door to deliberate abuse and accidental mistakes.

      For example, take your opening comment:

      The police have been criticised during recent cases because it has become apparent that the individuals concerned were known to the police before they conducted whatever attack they are accused of but the police had insufficient resources to maintain 24 hour surveillance on each individual it has in its database. The known individuals have associated data linked to them which includes any vehicle that they own or are known to be associated with.

      Did you know that one of the recent leaks suggested that simply driving along in front of or behind a suspect's vehicle could put your own car on a watch list?

      Fortunately, we have a system of due process that guards against the dangers of guilt by association. But then in your very next paragraph, you attempt to undermine this:

      Having a name on a database is not the same as having sufficient evidence to persuade a judge that a warrant for surveillance should be granted. Now, what a dilemma. We have the information available but we cannot give it to the police because they haven't got a warrant until someone gets killed. But how do we protect people and try to prevent them from getting killed?

      You make the flawed assumption that in such cases, someone will die if there is no time to convince a judge to award a warrant. Clearly this is not always the case. You also make the implicit assumption that if a judge declined to award a warrant in these circumstances, that would be a bad thing, rather than effectively protecting an innocent person from unreasonable persecution. This also is not necessarily true.

      We live in a society where the government is increasingly taking your line, to the point that an innocent citizen can now have their freedoms abruptly curtailed just for being a suspect in an investigation. Freedoms that can be removed so easily are just illusions.

      Of course, it's easy to rationalise this away. There's no smoke without fire, right? And anyway, it only applies to Bad People:

      They are NOT tracking everybody.

      Unfortunately, this is simply not true. They are deliberately tracking everybody, and as the statistics released under a Freedom of Information request earlier this week demonstrated, more than half of the people arrested in recent terrorism investigations have later been released without charge, so obviously the authorities do make mistakes, and often.

      So I'm afraid I don't agree with you when you say this:

      This is just about as measured a response as is possible taking into account everyone's rights and interests.

      There will be some, perhaps even yourself, who will scoff and claim that this is a useless measure. If so, please enlighten us all as to your preferred solution to the problem.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  15. Re:Considering how many muslims have invaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, that's right. Kill the Muslims, because all 1.6 million of them living in the UK must be terrorists!

    Don't you even consider that if you tolerate all Muslims being murdered then maybe you'll be next? And that if all Muslims were terrorists then we'd have a full-scale civil war going on?

    Just remember that most of those people who have 'invaded' are normal, peaceful, law abiding citizens. Stop reading The Sun and The Daily Mail, pull your head out of your arse and get a grip on reality. Please, for the sake of our society.

  16. Ordinary crime Vs National Security by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  17. Government Criminal Justice Bill - Clause 58 by non · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  18. I don't see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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>

  19. Wrong way 'round... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    ...actually, something vague and expansive like "national security purposes" is probably the *worst* thing to grant extra enforcement powers for.

  20. Yep. by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's interesting that folks who are so worried about getting killed by a terrorist, they allow things like this to happen - thinking that the terrorist's goal is to kill people.

    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.
    1. 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.
  21. Oh no! by helpfulcorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Oh no! by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      You are right, anyone can see you on the street. Where you are wrong is that unlike the general passer by who sees you for a sec and then moves on, the police with cameras can ID you on the street. You have privacy through anonymity. With the advent of the always watching authority, you have lost the anonymity. Why can this not work both ways, would you be OK setting up cameras and allowing anyone on the internet to watch them? How about allowing the face recognition software and everyone passing the camera is ID'd and put on the internet? You are in public, you have no privacy, so you do not mind the world tuning in and watching you?

      As to the police officer stopping you and fucking with you, you can always ask if you are under arrest. If he says "No" you thank him for his time and walk away. They can not follow you, they can not harass you, They can not just search you for no reason.

  22. 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.
  23. Re:Why stress this out? by Wombat2k · · Score: 2, Informative

    The UK uses ANPR for this too. Here you have to get home office type approval for a camera to perform a specific function. Data must be deleted ASAP if no offence can be proved. An ANPR speed camera must remove any non-offending data as soon as possible. A surveillance camera connected to the PNC must delete data within 48 hours unless the plate is black listed. The congestion charging cameras can only transmit a hashed VRM and can only store data if an offence happened. ( so it is possible to track backwards a vehicle with a known numberplate). A camera that is used outside it`s approved function cannot provide admissible evidence. I know of only two times when the police used ANPR data outside of it`s defined spec. Once when a WPC was shot in Bradford and recently when there was an attempted bombing. The police need to act quickly if they need to use a type approved device outside it`s designed function. The new law makes it faster for the police to gain access when they need to. Stressing this out is required because there are a lot more cameras here. The UK has laws that protect against data being kept for longer than is needed. I can understand the home office reaction that police might need access to ANPR cameras that might have security concerns...BUT it`s good to keep an eye on them in case of abuse.

  24. 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."
  25. Let me take a wild guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:Considering how many muslims have invaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I am Supreme Ruler, my first act will be to make "Being Rupert Murdoch" a crime punishable by death.

    My second act will be to round up every single BNP voter and Daily Star reader and imprison them for the good of humanity.
    My third act will be to fire all ex-hippies from the Social Services.

  27. We tossed the Brits out, remember ? by speedlaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....

  28. Nope, no slippery slope here. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 ----
  29. No, can't taste it, but I got a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:Balance of Power by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think using these public surveillance systems are only acceptable if all the video is archived and the public has access to them

    The public does have access to them. In the UK, we have the Data Protection Act, which basically boils down to giving you the right to request any information an organisation may have about you, including CCTV tapes. You may have to pay a handling fee of £10 maximum, but for that you might well end up with literally a lorryload of tapes and paperwork. If they don't pony up, then it's big fines time.

  31. It won't take long with things like this... by TheDarkener · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  32. a little obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    An obvious reason this invades privacy is that this sort of surveillance can be used to record where you were at what time, anywhere...so that individuals in the government can go to a database later and paint themselves a pretty picture of exactly where you've been for the last x years...the way things USED to be is that the typical individual onlooker who might casually see you in public really couldn't put such a picture together, so your general pattern of behavior before was catalogued or remembered, even though many many people may have technically observed it (they just don't retain the info cuz they don't remember everyone they've ever seen or what they were doing). So, with this new kind of tech, the kind of information about you that was previously unobtainable from your very public behavior is now possible to record and keep. So, things about you that used to be private by virtue of limited surveillance networks and the attitude of an ordinary bloke on the street who couldn't care who you are...well, those things are now going to be catalogued.

    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.