Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK License Plate Cameras Have "Gaps In Coverage"

Posted by Unknown on from the can-you-track-me-now? dept.

Aguazul2 writes "UK police are sad that despite having the most comprehensive driver surveillance system of any developed country, there are still gaps in their coverage. From the article: 'The cameras automatically record plate/time/location information and send it to a central data store, which has complete nationwide records for 6 years.' Also interesting is that an unspecified 'particular driving style' can be used to evade detection by the cameras. It appears, however, that criminals are well aware of the cameras and take other routes. Big Brother technology, coming soon to a country near you!"

47 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. SCORPION STARE by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's OK as long you're not seen by two cameras at the same time.

    --
    Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    1. Re:SCORPION STARE by xaxa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the "unspecified driving style" is to drive straddling 2 lanes, then the alignment of the camera is wrong. They do say it's impractical ...

    2. Re:SCORPION STARE by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      I'll bet it's crane style.

    3. Re:SCORPION STARE by Terje+Mathisen · · Score: 2

      I would guess that simply tailgating a big van/lorry past each camera would be sufficient to make the licence plate unreadable.

      I know that this happens on some automated toll roads here in Norway...

      Terje

      --
      "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
    4. Re:SCORPION STARE by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the "unspecified driving style" is to drive straddling 2 lanes, then the alignment of the camera is wrong. They do say it's impractical ...

      I once saw someone do this. There was a sign saying "left-turning traffic use both lanes" and he obviously thought that it applied to individual cars, as he passed this sign he moved into the middle!

    5. Re:SCORPION STARE by RaceProUK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Urban myth - the SPECS average speed cameras are not limited to a single lane, and haven't been for a long time.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera)#About_SPECS_cameras

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  2. tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    bit by bit, freedom is chipped away in the name of safety. I know I want no part of such a society.

    1. Re:tick tock by shitzu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not even for safety. It is chipped away for an *illusion* of safety. Does anybody know anyone who feels more safe than a couple of decades ago thanks to all the modern surveillance tech? I don't.

    2. Re:tick tock by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      The worst problem is that those lacking in logic will assume that, since safety is used as an excuse, safety must be a bad thing to strive for.

      Whatever excuse is used, it must be understood that the underlying cause in this case is the accumulation of power. It is accumulation of excessive power - whether in government or corporation - which we must resist.

      When any new idea is proposed anywhere, the first thing to ask must be: "Which groups benefit?" If anyone actually or potentially disproportionately benefits, then the idea is wrong. A massive system of nationwide tracking has the obvious potential to disproportionately benefit those who would control movement and behaviour, therefore it is wrong.

      (Contrast this with, say, the NHS, where - as long as the corrupting influence of private sector leeches is removed - the only way anyone can benefit is by becoming as healthy as anyone else with access to the NHS. Therefore the NHS is a "big government" idea which is also excellent.)

    3. Re:tick tock by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      The government does.

    4. Re:tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well basically, people end up forced to disguise motives for actions taken if they don't comply with a social status quo that demands moral justifications for almost everything. In other words, one doesn't have a right to something unless it complies with a 'universal' morality. As this status quo becomes less and less compatible with basic human needs, it breeds all kinds of passive aggressive behavior as individuals attempt to get their legitimate needs filled without feeling institutionally programmed guilt or getting in to trouble with authority. Today, it's bad enough that it's almost impossible to have a truly honest discussion about anything truly important nowadays, never mind live truly satisfying lives. I think this dynamic is one of the first causes of political problems in western countries, or any country that claims a representative government. The more 'socialized' and interconnected the society, the more powerful this dynamic becomes.

      His statements about 'lack of meaningful work' are also interesting. Having large numbers of people seriously unsatisfied with the daily grinds they must endure is definitely a key component of social unrest. We anesthetize ourselves with cheesy entertainment or embed ourselves in (or generate) trivial real life drama to hide from this. Sometimes we combine the two (reality tv). While most would be quick to state how hard the back breaking rural lifestyle was, 12hr work days cooped up in office buildings are not any better. They may in fact be worse. He sees technology as the enemy because of this.

      As far as technology goes, I admit it enables this to happen with more efficiency, but I think the solution lies in fixing the root causes, not attacking tools. As the drug and gun wars have shown, attacking tools solves nothing.

    5. Re:tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      which is all based on the assumption that speed limits are about safety. They're not.. If traffic is smooth, then it is safe...even if it's going 80 in a 65. Best leave it be then. If traffic is rarely smooth, then the road needs to be redesigned so that it is.

    6. Re:tick tock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No.

      The UK government actually wanted to increase the speed limit on motorways, but was forced to concede in the end that the safety case didn't allow it. It would cause too many accidents. They initially believed that since modern cars had better safety systems and build quality than when the original limits were set, a higher speed limit would have no effect. They conducted a review, and ultimately scrapped the plans, because after looking at the evidence they knew damn well that it would cause more deaths.

    7. Re:tick tock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now you're just being silly. The changes to speed limits were proposed, then moved to public consultation. The review wasn't just a few guys sitting in a room trying to decide how to be stereotypically evil and selfish. The state of the motorways in this country was examined by independent groups and charities, as well as by the government.

      Perhaps you are forgetting that the UK has a functioning democracy?

    8. Re:tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure, but road design and layout is the biggest external factor. The problem is that speed limit benefits are interpreted as a slippery slope argument for the sake of lowering them to increase revenue. The lower it is, the 'safer' things are assumed to be, making the speeding 'offense' ever more egregious.. The logical conclusion is to ban driving altogether.. now everyone's safe, right?

      I'm not saying there are always idiots (though that's also true), I'm saying that lowering the expected levels of performance makes better idiots.. People adapt themselves to the new normals, and the accident levels creep back up again. With modern cars, that creep levels off pretty damn close to the same level as the above-limit speeds most people travel at. 65 or 80, the accident levels for most stretches of highway are similar enough that strict enforcement of 65 is pointless. For the most part, the limits are changed along roads for no rhyme or reason unless that particular state wants to set up traps for revenue. Obviously, I'm leaving out situations where it does make some sense, like construction, though even there, the 'temporary' speed limit signs are enforced even when no workers are present and there is no other hazard. I've seen situations where these 'temporary' signs are still up a year after the work was completed, complete with two cop cars sitting around waiting to ticket 'speeders.' So while you're technically correct, the reality is that a fatal accident at 80 is most likely going to be a fatal accident at 65 in most highway situations. It's just assumed by the law that the speeding was the fault, when it it's more likely due to some other behavior causing inattention. The same thing goes with the 35-50 zones on most backroads. 'most' being the operator here. Ideally, funds from tickets should go to civil projects to redesign areas with recurrent accident problems instead of law enforcement budgets.

      I'd rather have alert drivers going 80, than a bunch of cellphone yammering idiots going 60. If the real goal is safety, the best thing we can do is tear down the road mounted cell towers. Interactive communication is as distracting as intoxication.

    9. Re:tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      whoa hold up.. No one has a right to 'feel safe.' That is a fallacy that needs to die. Feeling safe and being safe are two different things with two very different political outcomes.

      The problem is that cops are treating every situation as 'dangerous' now, because of these ever more powerful tools. with the information provided by the cams, they're free to justify any sort of intent they want by washing the recorded behavior though a pile of half baked and badly interpreted psychology. With this, they can now justify targeting nearly anyone they choose. This is really bad for freedom for obvious reasons. TASERs are another example. You're welcome to respond with 'don't tase me bro', but the fact is these weapons are often misused under the guise they're 'non fatal.' Give a bully mentality a bat to whack people in the head with, tell him it's 'non fatal', and watch what happens. There's a reason the schoolyard bully type often gravitates to law enforcement.

    10. Re:tick tock by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ah yes, the tyrant apologist argument. After all, demanding such freedoms will be met with open arms by government which of course loves all of its citizens. It would never put them on watch/nofly lists, label them with some kind of dirty keyword that preempts them from due process, tap their communications, or twist existing laws to justify arrests.. It would never violate the spirit of its founding documents with circular reasoning and newspeak redefinitions...

      The only way to prevent tyranny is to deny what's require for one to operate.

    11. Re:tick tock by Yer+Mom · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't just about the average speed cameras, though — these are cameras specifically to scan and log registration numbers and match them against a database of "vehicles of interest" (untaxed, seen near scenes of crime, etc).

      Naturally, the data gets kept for years even if a vehicle isn't on the watch list. Just in case, like.

      That's what the fuss is about.

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    12. Re:tick tock by phase_9 · · Score: 2

      I never said little residential backroads should be 65 nor did my statements imply it.

      No, but your argument was situational awareness, driving skill and vehicle condition prevents accidents - totally omitting 'reducing speed' from the list. It was the 'driving skill' point that made me post a reply to your comment as it's this kind of 'boy racer' attitude which causes so many deaths.

      On a road where 25 is truly justified, people will still die at 15. That road needs a major overhaul ... someone's idiot kid gets killed because he didn't look both ways before crossing

      This is exactly the reason why speed limits exist and why drivers should not arbitrarily exceed them (whether or not they believe they are skilled enough to do so). Express ways do not have side-walks for a reason; and by the same token, quiet suburban streets are lined with trees - there are places were pedestrians are expected to be, that's all part of the situational awareness. You appear to be trying to attribute the blame onto 'idiot' pedestrians which I find disheartening - should you ever have a fatal road traffic accident and have the weight of some 'idiot kid's' life on your conscience you may re-consider this attitude. Driving is a means of transports, getting from A to B, not some kind of mindless thrill which the killjoys are trying to erode.

    13. Re:tick tock by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Informative

      The NHS offers the opportunity for doctors, nurses, and bureaucrats to featherbed themselves in comfortable positions.

      What makes you think that? In what way has the NHS created a specific potential for employees to "featherbed themselves"? Any organisation has the potential for its workers to act against the interests of the organisation, but there is nothing in the activity of the NHS per se which creates this potential.

      Patients get to be legally high all the time ("oh, I don't drink any more, I just take a Xanax"),

      Perhaps you have never experienced the NHS. You certainly don't get drugs just because you ask for them, and prescriptions are always issued for limited periods. Recall that there is no drug advertising in surgeries and hospitals here, and no commission paid to medical professionals for choosing particular drugs.

      and some of them even get the holy grail: disability. (Not sure if there's a different term in UK. In USA, "disability" is paid by Social Security to anyone that is certified as too disabled to hold a job. For life.

      We don't get that. The longest term payments you will get are via a disability living allowance - that is only for people with significant care or mobility needs and will usually involve a full assessment every ~3 years plus random checkups. Up-to-date GP, occupational therapist, consultant, etc. reports would be needed to have a reasonable chance of success. That is not intended as a replacement for work, but as a way of helping you live your life, e.g. adapting your car to accommodate having no legs.

      There are out-of-work sickness allowances ("ESA") but they require re-assessment typically every 12 months. Actually, the assessments are awful, as they are based on some stupid points system and the assessment is farmed out to a private company which does a bad job and often has its decisions overturned by the judiciary - this has received a lot of UK press coverage recently. Only a small proportion of those collecting this allowance are entirely exempt from work-related activity, though. We have one of the most administratively expensive and broken systems of welfare allowances, thanks to lobbying by Unum and various other private insurance and assessment providers.

      So, like I said, the most important safeguard when doing work on behalf of the people is against the corrupting influence of the private sector - the NHS was fine in this respect until the privatisations of Thatcher, and the system of allowances worked well until the privatisations of Major and Blair. Cameras everywhere are dangerous even in the absence of private corruption.

      There's Munchausen syndrome, too.

      That is itself a condition which can be identified and treated appropriately.

    14. Re:tick tock by mikael · · Score: 2

      Very true. Once went to Heathrow airport when the weather was extremely humid and all the trees and bushes were lush and green if not a bit overgrown like a safari park somewhere equatorial. Made the comment that I thought I was in such and such country. Look of shock and horrified faces all round.

      In a rural lifestyle you may had long hours but you had good meals and short commutes.

      Having to depend on an
      unpredictable transportation network that changes on a monthly basis according to the pedantic whims of anonymous bureaucrats is probably the most stressful thing next to living in an apartment block that isn't soundproof.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:tick tock by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Every UK motorway has the hazard of fog, black ice, smoke from burning fields, snow and ice.

      Not all drivers know to slow down in these conditions.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    16. Re:tick tock by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you measure speed at only one point, people find out where the cameras are and exceed the limit between cameras then slow down dramatically as they are about to pass the speed trap. That's both dangerous and it wrecks the smooth flow of traffic.

      I can tell you that these f***ing retards looking for traffic cameras wreck things. When you leave London eastwards on the A13, you will regularly find these braind ead morons who go totally bonkers behind you when you don't go enough above the speed limit for their taste, and then they pass you, notice the next speeding camera, slam the brakes and force you to brake as well, slowing down well below the speed limit.

      On one fine day a managed to drive behind a police car, exactly at the speed limit just as the police car did, noticed one idiot approaching behind me much too fast, lights flashing, indicator out, and I moved into the other lane just as he reached me. He didn't _quite_ crash into the police car, but they stopped him :-)

    17. Re:tick tock by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps you are forgetting that the UK has a functioning democracy?

      Not really, and road laws are a prime example.

      If we made these laws on a democratic basis, we wouldn't have absurd situations like we have in Cambridge right now, where ironically it is the police themselves who have said there is no point in trying to enforce a reduction in speed limit to 20mph on a lot of roads at the moment because almost driver ignores them. The main people who seem to want those limits are people who live in the big, expensive houses along those roads, and a few local councillors primarily elected by such people. Our city council as a whole has a fairly poor reputation in terms of being blatantly anti-motorist, but given the tiny electorate for each councillor that means most people who use our roads don't actually get a vote on the people making the policy, we do not have a functioning democracy in this respect.

      It's even worse on a national level, because this whole ANPR business seems to have been started on the quiet by the police themselves. Part of the controversy is because the whole surveillance operation had little if any oversight by elected officials at that stage and was effectively presented as a fait accompli.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:tick tock by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      If traffic is rarely smooth, then the road needs to be redesigned so that it is.

      Actually, the kind of average speed cameras we're talking about are mostly used in two situations in the UK: on major trunk roads that become very congested at certain times of day, and at roadworks. Redesigning such roads isn't a trivial exercise and may not be possible at all. However, in each case, traffic flows much more smoothly, and therefore both safely and efficiently, when everyone is held to roughly the same (reduced) speed until the road opens up again and normal rules can be resumed.

      I'm not sure, from what I've seen so far, whether these average speed cameras are part of the ANPR surveillance network that is reportedly keeping data for years. If so, there's no excuse for that as far as I can see. Once a car has gone past the second camera, you know how long it took to get there, and if it wasn't speeding then there's no need to keep any further records of when it went past the first camera. Once it's gone past the last camera in the set, there's no need to keep any record at all if no offence was observed.

      But in terms of smoothing out traffic flows to keep it safer and more efficient for everyone, the average speed checks are among the most effective tools available. I'm pretty sceptical about both the way road traffic laws often seem to get made and the privacy implications of automated surveillance, but in this case, use of the cameras seems to be well justified.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    19. Re:tick tock by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Our council had a local referendum on the introduction of 20mph speed limits. They decided that all unfastened votes would be considered a silent "yes". They managed to create a situation where there was simultaneous widespread apathy and massive support for the proposal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Not Gaps by N1AK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is no national plan to cover the whole road network in these cameras which makes saying there are 'gaps' in coverage a little misleading (it even says so in the article). It may well be a hint that universal coverage is a de facto goal of many involved in deploying these cameras. Weird and wacky driving may help you avoid detection but in many cases the bahaviour would draw attention to you and would be counter-productive.

    1. Re:Not Gaps by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no national plan to cover the whole road network in these cameras yet

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  4. Re:SOUNDS ALL RIGHT TO ME !! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely you mean it sounds doubleplusgood...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  5. Burden of Proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world is only now waking up to the dangers of 'big data', and having faceless corporations track your every move across the internet, or your purchases, or your contacts via social media. Governments quite like corporations doing this, since once the data is mined and analyzed, they can get it via court order, for free, with laws that prevent the companies from telling their customers.

    What's happening with motoring is similar. Placing ANPR technology on main roads implements the whole-scale surveillance of a nation. Gone are the days of having to have a court order to tap a phone or intercept someone's postal mail. Now, the data is collected and analyzed first - essentially presumed guilt, not presumed innocence.

    The linked article suggests that there are ways of defeating ANPR technology. There are perhaps two. The first is to steal the license plates of a different car. This trick has been around for years, and extensive effort has been put into supplying license plates that show clearly visible signs of this - they fracture and turn black. The other is somewhat more dangerous, which is to know in advance where all the cameras are, and then tailgate a large truck past the cameras.

    In short, the police have the inclination, budget and incentive to build out a better and better tracking system until even these few gaps are gone.

    A more important question, however, may be to step back and look at where the balance now lies in terms of personal freedoms versus state power. The theory of a democracy is that it provides a 'government by the people', yet I wonder how many people are comfortable with the current state of play?

    1. Re:Burden of Proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This trick has been around for years, and extensive effort has been put into supplying license plates that show clearly visible signs of this - they fracture and turn black.

      A far simpler option is to make your own convincing fake. Soon possibly with a 3D printer.

    2. Re:Burden of Proof? by Xest · · Score: 2

      The weak point exists for the reason that car dealerships claim they need to be able to print show plates for cars on show at their garages. Also, some people like custom plates, nationalists like having their countries flag on rather than the standard EU style plate for example.

      It is extremely easy to get them printed, an old colleague's ex owned such a printing business and was done for working with an organised crime gang who stole luxury cars and used him to print the plates. He tried to use the excuse to the police that he thought he was just selling them show plates, but that excuse doesn't go down too well with them.

      I do agree with you, the arguments for allowing any old joe to produce plates are frankly fucking stupid. You actually have to be registered to produce legit plates, and IIRC, can only take traceable payment for them (i.e. not cash) and have to ask for ID etc. and can be spot checked to be sure you do this, but what use is this when people claim they have the plate making kit for just making show plates and don't have to go through any of this and don't have to register, and hence have spot checks?

  6. Re:Driving style above 8bit by cheater512 · · Score: 2

    What? They only use 8 bits to store the speed of the car which then crashes the system before it records the image?

  7. no sleep by rapiddescent · · Score: 3, Informative

    I used to live 1km from the ANPR that was situated on the "ring of steel" near Canary Wharf in London - or, more accurately - my bedroom window was right next to the point that the cop cars would catch up with the non-taxed, non-MOT'd cars after they had cruised through. At the beginning of the month it was about 2 a night that would be stopped as police cars operated a pincer movement around the Isle of Dogs

    the slightly scary thing is that you can buy your own ANPR System off the shelf. (I know that geeks can easy create it themselves using motion and some OCR tools - but, imagine selling this to normal people!!

    1. Re:no sleep by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Perhaps I am a garage and want to record the number plate used with each sale in case of card fraud?

      Perhaps I run a private car park that offers free parking for say two hours (imagine I am a supermarket), and be able to issue fines to those that stay longer?

      I can see a whole slew of perfectly legitimate reasons why private companies might want to track number plates, and reducing that cost to them reduces the cost of the products I buy from them.

    2. Re:no sleep by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention supermarkets. After the recent Tesco debacle I wouldn't trust them to store that kind of data securely.

      There might be all sorts of "perfectly legitimate" reasons for collecting this data, but there is no system in place to check that someone has such a reason when buying one of these devices and nothing in place to check that they are responsible with the data.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Re:Driving style above 8bit by pe1chl · · Score: 2

    There probably was an integer overflow during the conversion of a floating point to a fixed point number, which shut down the primary control system and the backup shortly after eachother (because they were running the same software) and sent the vehicle offcourse.

  9. How the system works by ModelX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to work on license plate recognition about a decade ago. Typically there are problems with illumination, motion and noise. So what the systems try to do is boost illumination (often by hidden IR lights) and decrease motion related blur by taking multiple shots and integrating images and/or filtering the results. All this algorithms have some built in assumptions about the expected area of interest, scale and most likely motion. Suppose you detect license plate at some position and scale in frame N. To boost the probability of being correct, you want to check if you can find the same plate number in frame N+1 and possibly N+2. Detection is all about probability. There are some thresholds built in that on one side maximize the probability of license plate detection and on the other side minimize pollution of the database with bad results. So in short, if your license plate is dirty and your trajectory is not what the system expects (changing lanes and velocity) it's more likely the system will not store the result. If you know the specifics of the particular system, you may beat it easily, like if the system first looks for the plate frame, you can mask or offset the frame, or if you know about the exact illumination filtering procedure you may add some conflicting structured illumination.

  10. Re:The evasion involves tailgating by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2

    I thought UK cameras looked at the rear plate.

    (Most) speed cameras do, for some reason though ANPR cameras (including 'SPECS' ANPR speed cameras) usually look at the front, perhaps to catch a view of the driver if needed. It's common knowledge that you can 'lorry surf', meaning drive so that a high truck is between you and the cameras at the right moment; the cameras usually being mounted high above the kerb.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  11. what "particular driving style" really means by ffflala · · Score: 2

    It means that in order to avoid these cameras, from now on you will have to do skidding 360s through every single intersection, like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcmswRwdvnA. It's really just a natural progression from the roundabout.

  12. Murdoch Newspapers & TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Murdoch's papers (News of the World) use to buy information from the police. They even admitted as much to Parliament inquiry as though they were above the law.

    I bet they bought the logs of where famous stars and politicians went, when and how.

    And if Murdoch can buy that info, how many times do you think other criminals have bought that info. Just as the vehicle registration office was selling license plate information to clamping outfits, debt collectors, pretty much anyone who wanted it, I bet the police have been selling this information too.

    What is the betting that's is sold to insurance companies, debt companies, private investigators. Maybe not legally, but then Murdochs Notw buying wasn't legal either.

  13. Re:From my own experience by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

    How do you know?

  14. Re:Live down a muddy lane ... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

    Then you will be pulled over and asked* to clean your license plate until it is readable...

    *: You will be nicely asked to clean your license plate, they won't let you drive off until you've done that, though.

  15. Re:more cameras by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cameras aren't there for ordinary criminals to get caught /tinfoilhat

  16. Re:SOUNDS ALL RIGHT TO ME !! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's hard to believe this is the same country where someone said this:

    Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.*We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender*,

    "Odious apparatus..."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  17. Re:more cameras by vlad30 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    when its as easy to beat as

    1) steal a set of plates from another car

    2) place on your car

    3) enjoy driving, filling with fuel etc

    4) discard plates - goto (1)

    Lasts upto 24 hours before plates are reported as stolen as they generally have to check with current owner

    and soon to be replaced with

    1) raprep plate from same/similar make model color vehicle (I've seen a very convincing copy already)

    try telling the police you weren't at the crime scene

    criminals will always have the upper hand in a Big Brother/Nanny state

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  18. So, let's have a positive experience: by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 2
    A friend of mine heard his car being driven off his driveway at night, called the police who typed his reg into the computer. Within a few minutes it had been ANPR'd leaving town, one camera later they knew fairly sure which way he was headed (motorway out of county), maybe half an hour later a police car rolls up behind him at a motorway services and cuffs both occupants, car returned to owner.

    The issue is not the technology, the issue is how it's used and by whom. This is an excellent system for reducing vehicle crime - theft, unisured drivers, unsafe vehicles on the road, etc. that cost us all a shitload of money in taxes, insurance premiums, death. They can do this as much as they like, I'm cool with that, but I want to know that that's ALL they're doing with it, and that they're not selling my data etc. etc.

    People need to stop getting all antsy about the technology and concentrate their attention / concerns / questions on HOW it's used.

    --
    There is no music - home taping killed it.