Slashdot Mirror
UK License Plate Cameras Have "Gaps In Coverage"
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!"
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.
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?
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.
The government does.
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!
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.
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?
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